***Official Political Discussion Thread***

This is certainly an interesting argument.

Wouldn’t it still require a 2/3 vote?
No, the statute allows you to enforce it via simple majority vote on a resolution. The presumed counter-argument (prohibited bill of attainder) has never come before the Supreme Court though. The furthest it has gotten is the circuit court, in a case stemming from Jefferson Davis' treason trial. The government at the time and the sponsors of the bill declared that argument was meritless but the 2 circuit court judges who handled the case disagreed with eachother. Davis was pardoned before the question could get to the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:


tenor.gif
 
im not saying he's right. :lol:

if he wants to keep being the senator from south carolina he better vote no on impeachment.
True, to keep his Senate seat he has to vote no

Those South Carolina conservatives vote for him because they view him as a black man that knows his place. He breaks that frame, then a reactionary Trump can get him out of the paint with ease.

Black conservatives in the state are mainly Dems, so they can't save his *** in the primary.
 
I could def imagine a situation where GOP nominates Tim Scott.

is it a high probability, nah?


but I could see it happening.
 
I could def imagine a situation where Ben Simmons becomes a three-point threat

is it high probability, nah?

but I could see it happening


Tim Scott being the GOP nominee is like say the Denver Nuggets winning the championship.


Ben Simmons becoming a 3 point threat is like humanity establishing a colony on mars in the next 5 years. :lol
 
Back
Top Bottom