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

[Spearfeather]

14 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

I'm still not sure what it is you've been trying to say all day but ok. 🤣

 

I believe you.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

34 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Yes, I understand that.  And those people were firing guns and cannons at the US military.

 

 

Actually, no, they weren't.

 

They provided aide and comfort to those who were. One guy merely held office in a Confederate state and was never accused of taking part in any violence of any kind. For two others it's not clear what they had done--so much for due process lol.

 

The best part, though, is that one guy was disqualified for---wait for it--"mobilizing the mob before the Jan. 6th Capitol insurrection, and then joining and inciting the mob attack on Jan. 6th. He was not accused of personally being violent or entering the Capitol building."

 

Sound familiar?

 

[tshile]

This is arguing in bad faith. 
 

the original judge had already concluded and ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection 

 

Quote

The top Colorado court upheld the trial judge’s conclusions that the January 6 assault on the US Capitol was an insurrection and that Trump “engaged in” that insurrection.

 

This notion that was no due processes is just nonsense. 
 

Just wanted to point it out since I didn’t see anyone else point it out.
 

But please, carry on.

[EmirOfShmo]

30 minutes ago, tshile said:

This is arguing in bad faith. 
 

the original judge had already concluded and ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection 

 

 

This notion that was no due processes is just nonsense. 
 

Just wanted to point it out since I didn’t see anyone else point it out.
 

But please, carry on.

This has been forgotten by most when stating their opinion of the situation. A similar situation with the recent Carroll trial result: he was convicted in a separate trial, by a jury, of sexual assault. The current trial was for defamation after that conviction. 

[mcsluggo]

On 1/30/2024 at 7:44 PM, Spearfeather said:

 

O.k. That's cool.

 

 

It's a late spring afternoon. A crowd of a couple thousand has gathered at the Capital protesting a bill that every Republican is voting for,  Democrats and the left are absolutely apoplectic about it. There's been a couple of rocks thrown through the windows, halting proceedings for 45 min. A couple of fights with Capital police and around 35 arrest. Assaulting Capital Police, Destruction of property, etc.

 

Over at the White House, Joe is in his favorite den in the Whitehouse, sitting in his favorite chair, feet propped up on the ottoman. His chin, resting gently on his chest. Karine, unaware of the arrest at the Capital, comes running in and informs Joe about the crowd at the Capital protesting the bill that Joe has already stated his disdain for. " The staff is suggesting a statement of support Mr. President ".  " My statement is I support them 100 percent ", says Joe. " Yes Mr. President.  We'll get that out, right away." The protest continues for a couple of more hours, with two people associated with Antifa being arrested while trying to break down a door at the back of the Capital and are facing federal charges.

About 15 minutes later, a photograph on social media starts going viral showing two protesters holding up signs saying " Eradicate the Republicans ", and just to the left of them there's a guy standing with what appears to be a pistol in his hand but some are saying it's some type of baton. There are no weapons arrest.

 

Come November,  Biden is off the ballot in 19 states for " engaging in insurrection ".

 

 

" But, but, .. they never got inside the..."

Doesn't matter.

" But, no one was even charged with insurr..."

Doesn't matter. 

" But Joe never said ... "

Doesn't matter

 

State Judges and Election Officials in these 19 states have determined that Joe, with his statement of support, combined with the " Eradicate the Republicans " signs, along with the ( possibly) armed guy standing next to them and the " Antifa Two " .. is guilty of " engaging in insurrection ".

 

These State Judges and Election Officials have spoken, and that's that.

 

 

 

its a late spring afternoon.... and Washington DC elites were smug and content drinking mai-tais in their favorite fig bars.    They were all taken surprise by the first wave of patriots with flamethrowers riding armored T-Rex charging down K street, caught off-guard in their ivory towers.    When you fail to read the room... fail to understand the power of the rage motivating the people, you underestimate .... everything.   by the time the second wave came abord their flying monkeys, the battle was already over... with smoldering parasols and smashed bon-bons the only signs of the smashed limp resistance.    Sad.

 

and the supreme court cheered.  

Edited February 1 by mcsluggo

[Jabbyrwock]

7 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

its a late spring afternoon.... and Washington DC elites were smug and content drinking mai-tais in their favorite fig bars.    They were all taken surprise by the first wave of patriots with flamethrowers riding armored T-Rex charging down K street, caught off-guard in their ivory towers.    When you fail to read the room... fail to understand the power of the rage motivating the people, you underestimate .... everything.   by the time the second wave came abord their flying monkeys, the battle was already over... with smoldering parasols and smashed bon-bons the only signs of the smashed limp resistance.    Sad.

 

and the supreme court cheered.  

 

You had me at TRex flamethrower...

 

 

[China]

 

[mcsluggo]

8 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Why weren't they charged with insurrection ?

 

Amen.   LONG-form insurrection, or bust.   

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

You had me at TRex flamethrower...

 

 

How about lasers?

 

[Jabbyrwock]

15 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

How about lasers?

 

 

The lightsabre tail at 1:30 was art in its highest form.

[Captain Wiggles]

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

drinking mai-tais in their favorite fig bars.  

 

 

[PokerPacker]

31 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

The lightsabre tail at 1:30 was art in its highest form.

Hard to believe that this was an official music video released by a major record label in 2023, not a fan-made flash animation from 2003.

[Fergasun]

The SCOTUS docket is here:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html

 

There are a lot of briefs on both sides that advocates everyones arguments.  The more I review it, the more I see am convinced that SCOTUS can't make a credible argument of law against Trump's disqualification.  It would be a total sham against the Constitution. It would fully rip the fig leaf off their credibility. And yet, I think we all expect that to exactly happen. Or at the very least, Roberts will try to punt.  But a number of amici have made the argument that if you punt now and disqualify him later (as he is disqualified) you risk another Jan 6 or worse.  And a number of Amici have properly ripped apart the main legal argument that the President is not "an officer of the United States", yet that is what Trump's legal team is hanging their hat on.  Some type of hidden coding or phrasing that means exaclty the opposite.  Professor Ilya Somin (George Mason) brief lays out the perfect reasoning for why a conviction is not required and goes to great lengths discussing civil penalties vs. criminal (OJ Simpson's case is used as an example).  

 

And yes, if they rule he is ineligible for the Colorado ballot, than he certainly cannot be elected and certified.  I see at least that this is probably why Haley is remaining in the primary race.  It's not disenfranchisment that a large group of people want to vote for them any more than I am so mad I can't vote for Tom Holland.  Ultimately, Trump shouldn't have tried to overturn the election results in the manner he did.  And the GOP shouldn't have enabled him in the manner they did.  It's disenfranchisement if you allow someone ineligible to be on the ballot. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

This sounds similar to when my neighbor told me January 6th wasn't an insurrection because "there weren't any tanks or planes involved". 🤣

 

 

It was a little bit of insurrection...

 

[mistertim]

I'd be absolutely shocked if they uphold the decision. We already know with 100% certainty how Thomas and Alito will vote. There's almost no point in them even being involved in the actual case or hearing arguments. Kavanaugh is probably a lock for Trump too. Then all they'll need is two of Gorsuch, ACB, or Roberts to agree and it will go Trump's way.

[mcsluggo]

gorsuhch is more of a lock than kavenaugh 

[Spearfeather]

So, no chance Kegan, Sotomayor, or Brown Jackson side against Colorado ? 

[Jumbo]

13 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

So, no chance Kegan, Sotomayor, or Brown Jackson side against Colorado ? 

  

1. Even just based on relevant audio and video recordings in the public domain, do you think trump is guilty of desiring to, planning to, and trying to, invalidate and overturn the election?

 

2. Do you think he should be allowed to be on the ballot for 2024?

 

3. Do you want him on the ballot? Whether yes or no, why?

 

4. Will you vote for trump if he's the nominee?

[Fergasun]

A large number of conservatives and former Republican lawmakers have made the legal and factual case, and a very strong one that Trump is disqualified.  They are using Scalia and Gorsuch opinions/writings in the legal briefs. These aren't typical liberal type of arguments.

 

SCOTUS could punt -- that's very messy and more dangerous.  You risk actually disenfranchising voters.  This looks like Bush v. Gore Part II... but there is a clear answer legally and factually.  Many briefs said "do not punt, you are making this situation more volatile later".  

 

But here's what they could say.  They could close their eyes and say Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection.  Then everyone wonders why a lone New Mexico County Commissioner is disqualified (and not the guy who pushed the whole thing).  And wonders why all sorts of other judges and Congress have ruled it insurrection. 

 

They could make up with multiple legal loopholes.  They could say "this doesn't cover the President."  That would make all the people who passed this Amendment scratch their head - because they certainly believed that Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee and all sorts of other previous office holders who swore to defend the Constitution, would be barred from holding further office, including thr Presidency.  Does it make sense that oath breaking insurrectionists are banned from county commisioner, but not the Presidency?  

 

They could somehow twist the history and say "conviction is required".  Again, when this Amendment was passed it was clear this is a civil penalty. 

 

This is not a war against the MAGA / America First movement or conservatives or the GOP. This is a war against a single person who violated their Constitutional oath, and engaged in clear insurrection in violation of the 14th Amendment. Now, maybe neither him nor the legal chuckleheads in his orbit that helped him engage in insurrection realized at the time the scope of what they did -- neither did much of Congress in the aftermath. 

 

I also rate there is an outside chance Sotomayor uses this case to resign/retire in protest if SCOTUS does what we expect..  Maybe it's premature and she thinks there's another 6 years for her on the court.  But this is a good time for her to be replaced with a like minded judge 20 years younger.

[LadySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

A large number of conservatives and former Republican lawmakers have made the legal and factual case, and a very strong one that Trump is disqualified.  They are using Scalia and Gorsuch opinions/writings in the legal briefs. These aren't typical liberal type of arguments.

 

SCOTUS could punt -- that's very messy and more dangerous.  You risk actually disenfranchising voters.  This looks like Bush v. Gore Part II... but there is a clear answer legally and factually.  Many briefs said "do not punt, you are making this situation more volatile later".  

 

But here's what they could say.  They could close their eyes and say Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection.  Then everyone wonders why a lone New Mexico County Commissioner is disqualified (and not the guy who pushed the whole thing).  And wonders why all sorts of other judges and Congress have ruled it insurrection. 

 

They could make up with multiple legal loopholes.  They could say "this doesn't cover the President."  That would make all the people who passed this Amendment scratch their head - because they certainly believed that Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee and all sorts of other previous office holders who swore to defend the Constitution, would be barred from holding further office, including thr Presidency.  Does it make sense that oath breaking insurrectionists are banned from county commisioner, but not the Presidency?  

 

They could somehow twist the history and say "conviction is required".  Again, when this Amendment was passed it was clear this is a civil penalty. 

 

This is not a war against the MAGA / America First movement or conservatives or the GOP. This is a war against a single person who violated their Constitutional oath, and engaged in clear insurrection in violation of the 14th Amendment. Now, maybe neither him nor the legal chuckleheads in his orbit that helped him engage in insurrection realized at the time the scope of what they did -- neither did much of Congress in the aftermath. 

 

I also rate there is an outside chance Sotomayor uses this case to resign/retire in protest if SCOTUS does what we expect..  Maybe it's premature and she thinks there's another 6 years for her on the court.  But this is a good time for her to be replaced with a like minded judge 20 years younger.

 

Your last paragraph is interesting. I like your reasoning in this post.

[Spearfeather]

39 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

  

1. Even just based on relevant audio and video recordings in the public domain, do you think trump is guilty of desiring to, planning to, and trying to, invalidate and overturn the election?

 

2. Do you think he should be allowed to be on the ballot for 2024?

 

3. Do you want him on the ballot? Whether yes or no, why?

 

4. Will you vote for trump if he's the nominee?

 

1. I think he thought that he was being screwed. In other words, I don't think he knew for a fact ( and maybe still doesn't think ) that he lost, even if he eventually used the phrase " I lost ". In his stubborness he became more and more frustrated and desperate and did things that were reprehensible. I also don't think he was an illegitimate President as Biden, Harris, and Cinton labeled him.

 

2. and 3. I'm glad the Supreme Court is ruling on this, and if states are allowed to decide for themselves what qualifies as " engaged in insurrection " , I think that sets a really bad precedent that sets the wheels in motion for simular actions by states not just now, but in the future, and they assuredly wont all be focused on Republicans.

So, I suppose the answer is yes.

 

4. I'm not 100 % certain. It's a possibility that for the first time in 35 years I wouldn't vote at all, but I really hate the idea of doing that. 

A vote for Joe is a vote for Joe and whoever would finish out his term and I'm not sure we know yet, for a fact, who that would be.

 

 

I assume your answers are :

 

Yes

No

No

No

🙂

 

[Captain Wiggles]

The notion Ol Sleepy Joe is some infirmed decrepit geezer set to expire in the next year or so is ridiculous. Dude could just as easily live for another decade plus.

 

Nobody knows when theys or anyone else's time will be up. 👴🏻

[Spearfeather]

Just now, Captain Wiggles said:

The notion Ol Sleepy Joe is some infirmed decrepit geezer set to expire in the next year or so is ridiculous. Dude could just as easily live for another decade plus.

 

He certainly could live for another decade which in no way means he would last as President for another five years. 

[Captain Wiggles]

2 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

He certainly could live for another decade which in no way means he would last as President for another five years. 

 

[Fergasun]

4 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

He certainly could live for another decade which in no way means he would last as President for another five years. 

If you are 81, your life expectancy is 88.  If you are 77, life expectancy is 85.  Presidents typically have better than expected life expectancy. Below are the social security actuarial tables.

 

I love linking this when the topic comes up:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

 

Nixon lived until 81.

Ford lived to 93. 

Carter is 99. 

Reagan lived to 93.

George HW lived to 93. 

Bill Clinton is 77. 

George W Bush also is 77. 

Obama is 62.