Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D
Posts
15
Comments
845
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I’ve seen both. Making science accessible is always a good thing. He also has moments where he’ll aggressively debate someone over the Amazon river basin or ancient civilizations when it’s apparent he’s out of his element.

  • There are only nine Justices on SCOTUS. That’s who I’ve been talking about. We only need 5 for majority, and have been getting 7. There are two Trump loyalists, Alito and Thomas.

  • That’s all we need with Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Although many of the more recent rulings included Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as well.

  • In fairness, he actually knows a lot about astrophysics. The problem is that he likes to pontificate on all things science as if he’s degreed in every field.

  • Have you heard anything from Roberts or Barrett in the last month? They’re not putting up with any of this anymore. Roberts explicitly called out the administration’s attempts to circumvent the Constitution and had a speech on how we need to protect the rule of law. They’ve both been voting reasonably in regards to human rights. They’re still both fiscally conservative, however.

  • That’s not the goal of 7/9 Justices. They’re trying to protect the rule of law and uphold the Constitution.

  • I’m glad you agree. I think it’s time for your nap, little one.

  • I read through the entire report from Smith. He did not. He said, “March on the Capitol,” “Fight like hell,” “Show our strength,” and other similar notions, but he did not explicitly instruct them to storm or attack the Capitol building. That’s a key part of what the prosecution needed to prove in court through testimony of those in the Oval Office at the time.

    He was handed a piece of paper that said they’re storming the Capitol. He crumpled it up, tossed in on the floor, and continued pressing Pence into invalidating the election results. That is incriminating, since any actions from that point on that did not include dispatching the National Guard could be seen as criminal conspiracy. But again, that needs to be proven in court.

  • That could be argued as a poor decision or incompetence. You’d need to prove it in court otherwise it’s hearsay. It’s not like there’s photographic proof of him breaking into the White House.

  • We didn’t see Trump break into the White House. Unless it’s proven that he was a part of it, he’s not part of it. Innocent until proven guilty.

    You need legal documentation to prove your age, yes. It must be issued by a state of federal governing body. You can’t just have your friend vouch for you.

  • Correct. How do we determine that someone was involved in an insurrection? You can’t hold him accountable to the crime without conviction or adjudication. Otherwise it’s merely an accusation, and anyone could just say a person was part of an insurrection to bar them from holding office.

  • That’s true. It would be absolutely insane, but they have the legal power to make such a ruling.

  • So you think that someone can say “he was a part of an insurrection” the night before an election and allow the contender to automatically win?

    You’re arguing semantics and completely missing the point. Conviction or adjudication is how we prove things happened. It’s how the law works.

  • Condescension is unnecessary and childish. Not one thing you have written is legal. I asked you what can a government legally do to someone outside of their jurisdiction.

  • Real runners compete against themselves. Good on ya, kid!

  • I follow, but you’re talking about the practical application of the situation after the ruling. I’m talking about it being the reason SCOTUS couldn’t make that ruling in the first place.

  • I didn’t say it was. I’m saying that’s why Jack Smith did not charge him with inciting an insurrection. It was not an insurrection by definition if he was a part of it. If he was not a part of it, it could be considered one. It’s legally murky.

  • Without conviction, what is to stop anyone from simply accusing a President of participating in an insurrection and immediately having them removed from office?