I'm losing all faith in the judicial branch and legal profession.

Bunch of over paid, over educated dumbf*&^s who seemingly can't step back for a 40,000 foot view of the forest to save their lives.

Your rants about something you have minimal knowledge on are getting tiresome.

Good for you.

I'll remind you of this in January 2025 when Trump is back in office and doing exactly what he said he'd do.

Or I'll eat crow at some point between then and now.

I hope it's the second.

BTW you've said nothing to placate my concerns. In fact, you've only reinforced them because you're too close and can't or won't see it any other way.

Cool false equivalency, though. This isn't based, at all, on immediate gratification on my part.

Also, there's a bit of irony (unintentional, I'm sure) in your comparison.

When an emergency hit (COVID pandemic), ---- got done.

And it got done by the field coalescing around finding a solution to a once in a century problem by turning to people who knew the field, getting acquainted with it so they could convert their own lab's activities to SARS2 research and using past knowledge to inform current solutions and obtain data necessary to develop and produce a vaccine and other preventatives in record time.

There wasn't "well, my lab isn't a coronavirus lab" or "my lab doesn't work on vaccines" or "shifting gears will make it hard to go back to the research program I was previously running before COVID."

They. Got. ----. Done.

Even figuring out how to modify clinical trial protocols to make it f&^%ing happen.

So spare me. What is easily the biggest test of our judiciary in a century is being met with "I can't do this, shouldn't you be doing this? Who's doing this?" as a response.

And if (big IF I hope) Trump does get on the ballot and pull off an authoritarian take over, the judiciary will have proven itself just as useless as I'm starting to think they are right now, no matter how much self-righteous whining they engage in.

only prohibits an insurrectionist from "holding" office and therefore the claim is not ripe *yet* as to someone seeking to "run" for office.

This is like letting a house catch fire before fixing an electrical problem.

You're so wed, as a profession, to semantics and hyper literal nonsense you're going to create a crisis, willingly, by letting a man get elected before saying "nah, just kidding, you can't hold office."

That is f*&^ing retarded. Like shrimptacodan level retarded.

You know what, Joe, I hope that I am wrong and you'll be here to rub my face in my own piles on the floor when I am.

Seriously.

And I'll gladly take my lumps when and if it happens.

You should be glad that good judges and lawyers actually read words instead of controlling your life however the ---- they feel like it.

Dude. We're talking about the survival of our Republic.

Now, if you don't believe that, just say so.

Otherwise, admit that the usual, head scratching "duhhhhhhhhhh think about the semantics, I'm not listed in the Constitution during a time of crisis" approach might not be the best here.

Do you feel that way about Haley or DeSantis or does that just apply to Trump?

#31 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Have Haley and DeSantis planned and initiated a plot to subvert a legal election?

Using the legal system to keep a front runner candidate off the ballot opens its own can of worms.

#32 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Only a partisan moron puts this kind of spin on this otherwise very clear situation.

And i'm not saying that should intimidate anyone from trying, I'm telling you to be realistic about what the consequences of that sort of action would be.

#35 | POSTED BY JOE

I've already addressed this and you don't need to keep repeating it. That the Repubs would use it in bad faith isn't some insightful statement.

I would add, though, if the judiciary is capable of doing its job this time, why wouldn't it do its job then?