From "Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Monday on Trump’s Eligibility to Hold Office/An unusual announcement from the court provided a strong hint that the justices will act the day before the primaries on Super Tuesday" (NYT).
I think we all know that Trump will win. The question is how he will win — whether the issue will be conclusively resolved or left with loose ends to be tied up at some later point in the process.
Posts
14 comments:
It’s not going to be unanimous.
Roberts wants a unified court at 9-0. So do I.
But the Betting Me is placing money on a 7-2, with the Wide Latina & the most recent (& worst) AA Hire as the skunks.
Not following unwritten rules started with Gore in 2000. It turns out that unwritten rules are what provide stability. Now the Supreme Court is going to have to issue nit-picking written rules to stamp out the grass fires that are starting up all over.
Unwritten rules are what sociologist Erving Goffman always wrote about, rules everybody follows but don't know that they're there. A reason to be interested in that non-woke form of sociology.
Goffman worked by irony.
Roberts likes those loose ends. Both sides get some hope for future decisions. Also I suspect he's trying to go 9-0 on anything concerning Trump.
Donald Trump got less than 800 votes in the DC primary, in a city with a population of 700,000, Yes, these 700,000 people should be deciding who is allowed to be the president of the whole country through the abuse of the prosecutorial powers.
I've been reading the asylum book by Erving Goffman. It's very interesting. Thanks for the tip rhhardin.
After 2 years and more than 100 jury trials, not a single J6 defendant has walked out of a DC courtroom fully exonerated by DC jurors. Not one.
I await the rending of clothes and the gnashing of teeth.
It's not the outcome, but whether there's a single opinion that 5 sign on to. I'm thinking the over/under on the number of opinions in the majority is 2.5, and I'd bet the over.
Sorry, less than 700 votes, so less than one person in a thousand supports Trump strongly enough to vote for him. This is the same jury pool that let off that FBI agent who broke the law going after Trump because he was "doing it in a good cause."
I once listened to a podcast of a guy who was an international lawyer, and he actually had studied Soviet law, and he said that the textbooks actually made it plain that every legal case was about the man, and the law was just there to make sure that the enemy of the state was convicted of something.
Roberts will go for the least intrusive decision, hoping to find the smallest technical detail to focus on rather than larger issues.
I think we all know that Trump will win. The question is how he will win — whether the issue will be conclusively resolved or left with loose ends to be tied up at some later point in the process.
And the answer is that the 5 men are done with the lawfare BS, and ruled it done conclusively.
The 4 women all agreed that CO was nuts, but 3 of them desperately wanted to let the lefties keep trying to come up with some lawfare that isn't 100% terminally stupid, whereas Barrett just didn't want to be mean to the poor dears.
Lloyd W. Robertson said...
Roberts likes those loose ends.
Not today he didn't. Roberts is just barely intelligent enough to have figured out that having 1/2 the country realize the courts are utterly corrupt is a really bad idea.
And no, lefties, having you lunatics decide that teh court is "utterly corrupt" because it won't trample over everything to give you what you want is NOT, in fact, a concern worthy of consideration.
Any more than taking it to heart when a tantrum three year old shouts "I hate you"
Post a Comment