Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "Could Trump Run For A Third Term?: Sotomayor Grills Lawyer At SCOTUS Ballot Eligibility Case" video.

  1. You get the feeling with Sotomayor on the US Supreme Court, pretty much anybody could be there.
    7
  2.  @MrChris7582  What the justices have to realize is that if Democrats start eliminating trump from blue state ballots, Republican swill start eliminating Biden from red state ballots. We're venturing into banana republic stuff with what Democrats are doing.
    7
  3.  @popermen694  Well, theoretically she's politically neutral. If you have a triple digit IQ you would have realized that the argument being made was that states only have authority to enforce ballot removal if it complies with qualifications laid out in the constitution; they can't invent qualifications and then use that as the basis for removal from the ballet But she asked "why do you keep mentioning term limits?". And no doubt if you're an attorney you have to be patient with that but someone with the IQ and thoughtfulness shouldn't need that. Abuela may be wise, but not in this context.
    4
  4.  @FilmFlam-8008  Great summary.
    4
  5. Probably not. Since the VP is essentially the 2nd string president, the argument would be that they can't be a 2nd string president because if the president left office somehow, the VP would not be the backup. But it is an interesting question.
    3
  6. The did address that today in court. The judges and the attorneys agreed that insurrection is mentioned in the constitution and there is a federal statute that lays out the precise meaning as well as the penalties. This is not rocket science or an unknown area. You have to be charged and found guilty of insurrection in a court of law. The justices said that out loud. Now if you're asking the question of whether someone who has been found guilty of insurrection could win and not be sworn in as president, that seems to be possible, although it seems likely states would remove that person from the ballot in accordance with federal law.
    3
  7.  @popermen694  That's incorrect. States can come up with their own qualifications for state and local offices, but the constitution lays out qualifications for federal office. To expand on what you believe is true, Colorado can't ignore any federal law they don't like. Federal Law says polygamy is against the law, but Utah can't say "oh no, not in Utah, we ignore that law". States have jurisdictions over many things within their state (if not most), but they cannot exclude valid people from the ballot for federal positions where the only qualifications are those in the constitution.
    3
  8.  @emilyalice1  The decision is based on Public Policy issues, not on law Well, there was no insurrection on January 6th, so this is way out of left field. But regardless, federal qualifications for the presidency are preeminent. Some Podunk DA does not get to decide who gets to run for president in their state because they feel like Trump committed insurrection, particularly if they've never been convicted of what they accuse him of. Your reasoning is based on feelings, not logic and certainly not law. I loathe Trump because of his hate And people say Americans aren't good at irony. You sure proved them wrong.
    3
  9.  @emilyalice1  The onus is on you to demonstrate where people can be held responsible for a federal crime without a conviction in court (or even being charged). This is consistent with the questioning from all members of the court yesterday. Your feelings don't trump the law.
    3
  10.  @emilyalice1  To summarize your answer: "er... no, I can't think of any other place where you can simply declare someone guilty of a crime without evidence, trial or guilty verdict, so I'll throw a few 3rd grade insults at you, and that makes me right. I hate you" --signed, Emily Alice
    3
  11.  @emilyalice1  You know, when you've dug a hole as deep as you have, you don't have to continue to use dynamite to blast through bedrock and embarrass yourself even more. It's not even worth pointing out where nothing you've posted is logical, and seems to mostly a coping mechanisms you're using. I wish you the best.
    3
  12. They seemed well-reasoned today.
    2
  13. You misspelled "Joetato". Not a good day for our demented president. Even the special council admitted Joe's brain is cooked.
    2
  14.  @MrChris7582  That's surprising from Kenji, since she admitted in front of the world that she can't define what a woman is.
    2
  15.  @popermen694  I believe in the early days of the Republic, state legislature would often choose the electors.
    2
  16.  @honeybeee20001961  Odds are high for Big Mike to take on Trump after Biden's disastrous week, and today was the cherry on top of that week.
    1
  17. Maybe Democrats will claim he actually won in 2020, they just decided to fortify the election and put someone else in his place.
    1
  18.  @jaredscolaro1511  I agree on one thing. It would be an interesting case in front of the supreme court.
    1
  19.  @johnsonunit  When someone claims they're saving democracy, they're always lying. Every time.
    1
  20.  @popermen694  Our vote is just a courtesy that the states always did since the beginning but it is not legally binding Well, that's true, but states can't arbitrarily choose electors at any point. It has to be consistent with state law. What I mean is, that a state can say that the electoral voters will be chosen by popular vote. But what they can't do is if they don't like the result of the popular vote choose another method of picking electors after the vote is tallied.
    1
  21.  @vforwombat9915  "they said he factually committed an insurrection." They could factually say "the moon is made of green cheese", but that just means they (like you) have no idea what "factually" means. And just to help you a little bit, the FBI indicated there was no insurrection on Jan 6. And for a little more help, the Supreme Court agrees with me. You're welcome!
    1
  22. Apparently the cheers and tears can begin. Word on Twitter is that the verdict is in, 9-0 in favor of Trump.
    1
  23. It's' okay fella, you'll get over it. After this past week for Joetato, Trump may do better than Reagan in 1984.
    1
  24.  @tdsoldier3198  You're whistling past the graveyard.
    1
  25.  @tdsoldier3198  hahaha of course you are. Don't you mean "Truf"?
    1
  26. SMH. You know, if you're not sure, just look it up. Presidents can only serve two terms.
    1