Jamie Raskin's Take on the Constitutional Questions

[icanhelp1]

Like banning books!

Oh.... Wait...

Categorizing books for age appropriate use is not banning.

 

[ll74]

Categorizing books for age appropriate use is not banning.

Lol. Yes, that is what is happening.

 

[dmallord]

Who said he objected to all 50 states? He objected to the certification of Florida and he didn’t follow the rules. Biden was interrupted 11 times by Raskin and others that were out of order. Eventually the vice president had to dumb it down for them by explaining “it is over.”

Okay. Now where is your J6 commentary on Republicans repeated objections to the certification process while the insurrectionist stormed their santuary and had them fleeing for their lives?

Is anything wrong in that scenario you care to pick apart - by some Republicans objecting? Feel free to use the same logic or illogical brain farts you did for Raskin. And please add some colorful language to balance the equation.

 

[rainsol]

By storming the capital or following procedures that failed Trump even with a hoard of insurrections??

You throw around “Marxist” like all the other assholes without comprehension
Just say he’s an asshole you don’t like
One, he’s not. Two, it’s a really really dumb scare tactic


Or when Senator Boxer questioned why voters needed to stand in long lines?
Because that just seemed wrong in a Christian sense of what is right ?
Terribly unconstitutional?? Nope!!

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/art...sidential-vote-count-with-protest-2740511.php

You throw around “Marxist” like all the other assholes without comprehension but you like the other dem assholes throw out insurrection and so far, Mr Trump hasnt been charged with insurrection except on forums and in the media, but not in one court room.

 

[dmallord]

You throw around “Marxist” like all the other assholes without comprehension but you like the other dem assholes throw out insurrection and so far, Mr Trump hasnt been charged with insurrection except on forums and in the media, but not in one court room.

A Colorado court decided he was guilty of insurrection and attempted to remove him from their ballot. The Supreme Court overruled the removal element from the ballot - however - it did not rule to overturn the state court's decision that he was an insurrectionist.

 

[rainsol]

A Colorado court decided he was guilty of insurrection and attempted to remove him from their ballot. The Supreme Court overruled the removal element from the ballot - however - it did not rule to overturn the state court's decision that he was an insurrectionist.

I hate to tell you this but Federal court TRUMPS state court everyday and not one federal grand jury has indicted him. Colorado can wish in one and shit in the other, its doesnt matter or count.

 

[dmallord]

I hate to tell you this but Federal court TRUMPS state court everyday and not one federal grand jury has indicted him. Colorado can wish in one and shit in the other, its doesnt matter or count.

I corrected the error in the post that not one court found him guilty of insurrection. It did; I pointed out the erroneous statement. It is a fact - not that you like it.

Again, the Supreme court did not rule that he was not an insurrectionist ... it answered the question if he should be removed from the ballot. That portion of the State of Colorado's case stands.

No need to get in your reply.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Okay. Now where is your J6 commentary on Republicans repeated objections to the certification process while the insurrectionist stormed their santuary and had them fleeing for their lives?

Is anything wrong in that scenario you care to pick apart - by some Republicans objecting? Feel free to use the same logic or illogical brain farts you did for Raskin. And please add some colorful language to balance the equation.

Your thread is about Jamie Raskin and his take on constitutional question, not Republicans. Since you asked about Republicans who objected to the 2020 results, my answer is those Republicans were being foolish as well.

 

[HisArpy]

A Colorado court decided he was guilty of insurrection and attempted to remove him from their ballot. The Supreme Court overruled the removal element from the ballot - however - it did not rule to overturn the state court's decision that he was an insurrectionist.

As usual, you're wrong.

When a higher court reverses (not "overrules") a lower court decision everything in the lower court decision is reversed. The reason is that the lower court made the wrong decision because it came to the wrong conclusions from the facts.

This is why, upon reversal, you cannot cite the original lower court decision as precedent or fact.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus​

 

[dmallord]

As usual, you're wrong.

When a higher court reverses (not "overrules") a lower court decision everything in the lower court decision is reversed. The reason is that the lower court made the wrong decision because it came to the wrong conclusions from the facts.

This is why, upon reversal, you cannot cite the original lower court decision as precedent or fact.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus​

No. You're mistaken once more.

Your Wikipedia source explains the definitions of 'reverses' and 'not overrules.' It does not reference the Supreme Court's decision on the merits of the Colorado v Trump, removal of his name from the state ballot.

You errored in saying the higher court 'reversed' everything. It narrowed the decision. SCOTUS ruled Colorado could not keep Trump off the ballot. It punted on the decision of Trump's guilt of insurrection.

SCOTUS did not reverse the Colorado State determination that Trump committed insurrection. The SC chose not to address that aspect of the lower court's decision.

Try this quote from www.scotus.com

“The court did not reach some of the other issues that Trump had urged them to decide in his brief on the merits – such as whether Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6.”

Hope the quoted portion helps you to better understand the SC decision. Or go to the link and read the contents for clarification.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in this matter.

 

[rainsol]

I corrected the error in the post that not one court found him guilty of insurrection. It did; I pointed out the erroneous statement. It is a fact - not that you like it.

Again, the Supreme court did not rule that he was not an insurrectionist ... it answered the question if he should be removed from the ballot. That portion of the State of Colorado's case stands.

No need to get in your reply.

Have youi ever heard of the Amnesty act of 1876? It might surprize that it neutered Sec 3 which all the blue states tout.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed ...

God save this country if the dems get their way, they will make Joe Stalin look like a Sunday school teacher and Chairman Mao the preacher.

 

[dmallord]

Have youi ever heard of the Amnesty act of 1876? It might surprize that it neutered Sec 3 which all the blue states tout.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed ...

God save this country if the dems get their way, they will make Joe Stalin look like a Sunday school teacher and Chairman Mao the preacher.

No, I have not heard of it. Nor did I see it cited in the Supreme Court decision by Trump's attorney's or the SC response and ruling.

 

[HisArpy]

No. You're mistaken once more.

Your Wikipedia source explains the definitions of 'reverses' and 'not overrules.' It does not reference the Supreme Court's decision on the merits of the Colorado v Trump, removal of his name from the state ballot.

You errored in saying the higher court 'reversed' everything. It narrowed the decision. SCOTUS ruled Colorado could not keep Trump off the ballot. It punted on the decision of Trump's guilt of insurrection.

SCOTUS did not reverse the Colorado State determination that Trump committed insurrection. The SC chose not to address that aspect of the lower court's decision.

Try this quote from www.scotus.com

“The court did not reach some of the other issues that Trump had urged them to decide in his brief on the merits – such as whether Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6.”

Hope the quoted portion helps you to better understand the SC decision. Or go to the link and read the contents for clarification.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in this matter.

If this is what you wish to believe, you will be disappointed.

The SCOTUS reversed the lower court decision. That reversal means that the lower court decision CANNOT be cited for ANYTHING. Which means that EVERYTHING in the lower court decision is null and void.

Falsus in uno applies because the lower court decision reached the result due to flawed and untrue analysis. It is false in those points which found the State could remove Trump from the ballot and that leads to the conclusion that it is also false in every other aspect because of the same flawed analysis and logic that led to the improper decision. False in one, false in all. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The same democracy-loving Jamie Raskin who tried to block certification of the 2016 election. Nice!

Hey speaking of the 2016 election, did you hear the latest yesterday?

• ABC spends tens of millions of dollars on proprietary exit polling on election day 2016..
• It was embargoed at ABC and not released to staff until 5 pm on election day.
• The results were not to be released to ANY political candidate until polls closed at 8 pm local time.
• At 5:01 PM a senior ABC producer made a cell phone call to an old work buddy working for Jared Kushner and gave him the bad news: Trump was going to lose 3 key midwestern states.
• The producer's buddy went immediately to Jared Kushner and hooooo haaaa a flippin MIRACLE occurred because a grand total of 77,000 votes were found RIGHT BEFORE CLOSING OF THE POLLS that tipped ALL THREE states to Donald Trump.

An ELECTION DAY MIRACLE!

Who needs Russia when you got God and ABC on your side?

The next time the world's oldest Gen-Xer, Vietnam vet RightGuide, starts yammering about 1960 Chicago vote, I'm gonna reply with ABC 2016 Proprietary Poll Leak.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hey speaking of the 2016 election, did you hear the latest yesterday?

• ABC spends tens of millions of dollars on proprietary exit polling on election day 2016..
• It was embargoed at ABC and not released to staff until 5 pm on election day.
• The results were not to be released to ANY political candidate until polls closed at 8 pm local time.
• At 5:01 PM a senior ABC producer made a cell phone call to an old work buddy working for Jared Kushner and gave him the bad news: Trump was going to lose 3 key midwestern states.
• The producer's buddy went immediately to Jared Kushner and hooooo haaaa a flippin MIRACLE occurred because a grand total of 77,000 votes were found RIGHT BEFORE CLOSING OF THE POLLS that tipped ALL THREE states to Donald Trump.

An ELECTION DAY MIRACLE!

Who needs Russia when you got God and ABC on your side?

The next time the world's oldest Gen-Xer, Vietnam vet RightGuide, starts yammering about 1960 Chicago vote, I'm gonna reply with ABC 2016 Proprietary Poll Leak.

Yes, the 2016 election was rigged! Jared Fucking Kushner.

 

[dmallord]

If this is what you wish to believe, you will be disappointed.

The SCOTUS reversed the lower court decision. That reversal means that the lower court decision CANNOT be cited for ANYTHING. Which means that EVERYTHING in the lower court decision is null and void.

Falsus in uno applies because the lower court decision reached the result due to flawed and untrue analysis. It is false in those points which found the State could remove Trump from the ballot and that leads to the conclusion that it is also false in every other aspect because of the same flawed analysis and logic that led to the improper decision. False in one, false in all. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

I've been very disappointed with most of what I've read about Trump's business practices and his morality issues.

The quote I provided was from the SCOTUS website. It was simple English and had a clear meaning. It said the SC didn't rule on the insurrection issue. If ruled on one issue, only the appearance on the ballot. So, yes, I believe, as the document says, that the insurrection issue stands unanswered, not overturned.

 

[HisArpy]

I've been very disappointed with most of what I've read about Trump's business practices and his morality issues.

The quote I provided was from the SCOTUS website. It was simple English and had a clear meaning. It said the SC didn't rule on the insurrection issue. If ruled on one issue, only the appearance on the ballot. So, yes, I believe, as the document says, that the insurrection issue stands unanswered, not overturned.

You're citing to one thing as proof that another thing is still viable when it isn't.

The SCOTUS reversed the Colorado decision. That means EVERYTHING in the Colorado decision is reversed.

Whether Congress acts or doesn't act changes nothing in regards to the reversal because that will happen (if at all) in the future. Thus, the insurrection issue isn't open until/if Congress takes it up. Should Congress not do so, the issue remains CLOSED because of that due process thing in the Constitution.

Which is, once again, something you're trying to eliminate while decrying Trump as the one attempting to destroy democracy.

 

[dmallord]

You're citing to one thing as proof that another thing is still viable when it isn't.

The SCOTUS reversed the Colorado decision. That means EVERYTHING in the Colorado decision is reversed.

Whether Congress acts or doesn't act changes nothing in regards to the reversal because that will happen (if at all) in the future. Thus, the insurrection issue isn't open until/if Congress takes it up. Should Congress not do so, the issue remains CLOSED because of that due process thing in the Constitution.

Which is, once again, something you're trying to eliminate while decrying Trump as the one attempting to destroy democracy.

Do you know what Donald Trump did when he didn't like the advice given by his attorneys?

He asked another, then another, and more, and so on until he found one that gave him the answer he wanted to hear. It got him into great trouble. It was hubris that got him where he is.

Right now, I think I'll seek better counsel on the matter.

 

[HisArpy]

Do you know what Donald Trump did when he didn't like the advice given by his attorneys?

He asked another, then another, and more, and so on until he found one that gave him the answer he wanted to hear. It got him into great trouble. It was hubris that got him where he is.

Right now, I think I'll seek better counsel on the matter.

I have had several cases where my client was told by other attorneys that they had no chance and would lose in court.

My win record in court is undefeated. Even for those clients with cases that others said were unwinnable.

Which basically disproves your theory.

The funny part is that you're saying you're going to do EXACTLY what Trump did - seek another opinion until you find one that says what you want to hear.

Karma!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

My win record in court is undefeated.

LMFAO, so either you've never set foot in a court, or you're lying. I base my statement on your posting record on this site....

 

[dmallord]

I have had several cases where my client was told by other attorneys that they had no chance and would lose in court.

My win record in court is undefeated. Even for those clients with cases that others said were unwinnable.

Which basically disproves your theory.

The funny part is that you're saying you're going to do EXACTLY what Trump did - seek another opinion until you find one that says what you want to hear.

Karma!

Humous irony, my friend, just poking your rib a bit. I'm glad you picked up on that.

"Undefeated record" sounds just like Donald's record, if you ask him.

We live in a country, that still allows for intellectual debate without blunt force trauma.

 

[HisArpy]

Humous irony, my friend, just poking your rib a bit. I'm glad you picked up on that.

"Undefeated record" sounds just like Donald's record, if you ask him.

We live in a country, that still allows for intellectual debate without blunt force trauma.

Winning is winning. And no game plan survives the first contact intact. It's how you react that counts.

Trump is a billionaire. There are those who choose not to believe it, but facts are facts and denial erases none of them. In the end he's a billionaire and that means he's a winner.

I'm not a billionaire but my successes speak for themselves. There are those who choose not to believe in those successes but facts are facts. In the end I'm as much of a winner as Trump is, just not on the same scale.

The point of debate isn't to win or lose, it's to point out the flaws in both sides of the argument so that the players and fans will open their eyes to the truth. The problem here is that truth isn't what you choose to present in your debate argument. Instead you chose to use media narrative as if it were fact and dismiss actual fact because it contradicts what you've been told by those who benefit "yugely" when you follow along where they lead.

As a game plan that stinks. You should reconsider your methodology.

 

[Rightguide]

A Colorado court decided he was guilty of insurrection and attempted to remove him from their ballot. The Supreme Court overruled the removal element from the ballot - however - it did not rule to overturn the state court's decision that he was an insurrectionist

With no indictment, no charges filed, no trial by jury, no due process of law. Just a bunch of uneducated leftists declaring their legal fantasies to be true.

 

[dmallord]

Winning is winning. And no game plan survives the first contact intact. It's how you react that counts.

Trump is a billionaire. There are those who choose not to believe it, but facts are facts and denial erases none of them. In the end he's a billionaire and that means he's a winner.

I'm not a billionaire but my successes speak for themselves. There are those who choose not to believe in those successes but facts are facts. In the end I'm as much of a winner as Trump is, just not on the same scale.

The point of debate isn't to win or lose, it's to point out the flaws in both sides of the argument so that the players and fans will open their eyes to the truth. The problem here is that truth isn't what you choose to present in your debate argument. Instead you chose to use media narrative as if it were fact and dismiss actual fact because it contradicts what you've been told by those who benefit "yugely" when you follow along where they lead.

As a game plan that stinks. You should reconsider your methodology.

It's hard to know Trump's actual net worth, as most of his properties are heavily mortgaged. Despite his claims of having cash reserves, his lawyers have confirmed that he doesn't have enough resources to fund his appeals. In reality, he is "cash poor," meaning he has very little liquid cash on hand.

Trump is not yet a winner; he is, at most, a survivor. I hope you count yourself a much better winner than Trump. He is morally broken; I hope you haven't sunk to his level in either business or personal affairs.

We should consider all available information when formulating an opinion. Your sources are no better than mine, and your legal background does not necessarily make your argument more accurate. By considering all perspectives, we can ensure our discussions are fair and well-informed.

"I have confidence in my methodology and game plan. As you said, no game plan can survive the first contact intact. If necessary, I am adaptable. However, the true victory will be determined by the court of public opinion on November 5th. It is then that we will find out which individual will lead our nation in a free and fair election. Hopefully, it will be the sane and rational one who is not fueled by belligerence and lies."

 

[Rightguide]

It's hard to know Trump's actual net worth, as most of his properties are heavily mortgaged. Despite his claims of having cash reserves, his lawyers have confirmed that he doesn't have enough resources to fund his appeals. In reality, he is "cash poor," meaning he has very little liquid cash on hand.

Trump is not yet a winner; he is, at most, a survivor. I hope you count yourself a much better winner than Trump. He is morally broken; I hope you haven't sunk to his level in either business or personal affairs.

We should consider all available information when formulating an opinion. Your sources are no better than mine, and your legal background does not necessarily make your argument more accurate. By considering all perspectives, we can ensure our discussions are fair and well-informed.

"I have confidence in my methodology and game plan. As you said, no game plan can survive the first contact intact. If necessary, I am adaptable. However, the true victory will be determined by the court of public opinion on November 5th. It is then that we will find out which individual will lead our nation in a free and fair election. Hopefully, it will be the sane and rational one who is not fueled by belligerence and lies."

Did you consult with Rachel Maddow before posting?