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

[LadySkinsFan]

Cool, I've got another 14 years! Woohoo!

[Jumbo]

@Spearfeather

 

I appreciate your answering in a relatively direct and fulsome manner. 🙂

 

You're close, of course, on my answers.

 

1. Absolutely yes, without any doubt, though I understand your take. Because of his mental irregularities he could "know" (believe) he lost much of the time and then "believe" he was robbed other times and even transfer back and forth from moment to moment at times. But his knowing/believing he lost and still wanting to overturn at anytime in his consciousness, and then taking actions to do so make him guilty, period, imv  

 

2. No, not according to my analysis of the intentions of the 14th and my knowledge of relevant history as well as other pertinent fields of study. Per the SC and many other courts, I see too much political ideology of both right and left nature, varying in what side is dominant over time, and not enough emphasis on honest objective historical/legal analysis of matters but don't think we can ever get around it. I wish legislature worked more effectively in crafting and passing laws with a solidity and clarity that kept higher courts interpretations to a minimum. 

 

3. This may throw you off but I actually want him on the ballot. My analysis is that it will be worse for the GOP at many levels and for me, these days, the weaker the gop is the better for the bulk of the country, for the ideals of a democratic republic, and for humanity at large. Not that the left/dem side doesn't have a **** ton of flaws. But to me, at this time, the right is way way way more ugly and toxic overall than the left.

 

4. Of course it's no. More than that, I think it's only a mixture of some very sad and toxic cognitive activity that leads to a yes vote. And trust me, I know all the reasons the various types of "conservative" folks from full on magas to the republicans who don't like a lot about trump or maga but will vote for him over any dem, give as to why they'd do it and my call stands as made.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

I think he thought that he was being screwed. In other words, I don't think he knew for a fact ( and maybe still doesn't think ) that he lost, even if he eventually used the phrase " I lost ". In his stubborness he became more and more frustrated and desperate and did things that were reprehensible.

 

Just pointing out that even IF this is the case, it is not a defense to the crimes he is charged with.

[Larry]

Also pointing out.  

 

The conspiracies which we saw, in progress, months before the election are not the actions of a delusional man who believes he's won.  

[Bang]

I don't care if he 'believed' he won (he didn't, he knew exactly what he was doing)... his entire career has been spent screwing everyone he ever did business with, he's lied and manipulated and conned everyone who came in contact with him. Now all of a sudden he's incapable of telling the difference, that his lack of any living brain matter means he is some poor soul who can't help but fight for what he thinks is right?

 

 

Bull****.

 

BULL****.

This ****ing guy sold our country out, stole incredibly sensitive military secrets and as far as I know has YET to bring them back, he was a foreign asset, and THAT is much more easy to BELIEVE than any of that other nonsense.

 

He's lying. Again. He's conning. Again. He wants to be King, and his party wants to make him king. 
King Diaper**** the First.

 

If he is SO mentally degenerated that he can't even discern reality, then even considering voting for him should revoke your right forever for the sheer lack of responsibility you have displayed in your exercising it. Propping him up as a candidate SHOULD turn the entire party that does it into a laughing stock..  but unfortunately, a whole pile of ignorant dumb****s that thinks their OWN STUPIDITY is FUNNY are their voting block. 
 

All the excuses, all the bending of reality to fit this ****ing con man is insane, literally. 

 

~Bang

Edited February 2 by Bang

[PokerPacker]

If you're going to trot out that he's too mentally incompetent to be held accountable (not even criminally, mind you), should he not be in a mental institution?

[Bang]

Give him the Ol' Yeller treatment.

 

~Bang!

[LadySkinsFan]

I saw that movie once as a child and I cried.

[PokerPacker]

Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

I saw that movie once as a child and I cried.

Hmm, that should not be the reaction for him.  Give him the Last House On The Left treatment.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

Good take on the possibilities of how Trump could win in the SC.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/trump-lawyers-strategy-supreme-court-ballot.html

 

 

tl:dr version - the Supreme Court:

• could accept the First Amendment defense Trump has offered
• could accept the conclusion first reached in Colorado that the 14th amendment does not apply to the president due to the president not being an "officer of the United States" (although it also thinks that's the weakest argument to rely on)
• could agree with Trump that states can only consider disqualifying candidates under Section 3 if Congress passes a statute authorizing it
• could agree that Trump did not have an adequate chance to defend himself in the state court
• could hold that the evidence was not sufficient to show that he actually “engaged in insurrection"
• could resuscitate an extreme version of the “independent state legislature” theory that Colorado law did not authorize Colorado courts to remove Trump from the ballot for violating Section 3

The article says that if the SC rules in his favor on any of these points, it basically puts him on all the ballots across the country. The article doesn't mention the due process argument anywhere.

 

It also comes up with a theory as to why Trump and his lawyers structured their brief in the way that they did:

 

     "Trump leads with the hypertechnical argument accepted by the trial court (but rejected by Colorado’s Supreme Court) that Trump is not an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3. Trump devotes about three times as much space to this argument compared to any of his other individual arguments.

 

     Briefs are typically written to put the strongest argument first. Why would Trump think the officer argument is the strongest?...

 

     [...]Equally interesting is an argument that Trump left out of his brief on the merits. When he first petitioned the Supreme Court to take the Colorado case, Trump opened with the argument that disqualification under Section 3 is a question that only Congress, not the courts, has the power to decide."

 

Simply put, Trump may have left out the argument about only Congress can decide if he's disqualified because he does not want the SC to rule on that issue until after the election...it assumes that if he does win, that Congress could use that power to disqualify him once the electoral count is completed, and only then would he want the SC to rule on it...not now, not in advance of the election. So that stance was taken out.

 

 

 

Edited February 2 by Califan007 The Constipated

[Spearfeather]

5 hours ago, Larry said:

Also pointing out.  

 

The conspiracies which we saw, in progress, months before the election are not the actions of a delusional man who believes he's won.

 

I might be misunderstanding you, but if it's months before the election, how could he believe he's won ?

 

Or maybe your saying his delusions were both before and after the election.

[China]

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I might be misunderstanding you, but if it's months before the election, how could he believe he's won ?

 

Or maybe your saying his delusions were both before and after the election.

 

He's saying his criminal activity to try to overturn the election started before the election, just in case he might lose. That is, his actions were premeditated, not just happening after he "thought" he lost.

[JCB]

Once again, read this from September 2020 (which means relevant reporting at least a month out). There is no conclusion to draw other than a sustained, knowing plot to throw the system into chaos based on the whims of this freak.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

[LadySkinsFan]

We have the process to install the winner of the Electoral College. And **** those asshole Republican Fascist Representatives who won't vote for certified EC votes. 

[Skintime]

22 hours ago, Larry said:

Also pointing out.  

 

The conspiracies which we saw, in progress, months before the election are not the actions of a delusional man who believes he's won.  

It shows ignorance on the poster that he was not aware of this or chose to ignore it.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

I know it's a delusion. But part of me is imagining how glorious it would be if SCOTUS (none of whom need anything from Trump ever again) were to rule 9-0 that "Donald Trump is disqualified from office by the 14th Amendment".

Edited February 2 by Larry

[LadySkinsFan]

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

I know it's a delusion. But part of me is imagining how glorious it would be if SCOTUS (none of whom need anything from Trump ever again) were to rule 9-0 that "Donald Trump is disqualified from office by the 14th Amendment".

 

Right, they're there for life if they want. No need to fear Trump. Actually, they can cause enough trouble for democracy and We the People all on their own.

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Right, they're there for life if they want. No need to fear Trump. Actually, they can cause enough trouble for democracy and We the People all on their own.

 

I mean, a good chunk of them are bought and paid for Republican activists. 

 

But they're Republican activists who don't have to run for reelection. They can put the Party ahead of Trump. I could easily fantasize about them deciding that curb stomping Donald Trump would be good for the Party. 

 

(And probably feel good, too.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

Buzzette and I are going to DC to demonstrate that day.

[youngestson]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:41 PM, LadySkinsFan said:

I saw that movie once as a child and I cried.

You'd have to be made of stone to not cry at that movie.

[China]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:41 PM, LadySkinsFan said:

I saw that movie once as a child and I cried.

 

2 hours ago, youngestson said:

You'd have to be made of stone to not cry at that movie.

 

 

[Fergasun]

Doing more research.  The whole "President is not an officer..." and "Presidency is not an office..." argument was developed by a law Professor, Seth Barrett Tillman who claims to have made a Di Vinci Code like discovery around the year 2008 that the phrasing never was intended to cover the President.  Contrary to 200+ years of practice.  I mean, not like there has been a lot of cases over this.  It was first rolled out prominently to defend Trump in the foreign emoluments case.  

 

The argument is not entirely without valid arguments per se, I mean anyone can make an argument and being a law professor, I think he makes one.  But it seems like he starts with the premise of "can I argue that the President is not covered...."  

 

Rather than accept that the founders may have used the term imperfectly, and future Amendments may also use the term imperfectly.  It's like he is on a crusade to act like everyone else is reading the Constitution incorrectly when they assume the President and Vice President is covered by these clauses.  

 

The question would be: why did so many Presidents not accept foreign gifts?  And why did no Confederates run for President?  Because they all knew they were covered by those clauses. 

 

If SCOTUS hangs their hat on some secret "I discovered this loophole in 2008"...

[LadySkinsFan]

The president is an officer. Per the following from the Constitution:

 

Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

 

So the president is an officer right there.

 

 

[Fergasun]

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

 

Quote

He was sworn into office at noon on January 20, 2017, and served until his term expired at noon on January 20, 2021.

...

Quote

The single article of impeachment alleged that he had violated “his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States ... [and] his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . . by inciting violence against the Government of the United States.”

...

Quote

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. [this is another quote from a previous opinion]

...

Quote

“This inquiry involves policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President’s office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers.” Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 748.

...

Quote

[W]e have never held that the performance of the duties of judicial, legislative, or executive officers, requires or contemplates the immunization of otherwise criminal deprivation of constitutional rights.

...

Quote

Former President Trump argues that criminal liability for former Presidents risks chilling Presidential action while in office and opening the floodgates to meritless and harassing prosecution. 

...

Quote

It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care 37 that the Laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. 

...

Quote

To immunize former President Trump’s actions would “further... aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and also relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of Congress.” Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 654 

...

Quote

We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter

.

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.