DigitalFrank @ DigitalFrank @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

"They make a desert and call it peace."

Everyone takes their garbage to the dump

What's the carbon footprint on that?

Try Propertyware, it's worse. Five years experience with it.

There’s no reason a state can’t make that decision. You didn’t even make an argument. Just made a statement.

I didn't need to make an argument because SCOTUS decided that only Congress is the authority for ballot removal per section 5. It made a lot of people mad and down-arrowed facts. The internet Constitutional scholars came out in droves.

Here is the decision that most of them didn't read PDF warning

Good luck making converts in a political thread.

Yes, as long as the requirements are uniform in every state and don't discriminate against any particular candidate. SCOTUS affirmed that last part today.

It's literally moot at this point. Internet lawyers arguing constitutional law when SCOTUS has made a (unanimous decision) on the matter is just people blowing off steam.

If you agree with the decision (I do), trying to change someone's mind (who doesn't) is probably not going to happen.

You've been reasoned in your disagreement. I appreciate that.

Not if they didn't file the correct paperwork (on time), pay the necessary fees, and I believe, have enough qualified signatures is each state in which you want to appear on the ballot.

Making the argument that a state can otherwise disqualify because they believe you are guilty of insurrection is now moot. 9-0.

Yeah, you’re wrong.

And you're hilarious.

Heck apparently now is a great time to add your name to a federal election

Nah, I'll just write it in. My wife still likes me, so maybe I can get two votes.

Lol. It's ok to disagree with the decision. It's ok to be mad at the decision. It's ok to internet argue the constitutionality of the decision. All of it makes this >< much difference. Trump will be on the ballot, will be the nominee, and will be absolutely crushed by the most popular president in history. I don't know why anyone is worried.

Strong emotions there. Take a valium or smoke a bowl before you pop a valve.

Not an otherwise eligible candidate on a federal ballot.

their own ballots

Not federal ballots.

Except a state tried here and got slapped down 9-0. Seems to me it was deemed unconstitutional by the folks that decide that sort of thing.

I'm asking for something that doesn't exist.

Most recently, it continues to not exist because States can't disqualify according to SCOTUS.

If O'l Joe has 80 million voters, why are you worried about Trump being on the ballot? He can't possibly win.

unredacted Mueller report

I'm still waiting for the Epstein list.

Abdul Hassan

Guyanese-born, so not a natural born citizen, therefore not otherwise eligible. He sued, citing discrimination, and lost. Try again, this time with a natural born citizen >35 years old.

And "the woe is me routine" is for all the down arrows on this subject that didn't or couldn't provide a name.

I'm neither a Constitutional scholar nor a lawyer. I'll go with Marbury v Madison as who gets to decide those finer points.

And they decided 9-0.

The could have impeached him (again). And if the Senate convicted, he would have been ineligible to run again.