• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Hears Case to Reinstate Trump

Does this burn me up?

  • Yes. it burns me up.

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • No, it doesn't burn me up.

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Biden will forget to invoke Jackson.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Go Trump.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I like the view.

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • Total voters
    7
E

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
13,015
Reaction score
2,638
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Supreme Court Hears Case to Reinstate Trump:

I would laugh it off as ridiculous, but Trump has the Court.


If they rule for Trump, give them the same answer as Andrew Jackson, "Let the Supreme Court enforce its decision."

Then they would have cost me that (giving to Jackson).

This just burns me up.
 
Here's what I wrote Joe:

Dear Joe,

I heard a shocking report that the Supreme Court is hearing the case to reinstate Trump and I doubt they're doing it just to hear, so, If they rule for Trump, you must invoke Jackson and tell them, "Let the Supreme Court enforce its decision."

Just in case you haven't thought of it.

Be ready.

Yours Truly,
 
Last edited:
Exquisitor said:
Supreme Court Hears Case to Reinstate Trump:

I would laugh it off as ridiculous, but Trump has the Court.


If they rule for Trump, give them the same answer as Andrew Jackson, "Let the Supreme Court enforce its decision."

Then they would have cost me that (giving to Jackson).

This just burns me up.
Click to expand...
The attorney filed an appeal to a Jan 9th decision to NOT hear the case.

Why would SCOTUS change their minds in a month?

They’re reviewing the appeal, no more, no less.
 
The current Republican Party wants nothing to do with Trump.. Their propaganda mouthpiece Fox News has turned on Trump...

So I'm sure Thomas and the rest of the conservatives Judges got their marching orders..

Trump has no chance...
 
Yikes. I really don't trust the SC to do anything right.
 

Supreme Court Hears Case to Reinstate Trump​


Nothing like starting off a thread by lying in the title. The Supreme Court is not hearing a case to reinstate Trump; they're deciding whether or not to hear a case about reinstating Trump. They've already turned it down once, they'll likely turn it down again on this appeal. Until the extremely unlikely event that they decide to actually hear the case it's a complete nothingburger.
 
Exquisitor said:
Supreme Court Hears Case to Reinstate Trump:

I would laugh it off as ridiculous, but Trump has the Court.


If they rule for Trump, give them the same answer as Andrew Jackson, "Let the Supreme Court enforce its decision."

Then they would have cost me that (giving to Jackson).

This just burns me up.
Click to expand...

It's much ado about nothing. Anyone who has standing to do so can file a writ application. Certiorari have a 2% acceptance rate. This is an application for a rehearing of a Certiorari application that has already been rejected - that means it probably has a 2% chance of a 2% chance - 0.02%. and that's being optimistic about it's chances.

Trump has a better chance to be the first person to walk on Mars than he does of being reinstated.
 
Exquisitor said:
Supreme Court Hears Case to Reinstate Trump....
Click to expand...
The article you link to says "Supreme Court is set to consider whether or not to hear a lawsuit..."

That is quite a bit different than your statement above and your title to this thread. The Supreme Court only hears about 2% of the cases that it gets. The other 98% are automatically confirmed, that is, the Appeals Court decision stands.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Why the **** did they even take this case?
Click to expand...
They haven't. This is just clickbait.

"The Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit on January 9, but the plaintiff, Raland Brunson, filed an appeal on January 23. Now, the court has to reconsider whether or not to hear the case, according to an update on the SCOTUS' website that read that the lawsuit was "distributed for conference" on Friday."

For that matter, there is literally no way the Supreme Court could throw a sitting President out of office. None, barring a violent coup.
 
Exquisitor said:
Supreme Court Hears Case to Reinstate Trump:

I would laugh it off as ridiculous, but Trump has the Court.


If they rule for Trump, give them the same answer as Andrew Jackson, "Let the Supreme Court enforce its decision."

Then they would have cost me that (giving to Jackson).

This just burns me up.
Click to expand...
The SC is hearing an appeal
to their original decision to not hear the case. They haven't decided to hear the case and I believe they have to consider the appeal.

There's really nothing here.
 
Cordelier said:
It's much ado about nothing. Anyone who has standing to do so can file a writ application. Certiorari have a 2% acceptance rate. This is an application for a rehearing of a Certiorari application that has already been rejected - that means it probably has a 2% chance of a 2% chance - 0.02%. and that's being optimistic about it's chances.

Trump has a better chance to be the first person to walk on Mars than he does of being reinstated.
Click to expand...
Further, to have "Standing" means to have been legally injured, either monetarily or otherwise. Biden simply winning does not give one standing.
 
To be clear, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and the plaintiff appealed this decision. That's all that has really happened here. Technically, yes the Supreme Court has to 'reconsider' because it was formally appealed. The outcome is going to be the same.

*EDIT: Looks like several people beat me to it. :)
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Why the **** did they even take this case?
Click to expand...
I think it is just under reconsideration....not that they took the case. They will likely throw it straight back at him...though it would be funny as hell if they bring him in there and run him over red hot coals and exclude him from every presenting a case before them again, for wasting their valuable time. he wants $1 billion in damages because he thinks his vote in Utah was nullified...I guess he missed that Trump won in Utah, but that Utah being won does not equate to winning the presidency. I also have to wonder where the guy gets the idea that he can request that all the Democrats be removed and excluded from running for office ever again? lmao.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom