Dippy

. "‘Oh, what’s foreseeable is that things can change, and therefore, if there’s a change, it’s 'foreseeable.’ I mean, that argument is truly remarkable."

Judge is having none of it haha.

Agreed. Add to it Steve Carell’s show (although wasn’t great) after definitely didn’t help its credibility.

From wiki

The first discussion of a U.S. Space Force occurred under President Dwight Eisenhower's administration in 1958 and it was nearly established in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative. The 2001 Space Commission argued for the creation of a Space Corps around 2007–2011, but due to the September 11 attacks and war on terror any plans were put on hold. In 2017, Representatives Jim Cooper and Mike Rogers' proposal for a Space Corps passed the House but failed in the Senate. In 2019, the House and Senate resolved their differences to pass the United States Space Force Act. It was signed into law by President Donald Trump, establishing the U.S. Space Force as the first new independent military service since the Army Air Forces were reorganized as the U.S. Air Force in 1947.[9]

If you want to credit it to Eisenhower sure, but still technically it was established under trump so that’s the best I have for remembering what he did in office.

Usually when I try to think of it all I can remember is space force. Still a stupid name, and I can’t believe they couldn’t come up with something better.

Not sure if that’s achieved though, but was prolly a good thing to have a dedicated group to it then funneling through the Air Force

Same. Tons of hard working people that do a lot behind the scenes. But South Park probably got it right with ‘they took errr jerbs!’ Jobs they wouldn’t do themselves anyway.

Yup! Thank you. It’s not as big as it’s being made out to be (obviously people trying to get political points), but it’s still an issue that does need to be addressed, and it is disproportionately effecting some more than others. No one is going to start at civil war over something like this.

Yea that’s the point. At some point could just be lazy and not take it and divert responsibility by agreeing with the lower courts, a lot easier then actually hearing it.

At work I do a lot to avoid having more work come my way. If I can push it off. 9 times out of 10 I’m pushing it somewhere else.

Or tired of all the trump shit being flooded their way like the rest of the US.

I know they are a majority conservative and want their candidate, but even if elected it’s not going to stop cases about him having to go to them and loading them up with more and more work. I’d be annoyed.

Agreed. I’d also just really like to have a choice of someone who will be alive in 10 years to see the results of the policies they make. Given the two current front runners, that’s very unlikely.

Yea fair enough. Just a different set of eyes is all. Thanks for the response!

The lack of conviction is prolly the biggest hurdle here which makes me wonder who would, or even could, bring those charges (even if the lower court explicitly stated he did). Jack smith has his hands full and while interesting to follow it’s not a direct case of questioning insurrection. Curious as to where it all leads.

End of the day, it starts to ask the question, which prolly ends at the Supreme Court no matter what.

It’s all up to interpretation though, you might not see it, or you might have heard it in a way, but it can be argued. Similar to the lower court judge saying so.

Similarly one of the judge points out in the dissenting opinion there is no conviction of insurrection.

So I still think C will win, but A or B is a possibility too.

"In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here”

Source