Is Trump’s Lawyer illegally influencing SCOTUS?

[OddBeMe]

Yes

No

[goaded]

I don't know if it's illegal or not, but there was a reason SCOTUS justices always were subject to filibuster, needing 60+ votes in the Senate, and regularly confirmed with far more (RBG was confirmed 96-3). That was until Mitch McConnell changed the rules allowing grossly unqualified partisans onto the bench.

[Juxtapose]

No, Trump is wonderful and I hope if he gets re-elected he gets to appoint more Supreme Court Justices. Especially the ones that are willing to tell you what a woman is in public 😂

[OddBeMe]

Ease up on bath salts. Not saying go cold turkey. Just ease up.

[Juxtapose]

What is a woman?

[OddBeMe]

The devil

[msc545]

Probably not. Trup appointed all these guys, and this is his payoff. Nothing illegal about that.

[zagor]

Not true. It looks like the decision will be unanimous. The justices appointed by Democrats are agreeing, as there is a danger of tit-for-tat among state legislatures.

[goaded]

@zagor Funny how the conversation never came down to whether Trump engaged in insurrection, isn't it?

If a Republican state tried to keep Biden off the ballot, he could simply take them to court. So can Trump, but he actually did the thing that disqualified him.

Any state that would keep a valid candidate off the ballot would not be a state the candidate could possibly win, anyway. It would also show its true colours and maybe flip to the party that cares about democracy.

[zagor]

@goaded The question is whether he can be kept off the ballot. The only time it has been used in the past was after the Civil War, where there was no question about it being an insurrection.

And since he wasn't likely to win the states involved it would probably only help him if he were kept off the ballot.

[goaded]

@zagor Try September 2022. That's the last time it was used to disqualify a candidate, for their actions on Jan 6.

Who cares if it would help or hinder Trump? The law is the law, and there are court findings of fact that he engaged in insurrection.

[zagor]

@goaded The Presidency operates under different rules than state elections (which include those for the Senate and House). California now has open primaries in which anyone can vote for anyone and the top two go to November - EXCEPT for POTUS, which is still by party.

[goaded]

@zagor That has no bearing on whether states can keep ineligible candidates off the ballot. Do you want the federal government to force states to accept candidates that are ineligible?

[OddBeMe]

Remember when the GOP was pro-States rights?

[zagor]

@goaded The state is using a federal rule for that purpose.

[goaded]

@zagor The state (with full due process in the courts) is following the federal constitution, which it is required to do since it is the supreme law of the land.

[normalice]

No. It's only illegal when democrats do it.

[OddBeMe]

Ahh. Damn change of the rules again!

[Sevenpointfive]

she's really hot. i'd be influenced