Author Topic: SCOTUS: Texas v PA  (Read 2500 times)

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 17397
  • Total likes: 14336
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: SCOTUS: Texas v PA
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2020, 10:29:15 PM »
I'm not saying it's smart, but I don't think that's the correct bar. To my knowledge, one can be inadmissible to Congress under the 14th amendment without violating the constitution, the two aren't related.
Even if not it is as ridiculous as the lawsuit to say that signing on to a frivolous lawsuit is ground to be ineligible. That you even took that seriously enough to post is just another demonstration of how your biases are distorting your judgement.
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline PlatinumGuy

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 14958
  • Total likes: 2421
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 11
    • View Profile
Re: SCOTUS: Texas v PA
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2020, 10:31:21 PM »
Even if not it is as ridiculous as the lawsuit to say that signing on to a frivolous lawsuit is ground to be ineligible. That you even took that seriously enough to post is just another demonstration of how your biases are distorting your judgement.
Lol, you claimed something utterly false and when you can’t defend it you just attack me as being biased.

I didn’t offer any judgement so there is nothing that can be distorted
״וזה כלל גדול: שישנא אדם כל דבר שקר. וכל מה שיוסיף שנאה לדרכי השקר – יוסיף אהבה לתורה.״ - אורחות צדיקים

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 17397
  • Total likes: 14336
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: SCOTUS: Texas v PA
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2020, 10:35:03 PM »
Lol, you claimed something utterly false and when you can’t defend it you just attack me as being biased.

I didn’t offer any judgement so there is nothing that can be distorted
I wrote violating constitution because that was the idiocy that he wrote. If you actually read the amendment the bar is "insurrection or rebellion". That makes it more ridiculous not less.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability"
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline PlatinumGuy

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 14958
  • Total likes: 2421
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 11
    • View Profile
Re: SCOTUS: Texas v PA
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2020, 12:37:12 AM »
״וזה כלל גדול: שישנא אדם כל דבר שקר. וכל מה שיוסיף שנאה לדרכי השקר – יוסיף אהבה לתורה.״ - אורחות צדיקים