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

[EmirOfShmo]

Interesting article with some interesting takes from some legal minds. I like the guys take on the 22nd amendment towards the end of the article. 

 

Here’s what SCOTUS just did — and did not do — in its Trump ruling: experts

...

First, Trump stays on the 2024 ballot and any other current challenges to his ability to remain on other states ballots are likely, effectively dead.

"It’s a win for Trump," notes former Obama acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal. "At the same time, remember that the Supreme Court’s decision today did not do what Donald Trump had asked: clear him of insurrection."

That's critical.

"The Colorado court found that he so was, and Trump had an entire section of his SCOTUS brief arguing he was peaceful on 1/6," Katal continues. "The Court didn’t do what he asked; it did not clear him. And the act’s decision leaves space for his criminal trial about Jan 6 to proceed, should the Court dispose of the other Trump immunity case quickly in the Spring (as it can and must)."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/heres-what-scotus-just-did-and-did-not-do-in-its-unanimous-trump-ruling-experts-2667425332/

 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

I think that this was the partial gift to Trump in the short term. He's going to lose anyway in the general. His core is consolidating, the rest of the electorate is jumping ship if they voted for him in 2020 (for some reason). 

 

I also think that the supremes are voting against immunity because they know that any power they've recently asserted will be essentially be gone because a dictator will abolish them, Constitution or not. They don't want their centuries long reputation to be that the caused the death of the United States. 

 

So Trump's going to trial no matter if judge Cannon delays her trial to after the election because it won't matter because Trump won't be president and won't be able to get rid of the federal trials.

 

Bad day for Trump really, looking at the long game.

[Renegade7]

[Larry]

Oh, like they're going to let states decide on abortion.  

 

[Spearfeather]

I suppose this comes down to whether you're under the impression that " right to abortion " is mentioned in the Constitution.

" Engaged in insurrection " is.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

also think that the supremes are voting against immunity because they know that any power they've recently asserted will be essentially be gone because a dictator will abolish them, Constitution or not. They don't want their centuries long reputation to be that the caused the death of the United States. 

 

I disagree with your reasoning here. I think they know whatever immunity they give Trump, they're giving Biden also. I think that will be the point that persuades them.

 

Agree with the rest.

[Simmsy]

6 hours ago, Bang said:

That really is a shame for th GOP.

Dopes.
This was a way out from under that fat ****ing Russian stooge that has dragged you (and all of us) to the brink.

and you ****ing blew it.
This clear criminal, this traitorous lying snake..  you had a chance to not only get out and away from this disaster, but you could have blamed it ALL on Dems and Activist Judges and any ****ing boogie-man you wanted., and you'd have had more credibility in doing so than ANYTHING he has said or done for the last decade.

AND YOU BLEW IT. 

 

~Bang

 

Maybe I'm trying to be dangerously optimistic, but this is actually helpful towards the Dems. If Trump is convicted, a lot of peeps said they wouldn't vote for him, they would probably flock to Haley who has a better chance at beating Biden than Trump (as the polls say 🙄). I don't even care how we win, just beat the **** slug once and for all, I think most of America is ready to move on. I think Biden still beats Haley, but it won't be as easy.

[Spearfeather]

50 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

... I think they know whatever immunity they give Trump, they're giving Biden also. I think that will be the point that persuades them.

 

 

But couldn't you say that they have actually done just that with their decision today ?

They've saved future Democrat presidents from having a Tennesee or Texas or Montana from keeping them off their ballots depending on how they interpret " engaged in insurrection ", without a charge and conviction, or disqualification from congress.

 

 

Edited March 4 by Spearfeather

[LadySkinsFan]

19 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

But couldn't you say that they have actually done just that with their decision today ?

They've saved future Democrat presidents from having a Tennesee or Texas or Montana from keeping them off their ballots depending on how they interpret " engaged in insurrection ", without a charge and conviction, or disqualification from congress.

 

 

 

I actually agree with you here. 

 

However, we all were exposed to Trump trying to overthrow an election since before the November 2020 election day, and since then even unto today and every day forward.

[TheGreatBuzz]

28 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

But couldn't you say that they have actually done just that with their decision today ?

They've saved future Democrat presidents from having a Tennesee or Texas or Montana from keeping them off their ballots depending on how they interpret " engaged in insurrection ", without a charge and conviction, or disqualification from congress.

 

 

 

I was referring to the immunity decision. 

[Spearfeather]

21 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I was referring to the immunity decision. 

 

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, what goes for one is going to go for the other. 

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, Simmsy said:

 

Maybe I'm trying to be dangerously optimistic, but this is actually helpful towards the Dems. If Trump is convicted, a lot of peeps said they wouldn't vote for him, they would probably flock to Haley who has a better chance at beating Biden than Trump (as the polls say 🙄). I don't even care how we win, just beat the **** slug once and for all, I think most of America is ready to move on. I think Biden still beats Haley, but it won't be as easy.

You think because Trump gets convicted, Haley gets the nomination. His daughter in law will be co chair. 

 

Even if Trump were sitting in a jail cell, he’d be the nominee.  He probably goes up in the polls not down.

 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

18 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, what goes for one is going to go for the other. 

This seems to be the current line of thinking, but it seems silly to me.

 

Trump engaged in an insurrection. Acting like this protects Dems from frivolous “insurrection challenges” feels weak. 
 

If those challenges were brought, they could be tossed on a case by case basis. 
 

The amount of judicial contorting to protect Trump is ridiculous. The ****er tried to overthrow the government. He should be barred from office and thrown under the jail.

 

Edited March 5 by AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy

[TheGreatBuzz]

18 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, what goes for one is going to go for the other. 

 

Except that's not how court works. 

[Spearfeather]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Except that's not how court works. 

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Spearfeather said:

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. 

 

 

I get that a lot.

[Spearfeather]

7 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Trump engaged in an insurrection. Acting like this protects Dems from frivolous “insurrection challenges” feels weak. 

 

It might feel that way, but that's in fact what it does.

[Jumbo]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I get that a lot.

 

 

People find you enigmatically inscrutable in your dexterous ambiguity. I can grok it. I'm a hazy shade of winter. 

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

 

But couldn't you say that they have actually done just that with their decision today ?

They've saved future Democrat presidents from having a Tennesee or Texas or Montana from keeping them off their ballots depending on how they interpret " engaged in insurrection ", without a charge and conviction, or disqualification from congress.

 

 

 

This is a bad argument for two reasons.  First, what should save Democratic candidates from sham insurrection disqualification is by not committing insurrection.  The line only works if Trump is being disqualified under a sham insurrection charge.  No.  Joe Biden doesn't have to worry about whacko red state disqualification because he has done nothing to be disqualified. 

 

Second, if a red state was going to cook up a sham insurrection charge, that state is too far gone to be in play anyway.  Is Biden winning any state that he has a potential of being disqualified in?

 

People who raise this line ranges from insinuate to outright claim that Trump did not engage in insurrection.  Bull****.  The very fact that not one court at any level of this litigation seriously questioned the lower court finding of insurrection (after a 5 day trial) should disqualify him in the mind of any voter who gives any value and credence to the principles of democracy.  You can think Joe Biden is the devil incarnate.  Then find someone else to head the party ticket.  Trump is a charlatan, a huckster, and a traitor to this country.  But we always knew that.  Any voter sailing him in as the GOP nominee or voting for him in the general is complicit in Trump's insurrection.  And spare me the feigned shock in the future when election denial and challenging election results by any means necessary becomes the norm.  

[Simmsy]

38 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

You think because Trump gets convicted, Haley gets the nomination. His daughter in law will be co chair. 

 

Even if Trump were sitting in a jail cell, he’d be the nominee.  He probably goes up in the polls not down.

 

 

Hmmm, my common sense judgement of the GOP accidentally considered the GOP had common sense. My bad, carry on.

[Spearfeather]

20 minutes ago, bearrock said:

This is a bad argument for two reasons.  First, what should save Democratic candidates from sham insurrection disqualification is by not committing insurrection.  The line only works if Trump is being disqualified under a sham insurrection charge.

 

Without a conviction or being disqualified by congress a " sham insurrection charge " would be the opinion of this judge in this state and that election official in that state.

I don't think that's a good idea. 

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, what goes for one is going to go for the other. 

 

Problem is that your argument consists entirely of "Well, if we actually follow the constitution, in the case of someone who is clearly guilty, them there might be a day when some treasonous Republicans will try to do the same thing to somebody who clearly isn’t guilty."  

[Spearfeather]

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

Problem is that your argument consists entirely of "Well, if we actually follow the constitution,

 

You know it's not just my argument 

 

 

 

 

I think he loses the immunity case.

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Without a conviction or being disqualified by congress a " sham insurrection charge " would be the opinion of this judge in this state and that election official in that state.

I don't think that's a good idea. 

 

 

A truly sham insurrection finding would be subject to multiple appeals to overturn, including SCOTUS.  We have bad and incompetent judges make bad factual findings and misapplication of the law all the time.  They get overturned on appeal all the time.  Even a jury finding is subject to overturn on appeal if the situation warrants it.  For a sham insurrection charge to stand, it would have to survive multiple appeals all the way to SCOTUS.  If affirmed at every level, that's quite the sham.

[PokerPacker]

46 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Without a conviction or being disqualified by congress a " sham insurrection charge " would be the opinion of this judge in this state and that election official in that state.

I don't think that's a good idea. 

 

If only there were a higher federal court that could overrule a state court in such a case.  Oh well...