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

Showing Original Post only (View all)
38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yup senseandsensibility Feb 2024 #1
I think you can include Kagan in that statement ripcord Feb 2024 #5
+1 BeyondGeography Feb 2024 #36
She is not dependable, based on previous decisions NoRethugFriends Feb 2024 #10
So we're throwing Jackson under the bus now? onenote Feb 2024 #18
give me a break MistakenLamb Feb 2024 #26
What previous decisions? Renew Deal Feb 2024 #27
Was there ever any doubt? comradebillyboy Feb 2024 #2
I'm honestly a little surprised Sympthsical Feb 2024 #3
People complain that the repub justices base their decisions on political bias onenote Feb 2024 #20
It honestly felt like the Court was pretty united on this Sympthsical Feb 2024 #24
And Amy seems to be beyond apprehensive vapor2 Feb 2024 #4
It certainly seems that way. Patton French Feb 2024 #6
I always assumed they would - but not necessarily for baldly political reasons, Ocelot II Feb 2024 #7
Hoping the libs are tossing a red herring to MOMFUDSKI Feb 2024 #8
The only upside will be red states cannot remove Biden by equating their border invasion nonsense with an insurrection. LonePirate Feb 2024 #9
So in effect this decision would neuter Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Lonestarblue Feb 2024 #11
Probably for the presidency, at least. tinrobot Feb 2024 #17
On their OWN ballot???? cilla4progress Feb 2024 #31
Oh, I agree. Just pointing out how they might decide the case. tinrobot Feb 2024 #37
That's my concern as well Takket Feb 2024 #30
It's unenforceable because section 5 addresses the role of Congress as it SlimJimmy Feb 2024 #35
I respecfully beg to differ on some points you've made. SlimJimmy Feb 2024 #33
" because the young country had no standing military." EX500rider Feb 2024 #38
This could actually go 9-0 after listening to the morning CincyDem Feb 2024 #12
Concur Sympthsical Feb 2024 #16
Neal Katyal is eviscerating the CO attorneys for not bringing up the danger of letting an insurrectionist run for POTUS Celerity Feb 2024 #13
It wouldn't have mattered Sympthsical Feb 2024 #14
I too think it will be 9-0 to reverse the CO decision. Celerity Feb 2024 #15
We might be better off in the long run. Gidney N Cloyd Feb 2024 #23
There is a Congressional mechanism that was employed tinrobot Feb 2024 #19
And that's going to one of the bases of the Court's decision Sympthsical Feb 2024 #28
Katyal wanted to argue the case. He would have been eviscerated too. onenote Feb 2024 #22
I have mixed feeling about this...I don't want every year GOP types to keep good Demsrule86 Feb 2024 #21
It does seem like a Colorado win could come back to bite us in the ass later. Gidney N Cloyd Feb 2024 #25
Agreed. They all seem worried about what will happen when they rule for trump... brush Feb 2024 #29
Sad, but I did think it would turn out this way. Not with this Supreme Court. CTyankee Feb 2024 #32
Does it matter? Traildogbob Feb 2024 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I've heard enough. SC is ...