Fu*%face Von Clownstick

Bucknut said:
Nope. Not trying to practice law. Can’t stand lawyers, excepting a few friends and the one I’m married to. Actually, to be more precise, I can’t stand “the law” sometimes. Example:

www.palmbeachpost.com

Judge dismisses 14th Amendment lawsuit against Trump, rules plaintiffs lack standing.

A federal court in Fort Lauderdale on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump's 2024 presidential candidacy under the 14th Amendment.
www.palmbeachpost.com

What really turned me off was that it truly doesn’t matter if you have the law or the facts on your side. All you really need is the judge on your side.
Click to expand...
That’s not really what happened here though. The judge was doing what judges are supposed to do and remained impartial, strictly limiting their judgments by applying the law as it is written. This is one of the reasons why it matters so much that you not only understand what you are talking about, but that you also choose your words carefully and ensure that they state exactly, and clearly, the specific idea that you wanted to convey. I have seen this issue come up many times in my life, and it’s something that has pissed me off before, but also something that has benefited me. “Standing” is having a dog in the fight. If you’re not being specifically and directly injured by someone’s or some groups actions, then you can’t sue them because you don’t actually have a proverbial dog in that fight. While I don’t believe that Donny should be allowed to run again, the law, as it is currently written, does in fact protect him from that angle of attack. If Biden, or any other candidate wanted to file that suit, they might have a case. The fact that they haven’t says to me that they like things the way they are for now, as it fuels fears that the orange clown might take the office if they don’t vote for the blue clown, thereby preserving their chances at maintaining the status quo.
 
Agree. To clarify, I’m not upset by the ruling and appreciate the judge’s impartiality/professionalism. But I get how Trump haters would be angry.

I tend to be a very “black and white” guy. Lawyers live in the gray.
 
They must, as most things in life really aren’t black or white. It’s almost all shades of grey, and the black and white spots are optical illusions, created by areas of high contrast. Careful analysis will always show grey. Sorry to shit on your whole world view, but it’s very seldom that way.
 
When we were born, life and the world is so bright like an sheet of white brand new blank paper. Then, time goes by it start to gets creases and wrinkles and it gives out shadows and doubts of greys . In bad case , it's gets hard folds to it and gives out black shadows. In everyways it's hard to bring back it's original shape to turn back a piece of brand new blank white paper. Society , reputations , Friendships, relationships, family ties , supporting public figures , etc .
It's very hard to keep brand new blank page in original shape . Trust is such. It's so easy to lose and lose it all at once. once it loses its shape it's can't be turn back to it's original brand new blank paper any more ... For those regular people most important things is family and friendships. When you know it is important its better to pay attention and keep its trust intact. Because it's so easy to lose and if it loses most likely there is no turning back .
 
Pinhead Squirrel said:
When we were born, life and the world is so bright like an sheet of white brand new blank paper. Then, time goes by it start to gets creases and wrinkles and it gives out shadows and doubts of greys . In bad case , it's gets hard folds to it and gives out black shadows. In everyways it's hard to bring back it's original shape to turn back a piece of brand new blank white paper. Society , reputations , Friendships, relationships, family ties , supporting public figures , etc .
It's very hard to keep brand new blank page in original shape . Trust is such. It's so easy to lose and lose it all at once. once it loses its shape it's can't be turn back to it's original brand new blank paper any more ... For those regular people most important things is family and friendships. When you know it is important its better to pay attention and keep its trust intact. Because it's so easy to lose and if it loses most likely there is no turning back .
Click to expand...
That was a good post.
 
Boomslang said:
No person shall...hold any office...under the United States...who, having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.

There are a lot of other words in there, but these are the important ones.
Click to expand...
Nowhere does it say that Trump needs to be convicted of rebellion or insurrection to be disqualified. Just that he was in engaged in rebellion or insurrection, and/or gave aid or comfort to the enemy (proud boys, oath keeper, etc.). Gonna be awful hard for anyone to argue that he wasn’t engaged in all of the above.
 
Last edited:
rico said:
Nowhere does it say that Trump needs to be convicted of rebellion or insurrection to be disqualified. Just that he was in engaged in rebellion or insurrection, and/or gave aid or comfort to the enemy. Gonna be awful hard for anyone to argue that he wasn’t engaged in all of the above.
Click to expand...
I see. And how, pray tell, does one prove he was engaged in insurrection or rebellion? (Wait, my fault. In your world proof is not required). So who gets to summarily “decide” he was engaged in those actions?

For argument’s sake, what if Trump was accused of some other disqualifying felony like armed robbery? Would he need to be convicted of it, or would his political enemies simply “decide” that he was “engaged” in it?

Obviously you are correct that the text does not contain the word “convicted”. But we could go on a hell of a derail about what the text of the Constitution does or does not contain and what rights stem from those words or omissions.

Still chuckling at your new respect for constitutional originalism. You’re coming around.
 
Bucknut said:
I see. And how, pray tell, does one prove he was engaged in insurrection or rebellion? . . .
Click to expand...
Are you honestly saying that you don't think Trump had anything to do with what happened 6th Jan? That he wasn't the entire inspiration for it? That you don't believe the various footage of him instructing his Maggats to march on the capitol, him pressuring Pence to refuse to certify, etc? You don't think any of that happened, Buck? As far as I can see, his own words and actions on camera are proof enough. A jury shouldn't have to look any further.
 
Bucknut said:
I see. And how, pray tell, does one prove he was engaged in insurrection or rebellion? (Wait, my fault. In your world proof is not required). So who gets to summarily “decide” he was engaged in those actions?

For argument’s sake, what if Trump was accused of some other disqualifying felony like armed robbery? Would he need to be convicted of it, or would his political enemies simply “decide” that he was “engaged” in it?

Obviously you are correct that the text does not contain the word “convicted”. But we could go on a hell of a derail about what the text of the Constitution does or does not contain and what rights stem from those words or omissions.

Still chuckling at your new respect for constitutional originalism. You’re coming around.
Click to expand...
Flawed as it may be, there is a process, and it’s underway. Look closely enough and you’ll see it.
 
Burrapeg said:
Are you honestly saying that you don't think Trump had anything to do with what happened 6th Jan? That he wasn't the entire inspiration for it? That you don't believe the various footage of him instructing his Maggats to march on the capitol, him pressuring Pence to refuse to certify, etc? You don't think any of that happened, Buck? As far as I can see, his own words and actions on camera are proof enough. A jury shouldn't have to look any further.
Click to expand...
J 6th is just the tip of the iceberg bro. The culminations of all of his other illegal efforts to overturn the 202 election results. Fake electors. Hacking into to states voting systems. Pressuring elected officials to change election results. Just a small sampling of the shenanigans Donny was up to in his effort to undue a couple hundred years of the peaceful transfer of power. Unfortunately for Donny and his cult member much of it was caught on video and audio, and the rest has already been proven by testimony from those directly involved in all of Donny illegal election schemes.
 
Burrapeg said:
A jury shouldn't have to look any further.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying there should be a jury? Therefore a trial? And wait for it…. a conviction?

For the 647th time, Trump’s behavior post-election was childish and unacceptable. Why, it might even be enough to render him permanently unelectable. And I think it is. But that’s not enough for his rabid haters. They don’t want justice, they want vengeance. His suffering brings them joy. Not a great look. Personally or politically.
 
He tried to overthrow our Government. That is way beyond childish and unacceptable. That is treason. We have in the past executed people for treason. Vengeance? You bet I want it. I would crack a smile and a beer if he got life in prison, and I don't drink.
 
Meh. Half the country disagrees. Funny how some think he deserves a mugshot, the rest think he deserves a monument. We’re playing with fire here. If we keep it up, odds are things will burn.
 
Bucknut said:
Meh. Half the country disagrees. Funny how some think he deserves a mugshot, the rest think he deserves a monument. We’re playing with fire here. If we keep it up, odds are things will burn.
Click to expand...
Not half the country disagrees. Only the loud, way out in lala land hardcore Trumpers. Right now, he could run against Captain Kangaroo and he would lose.
And the more the Republican Party tries to stick by him, the more they drag the party down the drain. Right now the Republican Party is seen as a joke. A bunch of nut cases. They only stick with him because he is the only one with a following. Bad following, but a following none the less.
 
Last edited:
Matias said:
That’s not really what happened here though. The judge was doing what judges are supposed to do and remained impartial, strictly limiting their judgments by applying the law as it is written. This is one of the reasons why it matters so much that you not only understand what you are talking about, but that you also choose your words carefully and ensure that they state exactly, and clearly, the specific idea that you wanted to convey. I have seen this issue come up many times in my life, and it’s something that has pissed me off before, but also something that has benefited me. “Standing” is having a dog in the fight. If you’re not being specifically and directly injured by someone’s or some groups actions, then you can’t sue them because you don’t actually have a proverbial dog in that fight. While I don’t believe that Donny should be allowed to run again, the law, as it is currently written, does in fact protect him from that angle of attack. If Biden, or any other candidate wanted to file that suit, they might have a case. The fact that they haven’t says to me that they like things the way they are for now, as it fuels fears that the orange clown might take the office if they don’t vote for the blue clown, thereby preserving their chances at maintaining the status quo.
Click to expand...
Great analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom