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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Can I just also say, I'm so damn tired of hearing legal "experts" claiming that the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor based on "legal reasons"...only to then immediately go on to say "Look, the Supreme Court doesn't want to be the ones who keep Trump off the ballots."

 

 

 

Newflash: not wanting to do something is NOT a "legal reason" for not doing it...in fact, it's the exact opposite. Heard that for like the 20th time recently on an MSNBC segment where the legal expert was asked if they thought the SC would rule that Trump should be allowed on the ballot in Colorado/Maine:

 

Expert: "I happen to agree with Donald Trump. I think they will rule in his favor to keep his name on the ballot."

Host: "Is that for legal reasons or other reasons?"

Expert (immediately): "Legal reasons. Look, the Supreme Court doesn't want to be the ones who keep Donald Trump off the ballot..."

 

...and he never explained the legal reasons why he thinks the SC will rule that way. No explanation outside of him thinking they simply don't want to be the ones to do it. And he was smiling as he said it, like he was thinking "Come on, now."

 

The closest I've heard any legal expert come as to offering a legal reason is saying he was never convicted and "he deserves due process." Unfortunately I pretty much never hear the interviewing host delve deeper as to what "due process" should be in this matter and that the Constitution only applies due process to someone who's in danger of losing their life, their liberty, or their property...none of which Trump will lose if he's kicked off the ballot. So "due process" and "they don't want to be the ones to keep Trump off the ballot" both become conventional wisdom and are treated as if that's enough of an answer.

Edited January 7 by Califan007 The Constipated

[PokerPacker]

If they simply didn't want to be the ones to keep him off the ballot, they'd choose not to take the case.  They want to be the ones to keep him on the ballot.

[Larry]

33 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

If they simply didn't want to be the ones to keep him off the ballot, they'd choose not to take the case.  They want to be the ones to keep him on the ballot.

 

Or at least they would have waited to get rulings that disagree. 

[Fergasun]

A bunch of conservative lawyers have already submitted briefs to SCOTUS saying the 14th Amendment Section 3 doesn't cover the President.  Apparantly, an Irish law professor came to this magic conclusion.  This actually is what the initial Colorado judge grabbed onto. The state supreme court said this was so far beyond what was considered true at the time and Congress has typically treated it as covering the President.  Of course Section 3 covers the President!  

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Fergasun]

No matter which way this case turns, it's going to be "Bush v. Gore" all over again.  Except 10x worse.  

 

I think, it is pretty clear from both the text and history, states can throw an insurrectionist President off the ballot, and they can do so without convictions. I think, perhaps the Colorado trail judge wanted to avoid the blame that the Maine Sec of State is getting and she grasped onto the whole "the President is not covered". 

 

But, being law and lawyers, there are further arguments being made. To obsfuscute things (think of it like "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit") against disqualification. 

 

(1) January 6 wasn't an insurrection, and if it was, so was "Black Lives Matter", are we going to disqualify everyone who supported BLM? This ignores the months that Trump spent falsely claiming stolen election ("oh, he was just exercising political speech.")  

 

(2) That section just talks about "holding office". There is nothing about being elected to that office (although some states like Maine do make it a requirement to be eligible to hold office for the ballot). 

 

(3)  The most galling argument to me is that "70 million people supported Trump and a large subset felt like they were cheated in 2020.  How angry will they get if they can't vote for him in 2024!   I live in a red state, you don't understand!" 

 

And then the fall back is the old, "well, if it is too close and too muddy, than we should just keep him on the ballot.  It's too close." 

 

I see.  So the 2nd amendment cases and abortion, those also aren't "too close"? 

 

"Well - it's too close, but we don't care.  The Constitution does say we can ban abortion! "

 

A really good point was made in a counter-debate.  Post 2000 and post 2016 elections, conservatives were like, "Gee, sorry, we elect the President via Electoral College like the  Constitution says.  We have to follow it!  We don't have the popular vote. But now. When the Constitution says Trump is disqualified... well.... we can set that aside."  

[Larry]

I think Arnold Schwarzenegger should declare for the Republican nomination. 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

The BLM argument is specious. It doesn't involve any government or Constitutional acts like the recording of the Electoral College certified votes by both houses of Congress. I'm sick of these white supremists trying to disparage an organization/movement that is against white supremacy. 

[Fergasun]

I keep looking more at this issue and it's clear that Trump is not qualified.  It's not even close.  

 

Both Colorado courts ruled it an insurrection. So did Maine.  So did New Mexico (county commissioner).  It's likely that he should have been removed on 7 January due to his lack of qualification, although at that time we didn't have the full picture.  

 

The weird lawyerly argument that somehow the President is not an "officer of the United States" is silly, weird and lawyerly. 

 

Our Constitution doesn't cease to exist just because you are popular.  Just like we can't have Arnold Scwarzenager, or a 32 year old or Barack Obama or George W. Bush again. We can't have a Constitutional oath breaker as President.

[Fergasun]

A former GOP judge from Illinois looking at their challenge advised the board of elections to not rule Trump ineligible because they shouldn't make Constitutional decisions.  Then he said "well, if you have to make a ruling, I recommend you fall on insurrection."  

 

If you are playing along at home, so far we have the House (impeachment), 57 Senators, Colorado District judge, Colorado Supreme Court, Maine Secretary of State and now Illinois Board of elector advisor --  6 bodies of law/judges who determined it was insurrection.  And zero who have not.  And we are a couple weeks away from the Supreme Court likely saying, "Gee... was it really insurrection? We really can't tell.  And it would be a shame if these fine human beings couldn't vote for who they wanted to." 

 

All the talk orange julius says about not having a Constitution.  Him holding office again would be the biggest sign we don't.  

 

I will start the "Tom Holland 2028" campaign, because even our justice/legal system is just gonna self-own itself.

[China]

8 hours ago, Fergasun said:

A former GOP judge from Illinois looking at their challenge advised the board of elections to not rule Trump ineligible because they shouldn't make Constitutional decisions.  Then he said "well, if you have to make a ruling, I recommend you fall on insurrection."  

 

If you are playing along at home, so far we have the House (impeachment), 57 Senators, Colorado District judge, Colorado Supreme Court, Maine Secretary of State and now Illinois Board of elector advisor --  6 bodies of law/judges who determined it was insurrection.  And zero who have not.  And we are a couple weeks away from the Supreme Court likely saying, "Gee... was it really insurrection? We really can't tell.  And it would be a shame if these fine human beings couldn't vote for who they wanted to." 

 

All the talk orange julius says about not having a Constitution.  Him holding office again would be the biggest sign we don't.  

 

I will start the "Tom Holland 2028" campaign, because even our justice/legal system is just gonna self-own itself.

 

Here's a link:

 

Illinois election board will consider whether to boot Trump from ballot over insurrection amendment

 

Illinois’ election board on Tuesday is scheduled to consider whether to keep Donald Trump on the state’s primary ballot after a recommendation that he be removed over the Constitution’s insurrection provision.

 

The meeting of the Illinois State Board of Elections, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, comes a little more than a week before the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a similar case from Colorado. That state’s highest court found the 14th Amendment barred the Republican former president from the ballot over his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, when he encouraged his backers to storm the building after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.

 

After brief arguments last week, a hearing officer for the Illinois board said it should be up to the courts, rather than election officials, to decide Trump’s eligibility because of the complicated constitutional issues involved. But the opinion from Clark Erickson, a retired judge and a Republican, concluded that a “preponderance of the evidence” presented proved that Trump engaged in insurrection and should be barred from the ballot.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

[Fergasun]

They are not "lonely".  They're just not trying to or no longer need to win votes from insurrectionist supporters.  

 

The whole thing on "insurrection" is being intentionally confused. So are the "complicated legal issues."  Trump and members of his team worked to overturn the election results so that he could remain President in time period from November 9 to January 6.  He intentionally spread lies to enflame his followers to disrupt the Congressional session on January 6.  His lies are still being believed.  I don't even think his legal briefs are arguing against the finding of insurrection.  That his followers don't want to look at the entire picture is their issue.  That's their problem, not people looking at this from an outside perspective.  Not people who have a duty to uphold the Constitution. 

 

The fear of civil war over Trump is the dumbest thing ever.  His followers will not take up arms over this.  Neither will people like me who vehemently think he is unqualified. All parties will still vote in November.  Regardless of the damage I think Trump 2 will do, I still think it will be limited, driven by his own self interest/self-preservation, will hurt conservatism/right-wing in the long run and the country is going to recover.  A second term will be so bogged down in his continuing legal issues that it's a guaranteed Constitutional crises and every action he takes is going to be so off the rails, that he will be taken to court on "day one" -- especially if he does his "I will be a dictator on day one!" (newsflash, he won't!!).

[Bang]

My "like' above is for the first paragraph, which I firmly agree with.
The second though..  it doesn't take many people to make a war.
If he gets in again, he is going to have to be removed in a mop bucket. I don't think his own incompetence will limit him, because his enablers know what they want to do, and will do everything they can to make it happen.
And what they want is a totalitarian state.

 

~Bang

Edited January 30 by Bang

[Riggo-toni]

Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe the most "defusing" outcome might be if Trump gets disqualified, but then Haley wins the election over Biden.  I'm NOT suggesting a preference for Haley over Biden, so don't flame me on that; but that scenario would force GOPers to decide if they want to hang on to a loser past or actually try to move beyond the cult of personality and become an actual party again.

 

And it would be almost hilarious to see all the spineless sycophants and MTG level nutballs twisted in knots over whether to support a Republican president, or sabotage her like they've been doing to Biden because if Drumpf is allowed to tweet from his jail cell, you know he will be urging them to tear her down.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe the most "defusing" outcome might be if Trump gets disqualified, but then Haley wins the election over Biden.  I'm NOT suggesting a preference for Haley over Biden, so don't flame me on that; but that scenario would force GOPers to decide if they want to hang on to a loser past or actually try to move beyond the cult of personality and become an actual party again.

 

And it would be almost hilarious to see all the spineless sycophants and MTG level nutballs twisted in knots over whether to support a Republican president, or sabotage her like they've been doing to Biden because if Drumpf is allowed to tweet from his jail cell, you know he will be urging them to tear her down.

 

To me, the most "defusing" outcome would be overwhelming losses for the GOP across the board coupled with Trump being found guilty in all his cases and the Supreme Court deciding he can indeed be disqualified from state ballots.

 

An undeniably strong statement needs to be sent to the GOP...the abortion vote results in different states was a rather strong one, but not nearly enough. Everything about this needs to be squelched, put out, doused, whatever...MAGA absolutely has to turn into a short-lived movement that brought out the worst in some people and even in some political leaders, but was not allowed to keep hanging around in any way. Haley winning would never lead to what the country needs. She wants (or wanted) to pardon Trump so that the country could move past him...all that will do is embolden Trump and is sycophants. Resounding losses for the Republican party would be the best chance of Americans yelling into their faces "Do you ****ing get it now? Because if not, we will keep doing this in 4 more years until you do."

 

 

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

They are not "lonely".  They're just not trying to or no longer need to win votes from insurrectionist supporters.  

 

 

That doesn't negate the idea of them being "lonely" in their stance. Because lonely doesn't equal brave.

[FuriousD]

35 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

The whole thing on "insurrection" is being intentionally confused. So are the "complicated legal issues."  Trump and members of his team worked to overturn the election results so that he could remain President in time period from November 9 to January 6. 

One of the most eye opening revelations from the Jan 6 Committee hearings was the “win or declare election fraud” plan taking root well before November.  If I remember correctly, plan-B to break the law if the election didn’t go their way was on the table April or May of 2020. 

[Fergasun]

@Bang

I wholly disagree.  When it comes down to actual governing, most of the things Trump (can't really name much) did were reversed.  And he didn't do anything.  As soon as he crosses the line, the Courts will be forced to reign him in.  He didn't try to cross the line much last time. And he loves to rant on about judges. 

 

He has by far the best marketing of any politician I have ever seen. Consider that maybe 50+% of the electorate and more despise him and his mindless symchopants.  That number keeps growing.  

 

The worst thing about him is that he absolutely faced zero major crises (apart from him) until COVID.  We are in the midst of a much different world.  

 

Polarization is a bit of a politically fed media construct.  We all work together as Americans every day. I don't care what my co workers vote for that much.  But Trump has heightened all of this and I hope people are just wanting to backdown to normalcy in poltics.

[@DCGoldPants]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

To me, the most "defusing" outcome would be overwhelming losses for the GOP across the board coupled with Trump being found guilty in all his cases and the Supreme Court deciding he can indeed be disqualified from state ballots.

 

The conspiracy theories would go through the roof if there were such a wave that the GOP became a super-minority. We read about State GOPs going broke. I'd love to see them voted out of existence in a place like AZ or PA.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

The conspiracy theories would go through the roof if there were such a wave that the GOP became a super-minority. We read about State GOPs going broke. I'd love to see them voted out of existence in a place like AZ or PA.

 

 

Considering the latest conspiracy theory is that somehow the deep state caused the Chiefs to make it to the Super Bowl and arranged for Taylor Swift and Kelce to start dating so that they could prop up the Democrats, I'm gonna go ahead and assume those conspiracies will exist no matter what lol...

[Spearfeather]

10 hours ago, Fergasun said:

If you are playing along at home, so far we have the House (impeachment), 57 Senators, Colorado District judge, Colorado Supreme Court, Maine Secretary of State and now Illinois Board of elector advisor --  6 bodies of law/judges who determined it was insurrection.  And zero who have not.  And we are a couple weeks away from the Supreme Court likely saying, "Gee... was it really insurrection? We really can't tell.  And it would be a shame if these fine human beings couldn't vote for who they wanted to." 

 

I just think it's hard to make this case with no one being convicted or even charged with insurrection. 

Are you sure you want each state to be able to determine for itself what qualifies as " engaged in insurrection " ?

 

Are you sure that's what you want ?

[@DCGoldPants]

19 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

Considering the latest conspiracy theory is that somehow the deep state caused the Chiefs to make it to the Super Bowl and arranged for Taylor Swift and Kelce to start dating so that they could prop up the Democrats, I'm gonna go ahead and assume those conspiracies will exist no matter what lol...

 

I like that conspiracy theory. Especially if she makes it come true. Swiftie Voter Registration Drives. Insert lyric that could be funny here from one of her songs. 

[Bang]

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

@Bang

I wholly disagree.  When it comes down to actual governing, most of the things Trump (can't really name much) did were reversed.  And he didn't do anything.  As soon as he crosses the line, the Courts will be forced to reign him in.  He didn't try to cross the line much last time. And he loves to rant on about judges. 

 

He has by far the best marketing of any politician I have ever seen. Consider that maybe 50+% of the electorate and more despise him and his mindless symchopants.  That number keeps growing.  

 

The worst thing about him is that he absolutely faced zero major crises (apart from him) until COVID.  We are in the midst of a much different world.  

 

Polarization is a bit of a politically fed media construct.  We all work together as Americans every day. I don't care what my co workers vote for that much.  But Trump has heightened all of this and I hope people are just wanting to backdown to normalcy in poltics.

All due respect, but i think this labors under the assumption that any of them will play by any rules we are familiar with and expect. Rule of law means nothing to any of them. 
He tried once to become king, to overthrow the government, and he will do everything he can do to do it again, starting the day he takes the oath. They will make sure no one can 'undo' anything because if he has his way, there won't be anyone to undo any of what he does, including persecute them.

With no hyperbole, my hope is that IF he should win, the military will step in and remove him if necessary.
Granted, he'd have to go a LONG way to warrant that, but I think that is what he wants to do. A long way, and then some.

I just don't see a reasonable way out of this. It's too far down the rabbit hole. Hope I'm wrong, but haven't been yet.

 

~Bang

[Fergasun]

4 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I just think it's hard to make this case with no one being convicted or even charged with insurrection. 

Are you sure you want each state to be able to determine for itself what qualifies as " engaged in insurrection " ?

 

Are you sure that's what you want ?

Yes.  

 

In the 150 or so years of this Amendment being active, now is the apporpriate moment.  We have never had a serious discussion on this now.  Highly likely we'll have more of this if we don't put feet down.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 hours ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

I like that conspiracy theory. Especially if she makes it come true. Swiftie Voter Registration Drives. Insert lyric that could be funny here from one of her songs. 

 

LOL @ the part in bold 😂...