@THEMUGG
I think the partisans in the room aren't reading the situation objectively. Colorado isn't deciding an election, they're deciding their election. Their election doesn't impact 49 other states' elections, they can do whtat they want.
In reality, it looks like two things can be true at the same time:
1) The Colorado court made a factual finding, which courts are allowed to do. That finding is that Trump is an insurrectionist.
2) The SCOTUS doesn't want to be viewed as impacting an entire election, so they want the least controversial way out of this. The easiest path to that is to let Trump stay on the ballot.
3) When you don't like the facts, argue the law. When you don't like the law, argue the facts. Here, the SCOTUS doesn't like the factual finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, so the SCOTUS will find a legal analysis to precede or undermine the Colorado Supreme Court's facts.
Conclusion: Millions saw this precise analysis and conclusion, that was why everyone was predicting a month ago that SCOTUS would rule so Trump can stay on the ballot.
Prediction: Trump's absolute immunity defense will be met much differently by this court. They will have no problem trashing that garbage defense, because even (most of) SCOTUS doesn't want a dictator. (Thomas is okay with it if it helps him or Ginni-baby get paid.) Trump's counsel is literally arguing in that case that a sitting president can commit illegal murders and face no repercussions if his party controls Congress and doesn't impeach him. It reaches an absurd result, so that case will lose.
Trumps counsel knows that, but it does eat up another 3-6 months of time until the election, so that's their incentive for doing it.
Let me start off by saying that all the SCOTUS justices are smart as a whip. They didn't get there by being stupid. (That doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing stupid things, some still do.)
But one trend you'll see is that the more elderly justices or Congressmen/Congresswomen will miss a lot of days for unexplained reasons, or sick leave. And I get it that we want generous sick leave. That being said, I agree with you completely - imposing a cutoff age of somewhere around 70-75 and a specific number of maximum sick days is needed.
If FMLA is only good enough to protect your job for 12 weeks because taking more time screws the employer, why are we okay with public servants missing more time than that? To use examples from both sides of the political spectrum, I think Scalia and Ginsburg both missed huge amounts of time. Both should have been booted off the bench once they were absent 40% of the time.
Not just for political cases, but for the criminal appeals. The SCOTUS decides people's lives in criminal appeals, many involving the death penalty. People's lives are literally at stake. You want someone awake and healthy hearing those cases. Octogenarians are not entitled to run our country, just as 20-year-olds are not entitled to run our country.
This thread is supposed to be about
" Trump’s “Absolute Immunity” is “Absolute BS” "
Arguing the merits of Colorado's court action and any resulting SCOTUS action in direct regard to it already has a thread created specifically for that.
It now resides on page two of the forum
when I see a single non-partisan contribution in this forum then I shall refrain from the petty jabs 
@philschnaars
Not sure if you really mean what you posted there but if so you are obviously not really interested in discussion outside of partisan opinions. In this very thread, this same page there are multiple examples of non partisan discussion. Unfortunately the guidelines are not to be observed if you agree with the opinion of the poster, you cant attack or belittle even if the post made is partisan. If you add non-partisan contributions then how can that be a bad thing? Making positive, interesting and respectful conversation is the reason why Covers exists. I hope you can find a way to follow the guidelines and participate in a respectful way going forward.
Hey Phil, do you think any president should have absolute immunity against any criminal liability for crimes committed while in office? Yes or no?
Welp, let me get this straight,
if the fascist crime boss wins his case about "absolute immunity" a decision to be handed down soon by the trump appointed SCOTUS majority,
then he can't be convicted for the plethora of crimes he committed while in office, is that right?
If so,
then that also means President Joe Biden, who still has nearly 11 months left in office, could commit any number of crimes against Trump, his family, the republican party, the MAGA fascists, and corrupt conservative medias, and all that would be okay under the law handed down by the conservatives on SCOTUS?? 
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
