The Supreme Court has agreed to consider Colorado’s decision to deem Trump ineligible to run under the Constitution’s insurrection clause.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Because it went through a court process.

[Fergasun]

Have to caveat these discussions always with it's insane we are at this place, but here we are. 

 

I voted "No" because I think SCOTUS will invalidate 14th Amendment Section 3 or come up with some bogus loophole that exempts Trump from justice. This will be the biggest SCOTUS case we have had for quite some time. Since Bush v. Gore.  But if Trump is qualified, maybe I will be able to vote for a foreign-born citizen or a 25 year old to be President, provided they have enough support from the correct political party.  Because it will show that the qualications are like the pirate's code. "We can't disqualify the guy, he's too popular!"  

 

Below is my personal thoughts:

 

It's obvious to me that a plain reading of the text would indicate there are acts of insurrection that can disqualify Federal officials, including the President.  No conviction is actually required and it was clear when enacted, the Union didn't want  convictions and trials.  They simply didn't want the Civil War era insurrectionists to serve in the Union -- and even after some time they did actually amnesty most of the Civil War insurrectionists.  That it was intended to bar all Federal positions, but the most important, President, is just exempt, is just an insane reading of the Constitution. 

 

That this case is unique is because President is the only position voted on nationally (every other positions are more local). 

 

I personally think all the post-election actions taken by the Trump campaign to scheme to nullify election results in states - Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - rise to the level of disqualification under 14th Amendment.  Attempting to convince enough people that fraud occured, line up and pressure state officials to move forward with alternate elector schemes, and then work to disrupt and prevent the election certification is committing insurrection. It's not just the January 6 riot, even though that is what everyone is in a tizzy over. Just because the Insurrectionist Leader has convinced his political footstools and sizeable portion of voters that he is some victim in all this, and managed to maintain support, is not a reason to keep him qualified. 

 

Here is a handy-dandy chart of disqualified people. Please note, someone was disqualified from office due to J6 already.

 

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

 

There are numerous other compromises they can come up with.  My favorite compromise is that both justice and the election move forward and a conviction is required for disqualification (even though none is required by plain reading).  Thus, Trump's criminal Federal cases move forward quickly (he can't stop them if elected) and conviction would mean he is removed and his Vice President takes over.  But I view that as a compromise position. There could be enough of SCOTUS that believe a conviction is warranted (especially outside of the Civil War context).  

 

Back to my cynicism:

SCOTUS, and more narrowly thinking, Justices Alito and Thomas get a month to figure out how to write their legal opus, love letter to Trump, and convince 3 other Justices as to why they should also denigrate their offices, but more importantly, the Constitution, in fealty to the GOP's lord and savior Donald Trump.  I will throw in Kavanaugh here as well, "what goes around, comes around!"  There are already a number of Insurrectionist Society legal authors who have done enough research and handwaving for them to cherrypick their best path forward.  There are three easy paths: (1) The Trump campaign actions on January 6 weren't an insurrection, (2) the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President, or (3) the disqualification didn't afford Trump enough "due process" are easy enough.

 

I wish I could say, "Sucks to be you!" but at this point it should be clear that SCOTUS (and the courts) are just as politically partisan as other Federal actors and have no shame in their naked partisanism.  That being said, I would welcome a surprise ruling and would have to retract a lot of my cynacism. 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I think I've said it before but I'm voting no. I think scotus says the 14th is about holding office, not being elected to office. And that there is no standing to challenge unless he wins the election and due to take office. Then they'll pray like hell he doesn't win and they don't have to decide.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think I've said it before but I'm voting no. I think scotus says the 14th is about holding office, not being elected to office. And that there is no standing to challenge unless he wins the election and due to take office. Then they'll pray like hell he doesn't win and they don't have to decide.

 

That sounds like pretzel logic on a constitutional crisis level.

 

They moved sudden death overtime on this issue to before halftime, I'd of wanted at least one conviction first before coming after the ballots themselves, because it feels like all or nothing, yes or no, on this matter.

 

Supreme Court decides to leave him off, there's no way he has enough states to win by time everyone that comes after this does.  They let him stay in the ballot, I'm not sure how you come after this again even with a conviction...because it would take some truly asshole to get to your elbow logic to get out of this one based on what Colorado used ro come to their conclusion.  Hope it's the need for a conviction, then there still hope.

Edited January 6 by Renegade7

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Imo he needs to found guilty of insurrection within the justice system in order to be removed from the ballot. Otherwise who gets to decide what insurrection is?

[The Evil Genius]

I voted no because the Federalist Society owns the Supreme Court.

[skinsmarydu]

19 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Imo he needs to found guilty of insurrection within the justice system in order to be removed from the ballot. Otherwise who gets to decide what insurrection is?

The point is that no one who would even think of directing such a thing should be on the ballot. 

And he did that.  It's on tape.  

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Imo he needs to found guilty of insurrection within the justice system in order to be removed from the ballot. Otherwise who gets to decide what insurrection is?

 

And the fact that not one of the people the amendment was passed for, were ever even tried on that charge?  

[The Evil Genius]

I do wonder when SCOTUS rules in Donny's favor if other prohibited things will be open for discussion (like having to be a natural born citizen, being 35, 2 term limit, etc). 

Edited January 6 by The Evil Genius

[CousinsCowgirl84]

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And the fact that not one of the people the amendment was passed for, were ever even tried on that charge?  

fact?

 

The bar from removing people’s ability to run for office has to be incredibly high in order for people to have faith in democracy as an institution. If Trump looks like he might win the nomination, might win the presidency (or even come close) disqualifying him from running disenfranchises everyone who wants to vote for him. How can a democracy function like that?

 

I know it is inconvenient, but the decision to take away voters voice can’t just be a consensus of a small group of people in charge of running the election. Or in the case of Maine, one person.  

 

Trump should have his day in court like anyone else.

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I know it is inconvenient, but the decision to take away voters voice can’t just be a consensus of a small group of people in charge of running the election. 

 

Have you met the electoral college? 😁

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Have you met the electoral college? 😁

Surely you can recognize the difference between the electoral college (which may be imperfect but designed with the intent of making sure small states were heard) and removing someone from the ballot. 

 

At least the electoral college is a bipartisan institution and in most elections doesn’t change the outcome of the election (from the popular vote).

Edited January 6 by CousinsCowgirl84

[skinsmarydu]

[TheGoodBits]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Imo he needs to found guilty of insurrection within the justice system in order to be removed from the ballot. Otherwise who gets to decide what insurrection is?

This is where I am on this. 
 

Otherwise you’ll see retribution from Republican state officials too. “Insurrection” could mean anything if a Secretary of State can unilaterally remove a candidate from a ballot. Border crisis? Insurrection! Covid lockdowns? Insurrection! 
 

There needs to be an actual legal process associated with this. 

[Larry]

28 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Trump should have his day in court like anyone else.

 

He's had dozens of them. 

 

Curiously, every time he gets to the point where he has to testify under oath about the things he claims, he suddenly drops his charges. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

He's had dozens of them. 

 

Curiously, every time he gets to the point where he has to testify under oath about the things he claims, he suddenly drops his charges. 

I’m not defending Trump, I’m defending democracy.

 

It’s a shame that Biden is so tired. That speech he gave yesterday would have been great if it had some power behind it.

[The Evil Genius]

 

You watched a different speech from me. I saw a reserved yet angry statesmen making a fantastic speech. 

Edited January 6 by The Evil Genius

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

You watched a different speech from me. I saw a reserved yet angry statesmen making a fantastic speech. 

Really? I thought the speech itself was great. The delivery a little less than great.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I’m not defending Trump, I’m defending democracy.

 

It’s a shame that Biden is so tired. That speech he gave yesterday would have been great if it had some power behind it.

 

... by demanding that Trump be subject to a standard which was not used in the days when the 14th was actually passed. 

 

... and repeating talking points. 

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Really? I thought the speech itself was great. The delivery a little less than great.

 

Should he have talked about magnets and pouring water on them instead? 

 

Comparing the two speeches and only 1 is called out (as tired)? Really? 

Edited January 6 by The Evil Genius

[Captain Wiggles]

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Should he have talked about magnets and pouring water on them instead? 

 

The fact that Trump thinks water neutralizes magnets should be disqualifying all on its own. 🌊🧲

[Fergasun]

So he needs a conviction, but it's okay to slow-walk the cases against him?  So he could be disqualified from office, we won't know until his cases resolve, and he can (everyone assumes) end those cases the moment he gets into office. Do you guys understand how that logic pisses people off?   

 

This is why I offered the compromise path forward.  The election and his criminal cases move forward.  His cases need to move at haste.  Even if appeals aren't resolved, he doesn't get to shut them down.

 

No potential criminal has ever been treated so politely. And even the justice system (judges) are like "oh, this is fine...".  We are talking about crimes that occurred while he was President. And he may be President again.  Is it not important to resolve this?  

 

And yes, I do agree that this part of the 14th Amendment has to be resolved by SCOTUS (even if I anticipate them ruling against what I think).  Why is the GOP so stuck on this guy?

[Fergasun]

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Really? I thought the speech itself was great. The delivery a little less than great.

Guess what?  Age gets you.  Biden is old.  Older than I would like a President to be.  He has slowed down if you compare him to what he was before. 

 

But in a matchup between one old guy and another old guy, who may have committed crimes as President, who violated the enolments clause of the Constitution (those cases were never resolved because Trump stopped being President, so SCOTUS avoided further ruling on them), I am taking the non-corrupt, non-criminal old guy. 

 

As for why Trump "triggers the libs", it's because he's unfit for office.  Some people who were against him in 2016 saw this.  That his administration was a s***show was clear.  Go ahead and see what types of boundaries and norms he presses while grifting for himself and pretending to fight for the MAGAs.  It also seems like some people on the left think Trump is the easiest candidate to beat (Hillary thought this too -- she probably wins without "but her e-mails!!!") and likely long term less of a threat policy-wise than a typical GOPer.  So there's a bit of a reverse-uno double jinx factor as well (no one ever asks what his 5 tweets a day accomplished).    He's likely to spend his first 2-years political capital on "retribution", going after Jack Smith and Hunter Biden and whatever else plus GOP tax cuts that every GOP President does.

 

Goodness help us if we have to deal with any serious crises.  I still dream he's going to look horrible during the debates and then blame the corrupt unfair media....

 

This a bit of the wrong thread for above. But yeah... I am amped for this SCOTUS case.