Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Update on the exploding house in my neighborhood... I was walking the dog and got into a chat with the elderly next-door neighbor of that house... Note that all of the below should be considered "allegedly" because it's the PoV of a really old dude who may not have the entire picture. 

Apparently, it's a goddamn mess. Guy and his wife were separated. Neighbor had heard the two of them having all sorts of rows before the separation. She was scared of him, and apparently parked several houses down to walk up to their house to ask questions about him (before the fire). He apparently didn't want to leave the house, but probably didn't want to sell and let her have half the equity, and stopped paying the mortgage. So the house was under a notice of foreclosure and apparently the bank was selling, not him / his wife. The fire happened two days after the house went pending sale. Hmm... Suspicious?

Guy had two vehicles, one of which was a pristine Corvette. The vehicles were always garaged. The night of the fire, the Corvette was parked several houses away. The fire started around 4 AM. The guy said the house across the street (the one selling right now for $1.65M) had a Ring doorbell and the video caught the guy leaving/walking away down the street shortly before the fire started. Hmm... Suspicious? 

Neighbor said that after the fire, it was still under investigation for arson. They thought the guy was going to try to leave and go to Michigan where he had family (and potentially try to get into Canada), but apparently sometime between then and now he went and offed himself. 

So... Yeah... As I said... A mess. 

Update on the exploding house in my neighborhood... I was walking the dog and got into a chat with the elderly next-door neighbor of that house... Note that all of the below should be considered "allegedly" because it's the PoV of a really old dude who may not have the entire picture.

Apparently, it's a goddamn mess. Guy and his wife were separated. Neighbor had heard the two of them having all sorts of rows before the separation. She was scared of him, and apparently parked several houses down to walk up to their house to ask questions about him (before the fire). He apparently didn't want to leave the house, but probably didn't want to sell and let her have half the equity, and stopped paying the mortgage. So the house was under a notice of foreclosure and apparently the bank was selling, not him / his wife. The fire happened two days after the house went pending sale. Hmm... Suspicious?

Guy had two vehicles, one of which was a pristine Corvette. The vehicles were always garaged. The night of the fire, the Corvette was parked several houses away. The fire started around 4 AM. The guy said the house across the street (the one selling right now for $1.65M) had a Ring doorbell and the video caught the guy leaving/walking away down the street shortly before the fire started. Hmm... Suspicious?

Neighbor said that after the fire, it was still under investigation for arson. They thought the guy was going to try to leave and go to Michigan where he had family (and potentially try to get into Canada), but apparently sometime between then and now he went and offed himself.

So... Yeah... As I said... A mess.

Sounds like the wife just inherited a nice car

yup, I understand the issue

I just wish there was a way to keep both of them off the ballot

obviously the parties they represent aren't willing to do it for the sake of the country or their own party

Gold rises above $2,100 to highest level ever as traders bet on interest rate cuts

A thing about allowing a state to remove someone from a ballot without some kind of "due process" would worry me.  It was too subjective for my tastes, and I could see states removing a candidate basically because they didn't like him/her without any conviction or finding or legislative action.

I can see it if a person was convicted of a felony or impeached and found guilty.

It's an interesting legal question. The counterargument would be that the states are not barring anyone from Federal office--they're barring them from the ballot in their own. States are allowed to conduct their own elections, and make their own qualification criteria for putting someone on a ballot. You see this all the time with third party Presidential candidates--most don't make it onto all 50 state ballots
most don't make it onto all 50 state ballots, with perhaps the Libertarian and Green parties, regularly or coming closest.  

So you could make an argument that the states themselves should be the one who determine whether someone participated in an insurrection. They can't bar someone from Federal office (that would violate the supremacy clause as I believe SCOTUS alleged), but MAYBE could be enough to allow them to bar someone from the ballot in their own state. 

To me it was all a bit of a mess, because any state that would have the balls to remove that particular candidate from the ballot was a state that he had no chance to win, so it wouldn't meaningfully affect the outcome of anything except the popular vote. 

the 7 to 0 vote from SCOTUS speaks volumes IMHO

wonder why the other 2 justices didnt vote