General Discussion

usajumpedtheshark

(672 posts)

49. It may surprise you to hear this but I have researched this

Tue Dec 22, 2020, 07:22 AM

Dec 2020

I have not said that anyone is "wrong". What I have objected to was someone predicting what will happen in the future and portraying that prediction as unquestionable fact. That is always going to raise questions in a skeptics mind especially when that person denigrates other people's opinions. If that is how this forum is supposed to work than remove the comment option from every posting.

Let's consider it in terms of probability. Yes, it is unlikely that the attempt to prevent House members being seated will be attempted. If it is attempted, it is unlikely that the current Supreme Court members would over turn the previously rulings by the Court.

But the skeptic considers that it is not impossible for these things to happen. We have seen all kinds of actions in the last four years that one might have previously thought would be highly unlikely to occur. For the Supreme Court has overruled previous Supreme Court rulings. Three hundred times if you believe Ryan Struk's reporting (CNN).

If it was true that the Supreme Court never overruled itself we wouldn't be so worried about the future of Roe vs Wade.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Republicans plotting attempt to deny presidency to Biden on floor of the House if Trump gives the wo [View all] Wicked Blue Dec 2020 OP

Of course they will. Runningdawg Dec 2020 #1

EFFING EFFERS Faux pas Dec 2020 #2

My thoughts exactly! FM123 Dec 2020 #40

An attempt to challenge in Congress will fail. Happy Hoosier Dec 2020 #3

Even if it gets that far Freddie Dec 2020 #8

A Senator and Congressperson ... davekriss Dec 2020 #31

I can see them making it a circus Freddie Dec 2020 #33

Suppose we did not treestar Dec 2020 #38

Yeah, well, it's another stunt by the Freedumb Caucus that's doomed to fail. We control the House catbyte Dec 2020 #4

Yup, and Nancy should threaten them: dare do it & u will not be seated onetexan Dec 2020 #5

Keep Dreaming sfstaxprep Dec 2020 #7

Hey, no different than the shenanigans they're attempting. Two can play this game. onetexan Dec 2020 #16

She can't refuse to seat them on the basis they did something they're entitled to do by law StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #10

She hardly can threaten for utilizing a process that is expressly spelled out in the US Code onenote Dec 2020 #14

They are seated before the electoral college count bottomofthehill Dec 2020 #27

Now THAT could be defined as sedition. edit: Well, maybe not. Kablooie Dec 2020 #6

This is a procedure provided by law and that they're fully entitled to do StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #11

Didn't know that. Oh well. Kablooie Dec 2020 #18

Those same procedure you don't like because some people try to exploit them StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #20

Do you have an example of when "we" engaged in the same process while knowing usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #30

That is beside the point StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #35

On what basis should I accept that what you say is factual instead of opinion? usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #41

You could simply look it up yourself. StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #43

Thanks, but I aleady read it. I have always believed that it was up to the Supreme Court to usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #44

Apparently, you are unaware that the Supreme Court has already interpreted this StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #45

You are funny. Do you always view questioning of your statements as a sign of hostility? usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #47

The process for members of Congress to challenge electoral votes is unambiguously spelled out onenote Dec 2020 #46

It may surprise you to hear this but I have researched this usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #49

StarfishSaver, you are really WhiteTara Dec 2020 #32

Precisely, hence why PA's AG labelled it "seditious abuse of the judicial process" onetexan Dec 2020 #19

And it will again be said that there is no way that these representatives can be punished usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #9

There is no way for them to be "punished" for invoking a procedure that is enshrined in law. onenote Dec 2020 #17

Thanks for pointing this out StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #21

We Also Tried In 2005, With Barbara Boxer Signing On sfstaxprep Dec 2020 #25

In another post you say it is okay to punish these representatives usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #34

If you look at the context of the discussion, we were talking about "punishing" them StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #36

I was not limiting punishment solely to what the legal system could impose. usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #29

The 'Plot' was predictable... Septua Dec 2020 #12

Typical Raw Story hyperbole. onenote Dec 2020 #13

If they challenge the election, It will be over in a short time.Both retire to their own caucuses... Demsrule86 Dec 2020 #15

Not necessarily a short time. They can spend two hours debating each objection onenote Dec 2020 #22

This..hse and senate both have to agree on the objection...will never happen Thekaspervote Dec 2020 #23

They absolutely will try that. David__77 Dec 2020 #24

And they will just add another loss to their column. William769 Dec 2020 #26

It may make for a very long day bottomofthehill Dec 2020 #28

If the purpose of action is an attempt to overturn a free and fair election for the sole purpose of Chainfire Dec 2020 #37

Well this tactic means in the future, a rightfully elected President could be denied andym Dec 2020 #39

Raw Story is clowning itself greenjar_01 Dec 2020 #42

Raw Story must have been a bad influence on Politico usajumpedtheshark Dec 2020 #48