on either side, it's because people have been conditioned to give knee-jerk reactions rather than reading something completely and entirely, thinking about it, and then responding.
I did not read any language in the joint opinion stating that Trump had been part of an insurrection.
It indicated that a state does not have the authority to bar a candidate from that state's ballot on the ground that the individual is an oath breaking insurrectionist.
That is not an accusation, or a legal finding of wrong doing on part of the candidate.
They simply specify that a state has no power to block a presidential candidate from the ballot for that act.
How about you just quote the specific language that you believe says Trump, without a doubt, been a apart of an insurrection on January 6th cause I am not seeing it?
Neither have I seen any mention of the border.
Point that language out as well.
[deleted]
0 ups, 8mo
OOOOH my dumbass swapped arguments regarding the hearings not the ruleings.
Sorry total brain fart on my part.
It had been mentioned in the hearings that states were contemplating retaliation by claiming Biden was in violation of section 3 over “border issues.”
"THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO OVERRULE COLORADO'S STATE COURT DECISION TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT; BUT THIS DECISION WAS A PARTISAN DECISION; IT WAS UNANIMOUS AND YOU'RE STILL SAYING IT'S "PARTISAN"
