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

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, ixcuincle said:

rare Trump w

 

It's weird that Trump "wins" are "not being permanently barred from holding public office for inciting an insurrection."

 

This is right up there with Matt Gaetz's "win" for "not being indicted for child trafficking."

[Spearfeather]

7 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

Can Colorado follow Texas' lead  and what they did when it came to the SC ruling over the border...and determine that SC decisions have no jurisdiction over how they run elections and keep Trump off the ballot anyway? lol...hey, if Texas can ignore their ruling, right?

 

Quote

"The Supreme Court’s 5-4 order didn’t give any reason and didn’t explicitly say Border Patrol agents were allowed to access the park or that the state had to remove the concertina wire. "

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/24/texas-border-wire-supreme-court/#:~:text=The Supreme Court's 5-4,defy the Supreme Court's ruling.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

39 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/24/texas-border-wire-supreme-court/#:~:text=The Supreme Court's 5-4,defy the Supreme Court's ruling.

 

 

 

They didn't have to:

 

"...The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state’s border with Mexico, where Texas officials have deployed miles of concertina wire...For now, it effectively upholds longstanding court rulings that the Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for border security."

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/22/texas-border-supreme-court-immigration/

 

"The court ruling that allowed you to restrict the border patrol legally is being tossed out" is more than enough...unless you're Texas and trying to find any sliver of semantics to justify ignoring the SC ruling. Or in some cases, Texas representatives calling for a complete ignoring of the SC no matter what the court ruling explicitly says.

Edited February 9 by Califan007 The Constipated

[Spearfeather]

WOLF: How does Abbott justify essentially ignoring the Supreme Court?

VLADECK: It’s really important to stress that two different things are true: First, Abbott is not “essentially ignoring” the Supreme Court. Second, he is interfering with federal authority to a degree we haven’t seen from state officials since the desegregation cases of the 1950s and 1960s.

With regard to the court, all that the justices did on Monday was to vacate a lower-court injunction, which had itself prohibited federal officials from cutting or otherwise removing razor wire that Texas officials have placed along or near the US-Mexico border.

Nothing in Monday’s unexplained order stops Abbott from doing anything; it just means the federal government can’t be sanctioned by courts if it takes steps to remove those obstacles.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, Spearfeather said:

Nothing in Monday’s unexplained order stops Abbott from doing anything; it just means the federal government can’t be sanctioned by courts if it takes steps to remove those obstacles.

 

It also means that the state CAN BE sanctioned by the courts and sued by the Biden administration if it continues to keep the border patrol from having access to the border. If you don't have any legal standing for doing what you're doing, but do it anyway, it means you're ignoring the courts.

[Spearfeather]

31 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

It also means that the state CAN BE sanctioned by the courts and sued by the Biden administration if it continues to keep the border patrol from having access to the border. If you don't have any legal standing for doing what you're doing, but do it anyway, it means you're ignoring the courts.

 

" While the Supreme Court has not ruled on Texas' seizure of Shelby Park, that dispute could also end up being litigated in federal court if the Biden administration sues the state over the matter. "

[Fergasun]

And I reads headline that says "Supreme Court has no interest in disqualifying Trump" as "Supreme Court not interested in enforcing the 14th Amendment." 

 

At the same time, in their defense, I did find some of the arguments compelling.  But the whole "Jefferson Davis wasn't banned from running for President" still stumps me.  Because everyone at that time understood Jefferson Davis could not be President. 

 

Also, under this theory, Trump was an illegitimate President starting on January 6.  So there was also some implied, "Could you remove a President via the 14th amendment section 3?"

---

Edited February 9 by Fergasun
Unable to edit the page things

[Califan007 The Constipated]

46 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

" While the Supreme Court has not ruled on Texas' seizure of Shelby Park, that dispute could also end up being litigated in federal court if the Biden administration sues the state over the matter. "

 

I'm not even sure why you posted this lol...

 

The SC ruled on a lower Texas state court's decision that allowed Texas to block the border patrol from accessing Shelby Park. It did not rule on the case itself, it ruled on whether or not the lower state court's decision that allowed Texas to block the border patrol should be enforced or not. The SC said it shouldn't be, not at the moment.

 

It's also important to note that a number of Republican states have openly defied SC rulings on election maps and gerrymandering, so its not as if Texas is alone here. There is an incredibly stupid movement among GOP state legislatures to determine that SC rulings aren't valid or shouldn't be applied to their states, or in some cases just really don't give a **** and continue doing what they want until they are forced...which is what Texas Governor Abbott actually hopes will happen, for the Biden administration to take strong steps to keep Texas from restricting access to the border patrol. He thinks Biden enforcing the law will be an absolute political victory for him and the GOP...so he's incentivized to ignore the SC rulings. He sees it as a win-win.

 

So, yeah, I wonder if Colorado and Maine would consider doing the same...I'm sure they could scramble together some tiny loopholes to jump through about the SC forcing states to elect an insurrectionist for president and determining that means the SC doesn't have jurisdiction over their state, and just wait for someone to do something about it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

• Previous Page
• Next Page

• Previous Page
• Next Page

And I reads headline that says "Supreme Court has no interest in disqualifying Trump" as "Supreme Court not interested in enforcing the 14th Amendment." 

 

At the same time, in their defense, I did find some of the arguments compelling.  But the whole "Jefferson Davis wasn't banned from running for President" still stumps me.  Because everyone at that time understood Jefferson Davis could not be President. 

 

Also, under this theory, Trump was an illegitimate President starting on January 6.  So there was also some implied, "Could you remove a President via the 14th amendment section 3?"

---

• Previous Page
• Next Page

• Previous Page
• Next Page

 

 

Why does your post have "NEXT PAGE" links on it? lol...

[Spearfeather]

14 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

I'm not even sure why you posted this lol...

 

 

 

Just that it sounds like there will be more to come on this, and that there was could be a little more clarity with that decision. 

 

21 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

So, yeah, I wonder if Colorado and Maine would consider doing the same...I'm sure they could scramble together some tiny loopholes to jump through about the SC

 

They could, and other states could do the same in protest, keeping Democrats of the ballot in their states

[Fergasun]

20 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

Why does your post have "NEXT PAGE" links on it? lol...

No idea and have never seen that before.  Let me see if I can fix it.

[LadySkinsFan]

12 hours ago, illone said:

😂 

Section3 is pretty vague with regards to who determines the disqualification. If you're going to leave such a gaping hole in the process, then I think the best way forward would have been to remove him from the ballot AFTER conviction is obtained in either election case.

 

Would much rather have the SCOTUS focusing on presidential immunity than this nonsense.

 

At the time the 14tg Amendment was written, passed, and confirmed it wasn't that long a time from the Civil War and people knew who were Confederates and who were not, so it was easy to identify insurrectionists. 

 

Nowadays, we have a whole political party trying to overthrow the Constitution by their support of Trump and his actions prior to and after even to the present of him and his party trying to overthrow the Constitution. We all see it every day, and especially on Jan 6 when it was served to We the People on live TV. I think that's enough. 

 

By their actions will you know them. They are insurrectionists.

Edited February 9 by LadySkinsFan

[Fergasun]

It pains me, and I can't stop thinking about this, that SCOTUS is going to rule that "Jefferson Davis was eligible to run for President or Vice-President".  When they were probing the attorney for disqualification examples, I wish he had said - "Jefferson Davis never ran for President because neither he, not any confederates were shameless enough, unlike petitioner".  It wasn't because of some magic words in the text or dicta from a future supreme court justice.

 

And as the Court correctly brought up, people could challenge Trump's executive actions the moment after inauguration because if he is ineligible to hold office, than all his orders are unconstitutional.  And let's assume there is Democrstic control of the House or Senate or even Kamala as VP.  Could she refuse to count electoral votes for an insurrectionist?  

[illone]

13 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

By their actions will you know them. They are insurrectionists.

My eyes dont lie to me, that was domestic terrorism, treason, and definitely an insurrection.  

The issue in my mind isnt knowing what we saw, though. It’s executing the disqualification where things get weird. 
 

If it was up to me DT would not be on ANY state ballot…

 

If trump gets convicted in the federal election case, I think MANY states will automatically remove him. His boot lickers will still write him in but he will lose in a landslide. 
 

game over go straight to jail. 
 

just my 2¢

 

 

[LD0506]

So there we have it, the shoe drops. The most fundamentally spineless shameless SC ever abdicates its responsibility to defend the Constitution and the nation and tries hiding behind the sheerest fig leaves of hyper-technical legal argument to avoid acting because they are corrupt and coopted and blatantly bought and paid for to act in Trump's interests.

 

We're right back to where we were with Mueller, after all these high flying laudatory statements about him and his character and blahblahblah, they jump through their own asses to keep from admitting the truth and the reality of what their rulings mean. There never really was a chance of the "system" purging itself and addressing the central problem. The cops investigated and cleared themselves again. This brings us a large step closer to violence and another insurrection by the fifth column of treasonous traitors living amongst us, and there will be blood on their robes.

[China]

 

[Fergasun]

We could get a result on Tuesday.  It looks like it's going to be a punt, namely that Federal bodies need to be the ones to disqualify insurrectionists. 

 

Few of the many briefs or digital ink spilled on this addresses this issue.  It seems like they were leaning towards an awkward post-election ruling (with a side of hope that Trump loses).

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

I hope something like 38 more states do so as well lol...

[Simmsy]

Hmm, thought this thread would be in a panic by now...guess I get to start it:

 

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/-the-fix-is-in-coup-trial-delay-reveals-supreme-court-in-cahoots-with-trump-205146693530

 

 

Edited February 29 by Simmsy

[LadySkinsFan]

Thomas hasn't recused, yet, or maybe not at all. The supremes are doing their best to string this out.

[Cooked Crack]

https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3kmsqftqlrq2t

Quote

#SCOTUS

 just updated its website to flag that it “may announce opinions” Monday at 10 ET.

 

It’s *really* unusual for the Court to give such little notice—or, outside of when things were closed for COVID, to not take the bench.

 

IOW, Colorado ruling is very likely coming tomorrow.

 

[China]

Not sure why this is such a big deal, we already know what the opinion will be.  Trump should be on the ballot despite being found an insurectionist, because SCOTUS will parse language in some convoluted way that in no way represents the intent of the 14th amendment section 3.  

 

If they rule he's ineligible, I'm buying a round for the entire board.

[Cooked Crack]

Big shock

[tshile]

lol unanimous decision - queue all the people outraged about a rigged court