General Discussion

gab13by13

(32,356 posts)

28. Time was the point though, wasn't it,

Reply to onenote (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 3, 2024, 12:44 AM

Feb 2024

not so much the legal decision. What did Bush v Gore analyze? Wasn't the decision based on time and not the law?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

scipan

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So Judge Chutkan has to delay trump's Jan 6th trial because the DC court [View all] JohnSJ Feb 2024 OP

Give them a call, let them know. Ocelot II Feb 2024 #1

It's just SO HARD to figure out! dchill Feb 2024 #2

Yeah. MOMFUDSKI Feb 2024 #4

This isn't an episode of Law & Order, things take time. tritsofme Feb 2024 #3

No, it is an episode how to get away with inciting an insurrection JohnSJ Feb 2024 #5

SCOTUS moved very quickly to decide Bush v. Gore. It's a matter of priorities. nt spooky3 Feb 2024 #9

What is the silly conspiracy theory here? That the DC Circuit, with its Democratic majority, is putting their thumbs on tritsofme Feb 2024 #10

I don't see anyone posting any silly conspiracy theory and I notice you aren't denying facts. spooky3 Feb 2024 #11

Absolutely senseandsensibility Feb 2024 #14

And how did the speedy decision in Bush v Gore work out? onenote Feb 2024 #22

Time was the point though, wasn't it, gab13by13 Feb 2024 #28

I heard "It would hurt shrubs feelings if he lost". nt AnotherDreamWeaver Feb 2024 #34

Maybe there just wasn't a good argument to stop counting the votes? scipan Feb 2024 #30

The SC acted quickly in Bush v Gore because the law established a deadline. former9thward Feb 2024 #23

For something as patently absurd as total presidential immunity... Silent3 Feb 2024 #33

Unfortunately it is not patently absurd. Ms. Toad Feb 2024 #38

What is the non-absurd take on how people determined not to live under a king... Silent3 Feb 2024 #39

That is a policy argument, not a legal one. Ms. Toad Feb 2024 #41

Oh, come on. One of Trump's lawyers was forced to admit... Silent3 Feb 2024 #44

And now many judicial opinions have you drafted? Ms. Toad Feb 2024 #45

Your experience might just mean you're steeped in the culture that accepts this insanity as a matter of course Silent3 Feb 2024 #47

Jack Smith bdamomma Feb 2024 #6

Jack Smith's determination can't force the courts to move faster n/t Silent3 Feb 2024 #40

It is my understanding that it is a W. Bush appointed judge nevergiveup Feb 2024 #7

That was speculation by one of the legal beagles on cable Deminpenn Feb 2024 #16

How is it your understanding? former9thward Feb 2024 #24

This is what I read too BlueKota Feb 2024 #31

The judicial system wants to get it right. pwb Feb 2024 #8

They are continuing the delay. republianmushroom Feb 2024 #15

What esoteric logic is necessary to figure this out? triron Feb 2024 #19

Weed helps. pwb Feb 2024 #21

So does alcohol when weed is not available. republianmushroom Feb 2024 #42

Yup and you nailed it. republianmushroom Feb 2024 #12

Delaying the inevitable. NT Patton French Feb 2024 #13

IMO the courts want to leave it to voters to decide. tavernier Feb 2024 #17

Or they may want another court to go first. pwb Feb 2024 #18

I think the NY hush money trial Mr.Bill Feb 2024 #20

If it was a slam duck other NY Democratic prosecutors would have gone with the case. former9thward Feb 2024 #25

Or maybe they decided Mr.Bill Feb 2024 #27

Or maybe they looked at a seven year old case. former9thward Feb 2024 #36

Probably not while Trump was president. n/t Mr.Bill Feb 2024 #37

No case tried before a jury is ever a "slam dunk" onenote Feb 2024 #32

I'm sure the two Obama Judges on the panel are out to delay things to help Trump.... brooklynite Feb 2024 #26

It doesn't take the two Obama judges to delay scipan Feb 2024 #29

The majority writes the opinion. brooklynite Feb 2024 #35

Yes exactly. scipan Feb 2024 #43

Some people think the justice process moves as quickly as it does on TV brooklynite Feb 2024 #46