Comments by "Nina Daly" (@ninadaly7639) on "'Appalling!': Historians torch Supreme Court's handling of Trump ballot case" video.

  1. There was money in it for him?
    39
  2. Hypocrisy? Deceit?
    34
  3.  @maharajjinkb  I see. Jan 6th was just another Sunday in the Park with Don?? It’s on film you know. Very disturbing.
    7
  4. ⁠ @highnrising But the whole point of these stupid challenges is to delay delay delay the criminal trial in this matter in the hopes Trump will get elected and avoid criminal liability. you think that’s what the founding fathers had in mind?
    5
  5. The NRA pays VERY well!
    3
  6.  @soothingsaturations9059  It is entirely true!
    2
  7. Educated? Yes. Ethical? NO!
    2
  8. But that was the whole point of this travesty. Delay the trials as long as possible in the hopes of avoiding CRIMINAL liability all together. How does that jive with the 14th Amendment?
    2
  9.  @soothingsaturations9059  I’m afraid not. Those lawyers have thrown their ethics and integrity to the wind by perverting and twisting the Constitution itself to achieve the exact opposite of its intent and they ALL know it. It’s disgraceful.
    1
  10.  @highnrising  “Little practical use”?? Couldn’t be a better time for “practical use” than right now! Did you actually listen to the arguments? Trump was arguing Section 3 applies to all members of the government EXCEPT the President and Vice president. That makes sense to you? Nobody can participate in an insurrection and hold office EXCEPT them?? This brings me to my next point. The voters for the most part now nothing about the current issues, just the disingenuous one line conclusions they are spoon fed by politicians who know they’ll never check. What’s worse, people don’t seem to care enough to know or understand much. They don’t seem to think they need to. Americans have become entitled narcissists who have trouble seeing past themselves and who have told themselves for too long that it’s not their problem. Well, it may be we are all going to reap what we have sown and I can promise you, no one is going to like it.
    1
  11.  @highnrising  This is so funny. Someone keeps taking deleting my posts. Makes one wonder what they are so scared I will tell you!
    1
  12.  @soothingsaturations9059  Right. Not misinformation, ie LIES. Just adding some much needed truth to the Kool-aid bowl. No one with any degree of legal knowledge would call that oral argument anything but a travesty, unless of course they were trying to gaslight a bunch of people they don’t seem to think are very bright or have common sense.
    1
  13.  @soothingsaturations9059  Who could believe that Section 3 was intended to prohibit all former members of the government who participate in an insurrection from holding office again, EXCEPT the president and vice president. Makes “0” sense!!
    1
  14.  @soothingsaturations9059  I’m thinking of the absurdity of this situation and the mockery it’s making of our justice system. If only one state is sane enough not to want an insurrectionists in the oval office, so be it. It’s not the state that triggers Section 3, but the individuals choice to participate in an insurrection. What Trump is doing is trying to stall, stall, stall the CRIMINAL cases against him until after the election in the hopes that he wins the election and thereby avoid altogether being held accountable for his CRIMES. In short, he is twisting and perverting the law for its very opposite purpose and intent. In earlier days, that would have been the definition of “unethical”, but we seem to have done away with consideration of ethics this last decade. We have just seen back to back utterly ridiculous SC oral arguments. The first one was to decide whether a sitting president cannot murder people and get away with it scott free because he’s president, and this one that asks if the founding fathers meant in drafting 14th Amend, Sec 3, they meant that if a former member of the government participates in an insurrection against the lawful government of the US, they cannot hold a government office again, UNLESS they run for Pres or VP, the 2 highest offices in our government. Is that what you think our founding fathers meant to say? That it’s ok for traitors to hold either of those offices, but not their assistants?
    1
  15. I gave you a lengthy answer but the cowards deleted it again. LOLOL
    1
  16.  @todbrown7597 I’m not so sure middle school students can read today.
    1
  17. And if the populace, for the most part, has no idea what an autocracy is, even worse, they don’t care? What then?…….What then?
    1
  18. This is the representative of the travesty our judiciary has become!
    1
  19. @@easymoney-hh8nn The majority of American voters have no real idea what’s going on. They only listen for the punchlines telling them what to think.
    1
  20. Those justices better think hard. Trump has a habit of turning on people once he gets what he wants.
    1