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

[CousinsCowgirl84]

35 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

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.

 

yes, I agree the cases should be hastened. Your compromise is common sense.

 

 

50 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

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? 

Why did you waste your time watching the other speech? I’m giving Trump zero percent of my eyeballs. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

17 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

 

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. 
 

 

preaching to the choir… 

 

17 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

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

I think that if scotus makes a choice that makes it legal to remove somelne from the ballot without being convicted of a crime, it sets dangerous precedent. I’m not excited about it. I don’t want Trump to win but I don’t want to disgrace democracy to get that result. I think that was the point of Biden speach yesterday. Don’t disgrace democracy.

[Simmsy]

So let me get this straight: even though its pretty clear in the constitution, we should ignore that because...some people might not like it? The criminals that the law is supposed to keep out won't like it...so we can't do it? That is terrible reasoning. We can't enforce a clear law because some people might seek retribution for Donald Trump.

 

If thats the case, then Trump is above the law. I also find it funny how so many people are strict interpreters of the Constitution...until it comes to Donald Trump.

 

I used to think Trump was useful to dems, his repulsiveness helps in the polls, but its not worth it anymore. I want him to die, I said it, I wish Donald Trump was dead. This country, this world, would be a much better place without him in it.

Edited January 6 by Simmsy

[Fergasun]

Why am I amped on this?  This will immediately turn into an argument on Trump's eligibility and his actions.  There is no way SCOTUS can ignore it. I think we'll have 4+ hours of arguments regarding both the 14th Amendment, AND Trump's eligibility to serve based on his actions.  

 

So while, I do think we get some cynical BS allowing him to be fully qualified.  I do look forward to SCOTUS defining how and what can disqualify him at the very least (I assume they won't just erase 14th Amendment, Section 3).

 

All this will happen fast...

[TheGreatBuzz]

Anyone going to DC Tuesday if it looks like he is going to appear?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 hours ago, Simmsy said:

So let me get this straight: even though its pretty clear in the constitution, we should ignore that because...some people might not like it? The criminals that the law is supposed to keep out won't like it...so we can't do it? That is terrible reasoning. We can't enforce a clear law because some people might seek retribution for Donald Trump.

 

 

If they engaged in insurrection. Insurrection is a crime. Committing a crime means being found guilty.  There are larger consequences to consider than Trump.

This whole thing is like terrorism. People say even if you kill a bunch of terrorists it won’t make you more secure because the ideology and hate is still there. Even if you disqualify Trump from the ballot, there is another terrorist right behind him gaetz or Greene. Even worse because they are young and ARENT going to die soon. (Most likely) Now you’ve created precedent that someone can be removed from the ballot because they supported insurrection without a clear line about what insurrection is and who gets to decide who committed insurrection. 
 

you all have not addressed that problem. That is a huge problem. Frankly I do not trust republicans to limit accusations of insurrection to the levels that Trump committed. 
 

I agree Trump committed insurrection. I agree that he is not fit for the office. But if you are going to disenfranchise a large group of people you need to make sure everyone has a clear line that has to be met. Without a conviction I don’t see that clear line.

 

you all don’t think that is a problem?

Edited January 7 by CousinsCowgirl84

[LadySkinsFan]

 14th Amendment Section 3 is a qualifier, a self qualifier at that. If you take an oath on the Constitution and you break that oath, you've automatically self-selected yourself subject to the amendment and section. No need for a trial and conviction. We all saw him take the oath on TV and we all saw him break that oath on January 6th. I've seen enough.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

The trick is providing a clear and obvious line about what is “breaking the oath”.

[LadySkinsFan]

No trick, we all saw it in his speech that day, in his tweets offering up Pence, refusing to call in the National Guard, telling the insurrectionists that he loved them. 

 

Geez, how much do you need to see? You're becoming an apologist for him.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

9 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

No trick, we all saw it in his speech that day, in his tweets offering up Pence, refusing to call in the National Guard, telling the insurrectionists that he loved them. 

 

Geez, how much do you need to see? You're becoming an apologist for him.

You and I can agree it is insurrection. I don’t think that is enough. Why are you against charging him with insurrection? 

[LadySkinsFan]

He can be charged with insurrection in DC. He doesn't need to be convicted of insurrection for his disqualification under the 14th Amendment Section 3 because it's self-selecting, and he self-selected.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

34 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

He can be charged with insurrection in DC. He doesn't need to be convicted of insurrection for his disqualification under the 14th Amendment Section 3 because it's self-selecting, and he self-selected.

So in the future when boebert decides to run for senate and gets the states newly elected republican AG to declare her incumbent opponent committed insurrection when voting for “whatever republicans don’t like”, what are we going to do?
 

We have already set precedent that an AG can single handedly choose who committed insurrection. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

38 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

So in the future when boebert decides to run for senate and gets the states newly elected republican AG to declare her incumbent opponent committed insurrection when voting for “whatever republicans don’t like”, what are we going to do?
 

We have already set precedent that an AG can single handedly choose who committed insurrection. 

 

She won't be able to get the states newly elected republican AG to "declare her incumbent opponent committed insurrection"...that's not how it works. For her to do what you're claiming, the Colorado Constitution would need to first be amended, and then that amendment to be upheld by the Supreme Court (who, contrary to popular belief, have actually been pretty solid in their legal decisions in terms of voting issues across the country). And even in Maine it's not simply one person waking up, yawning, and then deciding unilaterally to keep someone off the ballot. There's a process to it that involves far more than the AG.

 

Again, if any other state wants to follow this precedent, they may have to change their state's Constitution first, then hope it stands up to appeal in the Supreme Court. And those states could possibly find themselves in Ohio's shoes where voters determine if the laws changing the state Constitution are passed. But voters from both parties voted against the Constitutional amendment that the state GOP leaders wanted.

Edited January 7 by Califan007 The Constipated

[samy316]

This is obviously going to fail, when the SC votes against this with a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling.  SC will argue that since he hasn’t been convicted YET of an attempted coup (only indicted so far), the argument is flimsy for him being left off of the ballot.  Does anyone really expect the SC to make any other decision?  This is an extremely partisan court, so I expect this ruling to go how you would like expect it to go. There’s literally no reason to believe that this court will uphold the CO decision.

 

By the way, this ruling applies to ALL people running for office that might have been apart of the attempted coup on 1/6.  The ruling has far greater reach than just Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Many republican politicians who were apart of the 1/6 attempted coup would also be left off the ballot nationwide theoretically, if the SC found Colorado’s argument valid.  There’s NO WAY in my opinion, that the SC would uphold such a ruling, for the possibility of MAJOR ramifications across the GOP party for 2024 & beyond.

Edited January 7 by samy316

[Cooked Crack]

 

[@DCGoldPants]

35 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Profile in courage

[Larry]

31 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Just pointing out, Mr Pence. 

 

There were two insurrections in progress on January 6th. 

 

Am I wrong, or did he participate in one of them, by choosing to skip the counting of the electors from Arizona?  

[LadySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, Mr Pence. 

 

There were two insurrections in progress on January 6th. 

 

Am I wrong, or did he participate in one of them, by choosing to skip the counting of the electors from Arizona?  

 

Interesting, I didn't know that he didn't count Arizona. I thought that all were counted because the counts from the Electoral College vote were included in the count in Congress with the rest.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, samy316 said:

This is obviously going to fail, when the SC votes against this with a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling.  SC will argue that since he hasn’t been convicted YET of an attempted coup (only indicted so far), the argument is flimsy for him being left off of the ballot.

 

Since taking that stance pretty much means that they aren't gonna follow the Constitution at all in any way, shape or form, I'm doubting that's their reasoning. They may still rule that he should remain on the ballot but it's not gonna be because he wasn't convicted or even tried...since a conviction is not required, they'll have to think up some other reason.

 

My guess is that they'll side with Trump on this, but decide against Trump on the presidential immunity issue. That way it comes across as if the conservatives on the SC aren't being partisan.

[Fergasun]

@CousinsCowgirl84

Why do you keep ignoring the clear concept that no conviction was required?  Was it not proper to bar confederates without conviction?  So we needed millions of criminal trials ( or at least hundreds of thousands)?  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

52 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, Mr Pence. 

 

There were two insurrections in progress on January 6th. 

 

Am I wrong, or did he participate in one of them, by choosing to skip the counting of the electors from Arizona?  

 

I don't think that's quite what happened...

 

Pence was asking if there were any objections to the electoral votes after each state, something that normally isn't done even though it's technically part of the election process. Supposedly, Pence decided to ask this as a way of signalling to Trump and his crew that the only thing he'd do would be to follow the Electoral Count Act--which states that the VP "shall ask for objections" when each state is called even though VPs almost never, ever do this. I'm assuming because Congress members from each state can raise their objections anyway and don't need to be asked. I guess Al Gore did this in 2000 as well.

 

The riot/insurrection stopped the proceedings as Arizona was raising its objection...so pretty sure Pence didn't skip counting AZ's electoral votes, unless I missed something.

[LadySkinsFan]

25 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

Since taking that stance pretty much means that they aren't gonna follow the Constitution at all in any way, shape or form, I'm doubting that's their reasoning. They may still rule that he should remain on the ballot but it's not gonna be because he wasn't convicted or even tried...since a conviction is not required, they'll have to think up some other reason.

 

My guess is that they'll side with Trump on this, but decide against Trump on the presidential immunity issue. That way it comes across as if the conservatives on the SC aren't being partisan.

 

I agree, because if they rule for Trump on the immunity double jeopardy issues, it means that any president including Biden suspend the other two branches/Constitution and declare himself president for life. I don't think that any Democrat president would ever do that, not so sure about a Republican president because we know that's what Trump will do.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

I agree, because if they rule for Trump on the immunity double jeopardy issues, it means that any president including Biden suspend the other two branches/Constitution and declare himself president for life. I don't think that any Democrat president would ever do that, not so sure about a Republican president because we know that's what Trump will do.

 

Exactly...I think that one is a safer bet for the conservatives on the Supreme Court.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

@CousinsCowgirl84

Why do you keep ignoring the clear concept that no conviction was required?  

I am saying I think it should be required, for the reasons I listed. The constitution is not clear about it.

[LadySkinsFan]

14th Amendment Section is very clear that this disqualification is self-selected. If one doesn't want to run afoul of it, don't participate in an insurrection. Insurrection is described as breaking one's oath of office on the Constitution to overthrow the government and that makes one ineligible for public office. 

 

 

Edited January 7 by LadySkinsFan