About the “unanimous” SCOTUS decision in the Section 3 ballot case…

[Bugsy McGurk]

That’s the media spin - that the 5-4 case was actually a “unanimous” ruling. But as explained here, it was anything but truly unanimous…

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-trump-analysis/index.html

News you won’t read on Fox Noise.

 

[RickWA]

That’s the media spin - that the 5-4 case was actually a “unanimous” ruling. But as explained here, it was anything but truly unanimous…

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-trump-analysis/index.html

News you won’t read on Fox Noise.

Indeed the judgment ruling was 9-0. The justices themselves SAID SO…quoted as noted yesterday.

That a few cockeyed extremist radical lunatics and basement-dwelling shut-ins attempt to conflate the actual JUDGMENT RULING with how far the argument can be taken beyond “Congressional”’authority is the sort of asinine redirect that only the most shameless of liars dare venture.

…but when one spends his twilight years propagandizing on the internet 7 days a week rather than spending time with family and friends…this is the sort of mentally ill derangement you can expect.

9-0. Yes. Fact. No ambiguity…no nuance…no fluff. On the direct judicial DECISION as to whether the candidate is to be returned to ballots and whether states such as Colorado, Maine, Illinois, can omit or remove [the repulsive] Donald Trump… 9-0.

Nine.To.Zero

Fact.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Indeed the judgment ruling was 9-0. The justices themselves SAID SO…quoted as noted yesterday.

That a few cockeyed extremist radical lunatics and basement-dwelling shut-ins attempt to conflate the actual JUDGMENT RULING with how far the argument can be taken beyond “Congressional”’authority is the sort of asinine redirect that only the most shameless of liars dare venture.

…but when one spends his twilight years propagandizing on the internet 7 days a week rather than spending time with family and friends…this is the sort of mentally ill derangement you can expect.

9-0. Yes. Fact. No ambiguity…no nuance…no fluff. On the direct judicial DECISION as to whether the candidate is to be returned to ballots and whether states such as Colorado, Maine, Illinois, can omit or remove [the repulsive] Donald Trump… 9-0.

Nine.To.Zero

Fact.

I posted the article so thoughtful people could read it and discuss it. Not so Trump cultists could repeat the “9-0!” idiocy that led to the need to post it. But all you can do is repeat your idiocy. No surprise there. But there’s nothing “unanimous” about the bitterly divided opinions of the 5-4 factions no matter how many times you ignore that.

 

[RickWA]

I posted the article so thoughtful people could read it and discuss it. Not so Trump cultists could repeat the “9-0!” idiocy that led to the need to post it. But all you can do is repeat your idiocy. No surprise there. But there’s nothing “unanimous” about the bitterly divided opinions of the 5-4 factions no matter how many times you ignore that.

Hard to believe that even unhinged kook cranks like Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow can and DO acknowledge the FACTUAL 9-0 formal SCOTUS decision…yet our resident shut-in DNC propagandist cannot. What a nutcase.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Hard to believe that even unhinged kook cranks like Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow can and DO acknowledge the FACTUAL 9-0 formal SCOTUS decision…yet our resident shut-in DNC propagandist cannot. What a nutcase.

You really should stop repeating your idiocy. Try to elevate your game and address the article about the 5-4 split. Just try.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

BTW, Trump remains an adjudicated insurrectionist. The Colorado courts so ruled, and the SCOTUS did not reverse that ruling…

Trump still 'an adjudicated insurrectionist' after 'incoherent' SCOTUS opinion: George Conway

www.alternet.org

Not that Trump cultists care. They happily support an adjudicated insurrectionist who tried to illegally reverse the election outcome. Which is surreal.

 

[RickWA]

You really should stop repeating your idiocy. Try to elevate your game and address the article about the 5-4 split. Just try.

9-0. Unequivocally 9-0.

I guess it all depends upon how invested one is in societal destabilization and destruction in determining his willingness to overtly lie in so brazen a fashion. That…and mental illness, I suppose.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

9-0. Unequivocally 9-0.

I guess it all depends upon how invested one is in societal destabilization and destruction in determining his willingness to overtly lie in so brazen a fashion. That…and mental illness, I suppose.

The authors of all the linked articles talking about the 5-4 split are all “lying”? Did you even read any of them? You might find them quite informative, especially when compared with Fox Noise.