This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Almost 0% chance. by manofdillon

Maybe Thomas or Alito will question whether this constitutes an insurrection in a concurrence. But assuming the opinion is based on a finding that state courts lack authority to remove a presidential candidates from the ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment absent a criminal conviction or congressional authorization, they don't have to say anything about whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Roberts will want as much support for this as possible, and no way any of the liberals sign on to an order finding "Trump didn't do insurrection." The question wasn't a focus of oral argument at all.