…if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine
Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.
And even then what would the new court do? If they go back to operating the way they did before this judicial coup, that wouldn’t actually fix any of the damage done. Or remove the traitor sitting on the SCOTUS.
Once they legalized coups, they lost all legitimacy in my opinion.
The SCOTUS situation is scarier than the POTUS situation which was already frightening enough.
I think we largely agree. I’m just saying the old plan is the best plan we have until there is a new plan.
You can’t burn the bridge until after you cross the river.
Which part confused you? I’m happy to help you understand if you like.
lol - I’m not the one who deleted and replaced my entire comment.
I purposely left the part you complained about so people could see the context.
And the point I made was it didn’t matter the difference in word choice. The original point still stands; “Coerce” or “convince”.
I’m not denying it. I’m saying having an actual plan in the really-real world where we’re all going to the polls to vote in 4 months is necessary. I personally can’t imagine a plan that doesn’t start with a Biden endorsement but I am receptive to ideas.
If there isn’t a real live actual viable plan that can be executed; where enough voters can rally around the plan and candidate and not be butt-hurt and vengeful that their primary vote is being discarded and show up at the polls to vote for democracy then Trump will win.
And until that plan is made and executed whinging about Biden isn’t helpful. We all saw the debate. We know the situation.
I’m not saying you want Trump. I’m saying doing what you’re doing isn’t helpful.
Coercing Convincing someone who doesn’t want the job is not a solution.
Anyone calling to replace him with no fucking plan is hoping for exactly that.
deleted by creator
Pretty sure you’re the only person to post there other than jimmydoreisalefty
I (briefly) accidentally downvoted you out of habit before realizing this is not the usual propaganda…
No but he would only agree to working one day a week as POTUS.
The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony
I see - I assumed wrongly they would need to testify again in a retrial if an appeal was won.
Wasn’t there also talk of declaring a mistrial at some point? Would they testify again in that case?
There is no reason to keep the order in place for witnesses, for example.
I’d argue there is plenty of reason to keep it in place for witnesses until all appeals have played out…
You asked for context; not evidence.
From her Wikipedia article:
According to The Wall Street Journal, Melinda Gates had been meeting with divorce lawyers since at least October 2019 after Bill’s business dealings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became public, and she had warned him about associating with Epstein as early as 2013.
Probably to bring French to the forefront after divorcing Bill.
Better question would be why she kept Gates but that’s probably for recognition purposes, I’d guess.
What if the SCOTUS has gone bananas at the same time?
It should be extended beyond sentencing until any appeals have been concluded.
None of this addresses my point. There isn’t the political power to do it.
And even if there was, the court has already essentially overturned precedent as a concept. That can’t just be rolled back without completely reworking the court, which…see my first point…