Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Will Trump be left off any ballots in the country?  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Trump be left off any ballots in the country?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      19
    • Yes cause he won't be the nominee (acts of God or legal issues catch up to him)
      0
    • Yes cause he loses the nomination outright (Click this option if you're smoking something)
      0

Recommended Posts

China

China

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

So I went through the DC Circuit Opinion on Immunity and did a search for the term "office". This is not exhaustive. 

 

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

.

Two days from now.  I love it when the legal system dunks on Trump.  Just wish my fellow citizens would snap out of the spell he has them under.  

 

Not sure why you wasted your time.  Someone else already did this, and it was posted in the "arrest watch" thread:

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

Oral arguments will be done tomorrow.  Look for the conservatives to pick at the "office" and "officer" language.  But if that's where they are going... wow. 

 

I watched a bit of a Heritage panel on this today. They seem pretty confident that they will win this case, but to advance their arguments always seems to close eyes at some evidence that disagrees with it.   "To disqualify Trump they need to get everything right.

(1) that the President is an office under the United States

(2) that the President is an officer

(3) that the Presidential oath is in support of the Constitution

(4) that January 6 was an insurrection

(5) that there's no free speech / first amendment defense"

 

It's pretty clear to me that 1 thru 3 are self evident... and then 4 and 5 are also linked.  And to me it seems like you can come up with a term that describes the President, "a vested officer".  So, of course he is appointed/elected by we the people.  

 

The President is really the only position that has this issue.  But it seems like to say every official across state, local and Federal government cannot be someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engaged or supported an insurrection EXCEPT THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE GOVERNMENT is a totally asinine interpretation.

 

  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted (edited)

I missed this (and I have no idea which thread this would have been in anyway lol).

 

Makes me wonder, though...would something like this make Thomas (and the other conservative justices) even more motivated to vote in Trump's favor?...Or does Jeffries have some info that has emboldened him to just say "**** it" and let it rip?

 

 

 

Edited by Califan007 The Constipated
Link to comment
Share on other sites
samy316

samy316

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Trump won’t be disqualified.  I expect a 5-4, 6-3 ruling saying that.


Same.  I hope no one is getting their hopes up for this particular ruling.  The immunity case was a slam dunk, this one is much more hazy and flimsy, and the SC will ultimately rule in favor of Trump.  I’m guessing a 6-3 ruling for Trump.  
 

Also, LOL @ the calls for CT to recuse himself from the trial, it’s an exercise in futility and a waste of time.  He, nor any other conservative judge will EVER do the right thing, especially since there’s no consequences or threat of punishment, so it’s a waste of time

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

Why do we need a law from Congress to enforce?  The amendment itself says "Congress can cure the disability...".   And this has been enforced at all levels without law.

 

I discovered last night that the "President is not an officer" theory was already smacked down at the District Court level in the emolments case.  How does that take months to actually get out in public?  I think the Circuit Court upheld that. 

 

I read the amendment as SCOTUS can enforce and adjudicate office holding qualification FOR THE PRESIDENT.  There is enough of a case for them to.  I think Congresses have denied to seat representatives.  And state courts have done at the state and local level.

 

I do agree that if they upheld disqualification it would be surprising, but thats what 100% should be the result.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simmsy

Simmsy

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

How long will it take for the court to release their decision? Isn’t it like a month of two after arguments usually?

 

 I wouldn't be surprised by a leak.

 

Our next president needs to take on the SCOTUS directly, call it corrupt and say it needs to be reformed. Better yet, I don't remember the SC having this much power...just ignore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

How long will it take for the court to release their decision? Isn’t it like a month of two after arguments usually?

 

There's no typical timeline.  Sometimes decision can be shortly after oral argument or at the end of the term (June).  It just gets issued during that term.  In this case, you'd expect the opinion to be issued shortly (at least a decision staying the CO sup ct decision prior to Super Tuesday).

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
samy316

samy316

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

 

 I wouldn't be surprised by a leak.

 

Our next president needs to take on the SCOTUS directly, call it corrupt and say it needs to be reformed. Better yet, I don't remember the SC having this much power...just ignore them.

 

It's an exercise in futility though.  As long as they have a 6-3 margin, nothing matters for the next couple of decades.  This will be the court we're dealing with for the next 20-30 years minimum.  The SC doesn't care, and nothing will happen.  Congress will NEVER agree to term limits or expanding the courts, so what's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted

Gorsuch: Much hinges on your distinction between office, and officer. What evidence do you have that two terms so closely related should be given such different weight?

 

Gorsuch: Is there anything in the original history, drafting, that would show why that distinction should have such profound weight?

Mitchell: "Not really"

 

Not gonna lie: this is harder for me to follow than most because Mitchell is doing so bad that when the justices are going at him I can't tell if it's because they agree, disagree, or are literally just asking him "WHAT IN THE GODDAMN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, HOMIE??"

 

Kagan: given that you don't have a lot of evidence that the founding generation that they thought a lot about officer versus offices, perhaps we should ask why they would have made such a thing?

Mitchell: I don't have a good reason.

 

This is amazing-bad. :)

 

Barrett finally asks the due process question, which i thought would be a bigger deal. The argument that Trump didn't have due process before being declared an insurrectionists. Mitchell: "winning on due process really doesn't do as much for our client as other arguments"

 

Okay folks, WARNING... KBJ Is totally buying this officer ****. Jesus effing Christ.

 

Jason Murray up now, representing the people trying to get Trump off the ballot. We should learn more about where the justices are leaning from this part, I think, just because he won't be as scattered as Mitchell was.

 

Folks, this is going to be the holding. Section 3 is self executing but states DON'T have the power to enforce section 3 for... reasons.

 

Barrett: If we affirmed and we said he was ineligible to be president, other states would probably follow. And you say we have to review the colorado record... and it just doesn't seem like a state's call.

 

 

 **************

 

I just copied and pasted from tweets lol...none of those are my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted

I just started listening to live audio of hearing on Scripps news. The quality of reasoning I'm hearing from Alito and then Gorsuch is not encouraging (and I don't mean from some "pro-democrat" bias) to say the least. But we'll see. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted

Colo lawyer pressed by kavanaugh  on fear of voters being disenfranchised if a finding is in their favor. Lawyer points out Trump and allies tried to disenfranchise eighty million people who voted against him.

 

Con justices making some sophisticated legal and constitutional arguments that are fair challenges to the outcome Colo is seeking, which shouldn't shock anyone. Colo lawyer only  doing so so in answering them.

 

I had no expectation that they'd support the Colo contention. Too much play room in the writing of the Constitution for one thing. 

 

Trump and maga simply will need to be beaten at the voting booth. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...