• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Laniakea said:
If any one state were allowed to do it, or even one single person in a state (such is the case in Maine), then any state in the country could do the same, and then it wouldn't just be one state doing it.
Would you want a single member of a government deciding for an entire state whether or not the people of that state can vote for a candidate, especially when that candidate is the one you wish to vote for?
Click to expand...
Once again, ignoring your incomprehensible ramble. Someone would have to alert the Supreme Court to the problem. A state could bring it up, but it would be up to the court to decided if that person was to be disqualified or not.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Father Heathen said:
Why are EVs and fake meat so triggering? Don't like it then don't buy it, but why get so emotional?
Click to expand...

EV's are being mandated as the only choice for a vehicle, even though they're far less capable. Maybe you can afford to sit at home in front of a screen all day, but some people are dependent on reliable transportation, and don't want their option to have it be eliminated within the next 11 years. These 9 States Banned the Sale of Gas-Powered Cars: Is Yours One of Them?
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Subduction Zone said:
Once again, ignoring your incomprehensible ramble. Someone would have to alert the Supreme Court to the problem. A state could bring it up, but it would be up to the court to decided if that person was to be disqualified or not.
Click to expand...

If you had read it, you would have learned something.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Revoltingest said:
I see them being concerned with
possibly affecting the election.

I expect SCOTUS to rule based
on most justices being Magas.
Click to expand...
That is a serious problem. But they are also the final arbiters of the law of the land. If they rule against this I will almost certainly disagree with them, but I will reluctantly agree that it is how it has to be done right now.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Laniakea said:
EV's are being mandated as the only choice for a vehicle, even though they're far less capable. Maybe you can afford to sit at home in front of a screen all day, but some people are dependent on reliable transportation, and don't want their option to have it be eliminated within the next 11 years. These 9 States Banned the Sale of Gas-Powered Cars: Is Yours One of Them?
Click to expand...
You're straying from the topic into
merely complaining about politics.
It seems that you divide us all into
tribes of the sort....
Anti Trump = Electric car fanaticism.

It just ain't so.
I oppose Trump, & I think electric cars
are too impractical for general use.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
That is a serious problem. But they are also the final arbiters of the law of the land. If they rule against this I will almost certainly disagree with them, but I will reluctantly agree that it is how it has to be done right now.
Click to expand...
Aye, they make the law of the land.
Even when it's based on personal whim
rather than the Constitution. And we
might very well have to endure Trump
as #47. But enduring Genocide Joe is
also no picnic. Many will suffer injustice
no matter which one wins. Yet most of
us will cope.
I still plan to vote Libertarian. Our lunatics
are better than their lunatics.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Revoltingest said:
You're straying from the topic into
merely complaining about politics.
It seems that you divide us all into
tribes of the sort....
Anti Trump = Electric car fanaticism.

It just ain't so.
I oppose Trump, & I think electric cars
are too impractical for general use.
Click to expand...
I thought I was responding to Father Heathen.
I was! I was responding to Father Heathen!
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Revoltingest said:
Aye, they make the law of the land.
Even when it's based on personal whim
rather than the Constitution. And we
might very well have to endure Trump
as #47. But enduring Genocide Joe is
also no picnic. We will cope either way.
Click to expand...
What would you think of Vice President Camel Hair being president for 4 years?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Laniakea said:
I thought I was responding to Father Heathen.
I was! I was responding to Father Heathen!
Click to expand...
You still needed me to set you straight
after he diverted you. Don't let other
posters lead you around too much.

I'd set him straight too, but my charms
don't work on him. (I've tried.)
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Laniakea said:
If any one state were allowed to do it, or even one single person in a state (such is the case in Maine), then any state in the country could do the same, and then it wouldn't just be one state doing it.
Would you want a single member of a government deciding for an entire state whether or not the people of that state can vote for a candidate, especially when that candidate is the one you wish to vote for?
Click to expand...
That's not what is happening. Notice Trump being removed from the Colorado ballot is being challenged, even though there is a sound legal basis to remove him. Trump actually committed acts that fall into the category of insurrection. The SC asked questions about Colorado's removal of Trump from the ballot and there seems enough ambiguity to predict that the SC will overturn Colorado's decision. The dilemma with much of the Constitution is how vague it is.

To address your assertion Texas could remove Biden from the ballot, but based on what? It would be challenged and no court would back it up.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
F1fan said:
To address your assertion Texas could remove Biden from the ballot, but based on what? It would be challenged and no court would back it up.
Click to expand...
If SCOTUS were to stand with CO on this one, then yes, TX could remove biden for whatever reason someone there wants to remove him for. Allowing illegals to invade through Texas and actively working against Texas to secure the border would be their reason. If SCOTUS were to side with CO, then nothing would stop TX from removing biden. There would be a legal precedent allowing for it.
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Laniakea said:
EV's are being mandated as the only choice for a vehicle, even though they're far less capable. Maybe you can afford to sit at home in front of a screen all day, but some people are dependent on reliable transportation, and don't want their option to have it be eliminated within the next 11 years. These 9 States Banned the Sale of Gas-Powered Cars: Is Yours One of Them?
Click to expand...
So that's why conservatives have such a melodramatic knee-jerk reaction towards EVs? A blown out of proportion bogeyman?
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Laniakea said:
If SCOTUS were to stand with CO on this one, then yes, TX could remove biden for whatever reason someone there wants to remove him for.
Click to expand...
Only if Biden caused an insurrection too. (He hasn't)

Remember, the court rules based on evidence, not politics. Trump has caused an insurrection, Biden never has.
Laniakea said:
Allowing illegals to invade through Texas and actively working against Texas to secure the border would be their reason.
Click to expand...
That isn't mentioned in the 14th amendment.
Laniakea said:
If SCOTUS were to side with CO, then nothing would stop TX from removing biden.
Click to expand...
The law would, which you know nothing about as revealed thus far.
Laniakea said:
There would be a legal precedent allowing for it.
Click to expand...
Cite it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top