Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
The only threat he might consider is one of losing his access to YouPorn.
Can I hear an argument from the other side because I clearly don't understand how this argument isnt sound and isn't being screamed by every talking head on TV, news, op ed, etc.
So 5-3 to keep Trump on instead of 6-3. It's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Pretty solid indicator he’s going to keep trump on the ballot.
If he doesn’t recuse himself he needs to be impeached for it as well. He’s blatantly and openly in cahoots
How about this: no matter what the decision is, Colorado keeps trump off the ballot anyway, with the rationale being that Thomas is a corrupt bastard in the tank for trump. It’s not like anything matters anymore.
[note: I don’t actually advocate this, for the most obvious reasons]
I feel it too
Shouldn't they be asking the three judges that Trump himself appointed due to the obvious conflicts of interest? I mean, the chances of that happening are also less than zero, but at least there's more solid legal basis for the request in the first place.
His wife going to the Jan 6 rally to support Trump and spreading his election misinfo is an even more obvious conflict of interest.
Saying the Trump appointees should refuse themselves because of that is like saying any case any part of the Biden admin is a part of should have Jackson recuse herself.
His appointees haven't even strongly leaned his way in previous decisions. But then a lot of their really unpopular decisions are probably right from a legal standpoint if not from a policy one and policy is supposed to be the role of Congress. For example the EPA decisions that amount to "when Congress delegates some of their authority to an agency, they only delegate the authority they specify in the legislation and not an inch more."
Wouldn't it be better for Trump to lose the next election while on every state ballot?