|
Post by granolamom on Feb 28, 2024 18:12:53 GMT -4
Mr Horrible (aka Mitch McConnell), having completed his mission to ruin as many lives as possible, has announced that he will leave his Senate leadership (but not his seat) in the fall. I wonder who Trump will anoint as McConnell's successor.
|
|
|
Post by Spinderella on Feb 28, 2024 23:32:32 GMT -4
Meh, he's going to no longer be the Senate GOP Minority Leader, but he'll still be a sitting senator. But we're stuck with him until 2027. I wonder if he'll even last that long. The mean ones usually do.
|
|
|
Post by ratscabies on Feb 29, 2024 7:56:33 GMT -4
I think his comment about Father Time being undefeated hints that he knows he isn’t long for this world. His episodes of freezing up, and his general frailty, plus those ominous black spots and IV bruises on his hands all point to something not good.
And I studied medicine with Dr Brackett, Dr Early, and nurse Dixie on Emergency when I was a kid, so I KNOW sodium bicarb and D5W aren’t working for ol’ Mitch….
|
|
|
Post by granolamom on Feb 29, 2024 14:26:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Spinderella on Feb 29, 2024 15:55:38 GMT -4
I don't know. They don't owe him anything. They're in there for life and he can't do anything about it now. They could go rogue against Trump and make it clear that they have to appear that they're able to follow the law, not one man. If they're not careful, the Dems could take over the House and keep the Senate this election and then vote to impeach the justices if they are out of line.
|
|
|
Post by granolamom on Feb 29, 2024 17:16:22 GMT -4
I don't know. They don't owe him anything. They're in there for life and he can't do anything about it now. They could go rogue against Trump and make it clear that they have to appear that they're able to follow the law, not one man. If they're not careful, the Dems could take over the House and keep the Senate this election and then vote to impeach the justices if they are out of line. From your lips to the public's ears...
|
|
|
Post by famvir on Mar 1, 2024 15:05:15 GMT -4
I would think the last thing the Supremes would want is a dictator that has more power than them. Right now they call the shots. They are stronger than the President. Trump gets in, the first thing he does is strip them of any power.
|
|
ahah
Landed Gentry
Posts: 629
May 18, 2021 10:34:59 GMT -4
|
Post by ahah on Mar 4, 2024 8:15:32 GMT -4
Here's the thing I don't understand about worries that the Supreme Court would manipulate the election to Trump - why didn't they do it in 2020? There were cases in the recount process in 2020 (Michigan and Arizona I think?) that went to the Supreme Court. The requests were denied and/or the Court refused to take them and lower court rulings against Trump stood. If the Trump appointees were loyalists determined to keep Trump around and allow him to be a dictator, wouldn't Trump have been a more powerful dictator by staying in office in 2020?
|
|
|
Post by prisma on Mar 4, 2024 10:21:04 GMT -4
I dunno. They also said Roe was established law and we see how that turned out so I'm not going to assume that because they didn't do it then, they won't do it now.
|
|
|
Post by Ladybug on Mar 4, 2024 12:24:21 GMT -4
Washington Post: The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously sided with Donald Trump, allowing the former president to remain on the election ballot and reversing a Colorado ruling that disqualified him from returning to office because of his conduct around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office, declaring that such responsibility “rests with Congress and not the states.” The court warned of disruption and chaos if a candidate for nationwide office could be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct.
“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration,” the court said in an unsigned, 13-page opinion.
While the decision was unanimous, the court’s three liberal justices also wrote separately, saying the conservative majority had gone further than necessary in the ruling and decided an issue that was not before the court in an attempt to insulate itself and Trump from “future controversy.”It was 9-0
|
|