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

scipan

(3,016 posts)

12. Here's GT Conway with a slightly different take:

Reply to scipan (Original post)

Mon Mar 4, 2024, 11:19 PM

Mar 2024

Link to tweet

?t=utzAgjNiXN8yc6aSXqlbCw&s=19

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Celerity

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Laurence tribe has it right [View all] scipan Mar 2024 OP

Right, can't be right. elleng Mar 2024 #1

Thank you elleng! Nt scipan Mar 2024 #4

Think it was reasonable decision, even though I'd love for trump to get removed otherwise. Silent Type Mar 2024 #2

They took all the teeth out of it. Now it just sits there. Nt scipan Mar 2024 #3

;-( elleng Mar 2024 #5

Why was it 9-0 as to the result? We must be missing something? Nt scipan Mar 2024 #6

Result was to the matter at issue, Colorado decision to remove tmp frm ballot cannot stand, 9-0. elleng Mar 2024 #7

The idea was that SC would cure that. scipan Mar 2024 #8

The ruling makes no sense, even when it was 9-0 Goodheart Mar 2024 #9

Right! Federal election qualifications v. Federal election qualifications. scipan Mar 2024 #11

Can a state adopt its own interpretation of the term "natural born" citizen? Or is that something decided for all states onenote Mar 2024 #23

Yes, but I thought the SC would then decide for all. scipan Mar 2024 #27

It seems that there are people simultaneously complaining that the Court reached out to decide more than it needed to onenote Mar 2024 #29

I can't speak for everyone. scipan Mar 2024 #34

Anyone have a link to his show? Polybius Mar 2024 #10

Here's GT Conway with a slightly different take: scipan Mar 2024 #12

please OP this Celerity Mar 2024 #39

Didn't Tribe previously say that Trump would be disqualified? MichMan Mar 2024 #13

Yes I think he believed SC would agree, scipan Mar 2024 #14

Tribe believed Zeitghost Mar 2024 #16

You just make ad hominem accusations. Nothing about the logic of the decision. Nt scipan Mar 2024 #18

The three liberal justices got it right Zeitghost Mar 2024 #20

Luttig too? scipan Mar 2024 #22

It's not helpless Zeitghost Mar 2024 #25

Why only federal, and why only criminal conviction? Nt scipan Mar 2024 #28

Congress has given us a pathway to enforcement Zeitghost Mar 2024 #15

Do you mean this? scipan Mar 2024 #17

Because a constitutional amendment Zeitghost Mar 2024 #19

I edited my reply. The timing changes things. Nt scipan Mar 2024 #21

The 14th didn't take care of it Zeitghost Mar 2024 #24

Not sure it's a specific crime as originally understood scipan Mar 2024 #32

It was a specific crime Zeitghost Mar 2024 #37

Then why didn't the SC decision just say that? William Seger Mar 2024 #30

They said it would take congressional action Zeitghost Mar 2024 #38

Well, if that's what they intended to say, I think they would have just said it William Seger Mar 2024 #40

Have you read the decision? Zeitghost Mar 2024 #41

The decision says the states can't disqualify a candidate William Seger Mar 2024 #42

Thanks to everyone for replying. scipan Mar 2024 #26

First of all it is judicial BS moniss Mar 2024 #31

You make so much sense to me. However, 9-0 for result. scipan Mar 2024 #33

Yes I think what we have moniss Mar 2024 #35

Nice. scipan Mar 2024 #36