Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(18,486 posts)

2. Yes, indeed

Sat Jan 23, 2021, 02:06 PM

Jan 2021

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yes, indeed StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #2

No, it's not even close StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #4

Being consistent for once treestar Jan 2021 #11

Excellent point! StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #7

I tell you what is constitutional SoonerPride Jan 2021 #6

Good point! kentuck Jan 2021 #8

Exactly. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #9

Yes. kentuck Jan 2021 #15

"Unconstitutional" is no more legally valid and just as morally wrong Hortensis Jan 2021 #12

Clever reasoning, but to whom will the claim be made FBaggins Jan 2021 #16

This would be ruled on by the Supreme Court StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #17

I rather doubt it FBaggins Jan 2021 #18

"High crimes and misdemeanors " is a constitutional term FBaggins Jan 2021 #20

I'm afraid that you have that exactly backwards FBaggins Jan 2021 #22

And I'm afraid you don't have the first clue of what you're talking about StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #23

So it's "Pound on the table" eh? FBaggins Jan 2021 #24

Hmmm... let's see... FBaggins Jan 2021 #26

LOL! StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #27

You obviously didn't read what you replied to FBaggins Jan 2021 #28

Of course I read it StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #29

The Chief Justice won't be there... but I see your point (edited) FBaggins Jan 2021 #32

Disqualifying president intelpug Jan 2021 #30

Well... StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #31