General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf there is 50/50 tie in the trial.............what is the law and order judge going to do..........
go back and say to himself and say well I tried.................... keep the status quo......................after all the Federalist Society runs this country now....................
What are you going to do Roberts..........................that is the question
November 3, 2020 cannot get here fast enough..........................
Atticus
(15,124 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)going to happen and Roberts has no hand in on the rules.
Response to beachbumbob (Reply #2)
dumbcat This message was self-deleted by its author.
rso
(2,271 posts)Conviction requires 67 votes, not 60.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)which clearly states the margin needed for a conviction. Thats what any judge in that position would do, as that is what is required.
An ellipsis has three dots, and is not an all-purpose generic punctuation. I will never grasp why some posters consider endless strings of periods sprinkled randomly across their sentences to be anything other than an eyesore.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Certainly not permitted in any school English class, but the Internet tends to make it's own rules.
spanone
(135,831 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)since 50 is 17 short.
Response to turbinetree (Original post)
chowder66 This message was self-deleted by its author.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)...he will close by intoning Gawd.
sarisataka
(18,636 posts)Is there some part of the Constitution I missed that says the Chief Justice can order a retrial?
There won't be a 50/50 tie in any case. It takes 2/3rds votes to convict, any less is acquittal. For some reason this seems to be difficult for many to understand.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)turbinetree
(24,695 posts)the game plan has been set, the republicans need to eat this....................till November....................
Response to turbinetree (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
malaise
(268,980 posts)pecosbob
(7,538 posts)The man gave us Citizen's United and brought us Randall vs. Sorrel (campaign finance laws which limit expenditures violate the First Amendment, and the anticorruption benefits of contribution limits must be weighed against their First Amendment costs). Sounds to me like a judge for the wealthy and priveleged.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)CJ will have ZERO input