Olbermann is the worst of the worst. There's not one bit of rationality in that nutcase.

I doubt Colbert has commented on this matter today. What in the world could he possibly say to a unanimous SCOTUS ruling? "At least it was close."?

The war may continue, but this battle is won. It's Time to celebrate. I'm thinking of a steak dinner. Or maybe I should save that for the Super Tuesday Victory.

Decisions, decisions...

^^^ Both!

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Olbermann is the worst of the worst. There's not one bit of rationality in that nutcase.

Good assessment. Colbert is in the minor leagues compared to Olbermann. I am going to record Colbert's monologue tonight. It will provide some good entertainment when I get home from work tomorrow

^^^ Why give him the ratings?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
^^^ Why give him the ratings?

Do you really think my click will bring him out of the ratings cellar he's in? I guess I could watch highlights on a Rumble channel that only shows pieces of his schtick. I do want to see his meltdown(s).

Looks like there are three separate opinions from SCOTUS. The majority opinion from all the 5 men, and two separate concurring ones (one from the 3 lib women, and one from ACB).

Justice Amy Coney Barrett sides with liberal justices on Trump ballot decision going too far

By Natalia Mittelstadt
Published: March 4, 2024 4:15pm

In the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision on Monday that former President Donald Trump can remain on the 2024 presidential ballot in Colorado, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with liberal justices in her concurring opinion, saying that the majority's ruling went too far.

The Monday decision strikes down the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that found Trump ineligible for the ballot due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which contains a clause banning people who "engaged in insurrection" from holding office. The state high court said he violated the amendment through his alleged involvement in attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the "responsibility for enforcing" the 14th Amendment's "insurrection" clause "against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States."

The court said that "the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States."

In the majority opinion, five of the conservative justices noted that they, unlike the other four justices, believe that only Congress has "the power to enforce" Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

“These are not the only reasons the States lack power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices,” the opinion continued. “But they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion—not, as some of our colleagues would have it, just one particular rationale—that resolves this case. In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.”

The three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed with the majority's judgment but offered a separate concurring opinion, writing, “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”

Barrett wrote in her own separate concurring opinion that she thinks the court only needed to determine whether states lack the power to enforce the insurrection clause. "It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced," she wrote.

"For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she also said.

Barrett has sided with the liberal justices in prior cases before the court, the Washington Examiner reports. In some instances, she has been the sole conservative justice to join them, and other times has joined them with Chief Justice John Roberts, according to Slate.

quote:

Barrett wrote in her own separate concurring opinion that she thinks the court only needed to determine whether states lack the power to enforce the insurrection clause. "It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced," she wrote.

"For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she also said.

The problem with Barrett is that she has no balls.

She only wants to decide case on extremely narrow grounds, going no further than she absolutely has to. The problem with that is that not every case can reach the Supreme Court so being so narrowly focused only leads to further confusion and difficulty.

At least she made the right decision on this case

Also in today's news, the Illinois traffic court judge who ordered Donald Trump removed from the ballot issued a warrant for his arrest for three unpaid parking tickets from 1986.

Actually, the tickets were issued to a Ronald Stump, but in the words of the judge, "That's close enough."

.
In wake of SCOTUS ruling, Maine secretary of state withdraws Trump disqualification

Freakin' commie. You should have stayed out of it, stupid.

Meanwhile:



If this isn't treason, the word has lost all meaning.

Really? We're flying them in now!??!?!?!

quote:

Really? We're flying them in now!??!?!?!

Well yeah, makes the border numbers look better.
What the actual fuck??!!
How can this not be prima facie grounds for impeachment?

Regarding the SCOTUS decision: the five white men (Justice Thomas obviously qualifies as a white man) could see a flood of cases coming without limit, put their foot down to say "Stop this crap!" just as they should.

Too bad about widdew Amy Bawwett.

Wow, I knew Olbermann was an unhinged leftist loony toon but this is marvelous!

Fani Willis warned Nathan Wade’s lawyer to stay quiet about affair, court filing claims: ‘They are coming after us’

https://nypost.com/2024/03/04/...ack&utm_medium=email

A new witness could testify Fani Willis warned lover Nathan Wade’s former business partner to stay quiet about their affair, an explosive new court filing claims.

“They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us,” Willis is alleged to have warned Terrence Bradley in a September 2023 phone call.

The call was overheard by Cobb County, Georgia, prosecutor Cindi Lee Yeager, according to court papers filed Monday by David Schafer, a co-defendant of former President Donald Trump.

Willis and Wade have said under oath they were only romantic between 2022 and 2023, long after the case started.

At a hearing over whether to disqualify Willis last week, Bradley claimed on the stand that he had no “knowledge” of when the two prosecutors started dating.

But the filing says Yeager would swear under oath that that was at odds with what Bradley told Yeager in person — that the romance began in 2019, during Willis’ DA campaign.

Yeager is willing to testify that Bradley told her Wade “had definitively begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020,” Monday’s filing says.

It was not immediately clear Monday whether the court would reopen the hearing to receive additional evidence.

Reps for Willis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

More at link

Super Tuesday!

I voted.

I figured stupid leftys were at least sane about the SC Colorado ballot case being a stretch, and were only preemptively complaining about the SC as a setup for the immunity case. After listening to the whackos at the cable dem operative propaganda stations react about the Colorado case yesterday, they are either all nuts, or are squeezing every drop to motivate all the crazies that listen.

An interesting take by Kurt Schlichter on the Presidential immunity case.

https://twitter.com/KurtSchlic.../1764894584428228981



"Interesting thought on the presidential immunity issue. I’ve been pretty clear that I think the Supreme Court is going to find that there is no absolute presidential immunity and that an impeachment is not a prerequisite, but also that presidential immunity does exist for official acts. It is then going to send the case back to the lower court to determine whether specific acts that form the basis of the criminal charges are official acts. Those that are official acts cannot be the basis of a criminal charge because of presidential immunity, probably gutting the ridiculous DC case.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Some of his actions were apparently tweets. I haven’t researched it, but wasn’t there a lawsuit to keep him from blocking people on Twitter? And wasn’t one of the reasons he could not block people that tweeting and communicating with the citizens is an official act? I haven’t gone back and read the case, but I think it would be hilarious if eventually the obnoxious resistance cases against Donald Trump for blocking people on Twitter were cited by his team as precedent showing that tweeting to the American people is an official act. Just a thought."

I saw that Kurt Schlichter post last night and was intrigued by the possibilities.