General Discussion

LostinRed

(846 posts)

103. Would be interesting to see the Supreme Court will rule in favor of trump

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 08:06 PM

Sep 2017

Unless the judge he appoint would be kick off because if trump is illegitimate so is he. Then it would split and go back to whatever the lower court rules.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

145 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election [View all] babylonsister Sep 2017 OP

It's happening!!!!! Not Ruth Sep 2017 #1

Headline is baloney tho. elehhhhna Sep 2017 #84

She should legally contest the election. tecelote Sep 2017 #89

"Do you think, at some point, it would be legitimate to challenge the legitimacy of the election?" Hortensis Sep 2017 #131

Exactly RandomAccess Sep 2017 #100

Whoa. Well the PTB did screw her over, which is ironic because people thought "they" were coronating bettyellen Sep 2017 #2

And who can blame her? I cannot. CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2017 #3

She has nothing to lose, so why not annoy Trump? livetohike Sep 2017 #48

Premature? BadgerMom Sep 2017 #70

YES, please please please please!!!! lunamagica Sep 2017 #4

Do it! ananda Sep 2017 #5

She should treat it like a campaign, make stops all over the country rallying her supporters Not Ruth Sep 2017 #6

And Trump will complain about it as he continues to do the same damn thing Tiggeroshii Sep 2017 #37

Who cares if the freak complains? He complains every damn day. we can do it Sep 2017 #105

The double standard and false equivalencies by the media Tiggeroshii Sep 2017 #107

Huh? greeny2323 Sep 2017 #7

Oh shush cilla4progress Sep 2017 #10

Maybe Gore will also Not Ruth Sep 2017 #52

Yes, cilla4progress Sep 2017 #87

Agree about the author- but last year's election was totally unprecedented bettyellen Sep 2017 #11

True that there are no constitutional remedies but BadgerMom Sep 2017 #74

Yes. We must chart them. we can do it Sep 2017 #109

How can you say that when you don't know what Mueller will discover? Why should she rule it out pnwmom Sep 2017 #14

How? zipplewrath Sep 2017 #18

There is theoretically a possibility, although I cannot imagine this would occur. stevenleser Sep 2017 #29

Why would Congressional repubs agree to a process that resulted in a Democrat becoming president onenote Sep 2017 #61

Exactly as I explained, to avoid having Trump, Pence and a large retinue of underlings prosecuted. stevenleser Sep 2017 #118

They aren't going to sacrifice themselves to save Trump and Pence. onenote Sep 2017 #120

They aren't sacrificing themselves. You need to think this through and research the history stevenleser Sep 2017 #121

I have thought this through. onenote Sep 2017 #122

There was no "constitutional process" for the way Al Gore was denied the Presidency, pnwmom Sep 2017 #30

Not even remotely the same thing. onenote Sep 2017 #63

We don't know what Mueller will discover. If he discovered, for instance, that Russian hackers pnwmom Sep 2017 #71

No. They're. Not. onenote Sep 2017 #73

The Equal Protection Clause, for one. pnwmom Sep 2017 #133

That's ridiculous. onenote Sep 2017 #135

As I've said, it may be bullshit, but the SC has spouted bullshit before, pnwmom Sep 2017 #136

Dream away. onenote Sep 2017 #137

I'm over the bots. we can do it Sep 2017 #111

Not exactly zipplewrath Sep 2017 #125

Of course there was. It was the SCOTUS Cuthbert Allgood Sep 2017 #126

HRC knows a bit more than you regarding legal accountability etc. triron Sep 2017 #47

Except she didn't say what the OP claims.... AncientGeezer Sep 2017 #114

Not on this point zipplewrath Sep 2017 #127

uh... read the amendments HoustonDave Sep 2017 #141

I agree zipplewrath Sep 2017 #144

The system had no idea there would be electronic election manipulation. we can do it Sep 2017 #110

The "system" knew all about ballot box stuffing and other forms of electoral fraud onenote Sep 2017 #113

What Clinton says is irrelevant now? Eliot Rosewater Sep 2017 #78

Clinton never said it LeftInTX Sep 2017 #86

How much political power would trump have rock Sep 2017 #88

I think she cilla4progress Sep 2017 #8

There's no legal provision for this and thus no statute of limitations mythology Sep 2017 #16

Always remember, for everything there is a first time. Mr. Evil Sep 2017 #49

Always remember, there is no "throw out the US Constitution" provision in the US Constitution. longship Sep 2017 #90

Amen. shanny Sep 2017 #99

Don't tell the 2nd amendment folks that zipplewrath Sep 2017 #128

Hopefully a path never taken. longship Sep 2017 #130

We need an amendment zipplewrath Sep 2017 #132

Big deal... brooklynite Sep 2017 #9

I must be dumb. I don't get how questioning legitimacy means contesting or a formal challenge. n/t seaglass Sep 2017 #12

I'm just as dumb. Bleacher Creature Sep 2017 #17

No, you are not dumb. jberryhill Sep 2017 #40

Doesn't one of the amendments cover the do-over rule? Orrex Sep 2017 #92

It's written on the back in invisible ink jberryhill Sep 2017 #98

Those crafty bastards. Orrex Sep 2017 #102

You Can Read It With A Black Light ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #134

Same way they knew people would be using Twitter for Nazi propaganda jberryhill Sep 2017 #142

Duh! ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #145

It doesn't. But that doesn't stop the wishful thinkers from hoping pigs will fly. onenote Sep 2017 #67

The article title/premise is wildly misleading. SaschaHM Sep 2017 #13

K&R... spanone Sep 2017 #15

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll see your golf ball and raise you a nuke. L. Coyote Sep 2017 #19

Post removed Post removed Sep 2017 #20

Hellogoodbye. johnp3907 Sep 2017 #21

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2017 #23

Why cant we leave them up long enough for everyone to see. I miss so many! 7962 Sep 2017 #39

Damn it, I missed it also. groundloop Sep 2017 #76

This would be awesome! Setting a precedent of accountability. Another avenue R B Garr Sep 2017 #22

"questioning" is not the same as "contesting". she only comments on "questioning" nt msongs Sep 2017 #24

yes i went back and read her statement and its clearly questioning.... samnsara Sep 2017 #36

I'm not sure about setting that precedent at this date. Kind of like rubbing a dog's nose in dung Hoyt Sep 2017 #25

won't happen. The Constitution doesn't provide for that I am sorry to say still_one Sep 2017 #26

There was no possibility of electronic hacking when constitution was written. we can do it Sep 2017 #108

Doesn't matter. You ammend the Constitution then. The only alternative is impeachment, still_one Sep 2017 #112

so what? there was the possibility of other means of election fraud onenote Sep 2017 #117

Lord in my dreams! redstatebluegirl Sep 2017 #27

Nope. ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #28

Do you think he made it up? melman Sep 2017 #35

Yeah I know what she said ismnotwasm Sep 2017 #57

Questioning is vastly different than contesting.... AncientGeezer Sep 2017 #115

"and I have never heard her broach the possibility of a formal challenge of the results." - and... PoliticAverse Sep 2017 #31

I'm ready if Hillary is ready... FarPoint Sep 2017 #32

Contest what? The electors are who votes for the POTUS/VPOTUS. JoeStuckInOH Sep 2017 #33

If Mueller proves collusion & treason, we are in uncharted times. Satch59 Sep 2017 #34

Yes. delisen Sep 2017 #45

It could be very very simple bucolic_frolic Sep 2017 #50

It's not a constitutional crisis at all, even if he finds collusion metalbot Sep 2017 #101

Chris Cilliza is a shit stirring clown. JHan Sep 2017 #38

Reporting an actual quote is shit stirring? melman Sep 2017 #44

if the actual quote said she'd "contest" the election, no. onenote Sep 2017 #69

onenote explained it to you. JHan Sep 2017 #97

The problem is there is no remedy for this. The election won't be thrown out . . . Vinca Sep 2017 #41

If the election proves to have been illegitimate, then delisen Sep 2017 #42

The election becomes legitimate when the electoral votes are counted Yupster Sep 2017 #93

This is painfully stupid jberryhill Sep 2017 #43

In 2000 scotus picked for Florida when scotus shut down the recount Fullduplexxx Sep 2017 #56

Relevant to what here? jberryhill Sep 2017 #62

Relevant to your first statement. Things are the way they are until they aren't. Fullduplexxx Sep 2017 #68

The SCOTUS cited the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in Bush v. Gore onenote Sep 2017 #94

Idk . I'll leave that to the lawyers to pull something out of their butts like scotus did with Fullduplexxx Sep 2017 #129

well, since Hillary doesn't think there's a way to do it onenote Sep 2017 #138

THIS THIS THIS THIS bucolic_frolic Sep 2017 #46

kick triron Sep 2017 #51

questioning the legitimacy of the election and "contesting" it in some formal way are different thin onenote Sep 2017 #53

Good RhodeIslandOne Sep 2017 #54

Ain't gonna happen GetRidOfThem Sep 2017 #55

I heard the interview on NPR and Hillary says it is impossible to contest the election LeftInTX Sep 2017 #58

I just don't see anything like that happening. It seems highly unlikely to me. NurseJackie Sep 2017 #59

Deceptive reporting RandySF Sep 2017 #60

People here are going to bite on every piece of bullshit that floats by jberryhill Sep 2017 #66

DING DING DING!! onenote Sep 2017 #72

I heard the interview a few hours ago and totally agree LeftInTX Sep 2017 #85

Questioning the moral legitimacy is where we need to go. delisen Sep 2017 #139

I so wish it could happen! MoonRiver Sep 2017 #64

chris cillizza poops on the floor me: dude clean it up chris: youre just goading me me: nah dude it Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 #65

Yippee! Greybnk48 Sep 2017 #75

everyone who voted should be cheering loudly. we need to know our elections are legitimate. spanone Sep 2017 #77

Some of us. triron Sep 2017 #81

Hillary got 3 million more votes than the trumpets.....Most of us! spanone Sep 2017 #82

Maybe more. triron Sep 2017 #83

She did not "float the possibility of contesting the election." yellowcanine Sep 2017 #79

I do not see anywhere Mrs. Clinton sarisataka Sep 2017 #80

When will people learn: Chris Cilizza is a fucking brain dead idiot. longship Sep 2017 #91

I love this. I hope every roach in the WH is squirming, including the Trump crime family. Tatiana Sep 2017 #95

Even if she wouldn't, the Bettie Sep 2017 #96

Would be interesting to see the Supreme Court will rule in favor of trump LostinRed Sep 2017 #103

No judge is going to be kicked off the bench. The Senate seats the SCOTUS nominees. AncientGeezer Sep 2017 #116

Baloney! peggysue2 Sep 2017 #104

even if she wants to shanny Sep 2017 #106

I'm worried with SCOTUS stacked in the GOP's favor it would be another Bush V Gore. Initech Sep 2017 #119

Don't worry. If a case is brought (it won't) it would lose 9-0 in SCOTUS onenote Sep 2017 #123

Well that will help book sales! Might be time to jmg257 Sep 2017 #124

The time to challenge the election was PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 2017 #140

good for her.....trump would have been in the courts for 8 months now if he had lost. spanone Sep 2017 #143