1. #87681
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Corvus View Post
    Is Colorado one of the swing states.

    I expect the US supreme court will overturn it given the current numbers on it.
    To overturn it, they either need to demonstrate some flaw in reasoning that would invalidate the prior court's ruling, or they need to openly declare the the POTUS is not an officer of the United States and thus is immune to any restrictions or laws that apply to the candidacy to such offices, like the 14th Amendment. That anyone who's led an open rebellion against the USA must be allowed to run for President, even if they couldn't run for any other position in government.

    The former's not necessarily easy, and I find the latter so wildly unlikely as to not be a real consideration.


  2. #87682
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Yeah, gonna side with this. I have no problem with him being kicked off...when he's found guilty of an appropriate crime.
    I get the sentiment...but...like...at what point does the fucker saying that "the election was stolen!!!" literally every time he opens his mouth rise to the level of clear and demonstrable proof to anyone paying attention?

  3. #87683
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    To overturn it, they either need to demonstrate some flaw in reasoning that would invalidate the prior court's ruling
    Don't worry, I'm sure Justice Alito is already looking up some obscure legal philosopher or something from 1700's France or something that'll fit this bill : P

  4. #87684
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Yeah, gonna side with this. I have no problem with him being kicked off...when he's found guilty of an appropriate crime.
    Violating the 14th Amendment isn't actually a "crime". Some crimes obviously fit the bill, but it doesn't require it.

    indent]Section 3
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.[/i][/indent]

    It's particularly that last bit. "Given and or comfort to the enemies thereof", which would include defending insurrectionists.

    Now, being convicted of insurrection makes that point a slam dunk, but the 14th isn't based on criminal standards and isn't derivative of conviction for said crimes. If the Supreme Court of the State determines that he's so engaged in insurrection or given aid and comfort to insurrectionists, I don't see where they're overstepping.


  5. #87685
    Well, trumps response is to claim Biden is a 'threat to democracy.' And his spokesperson of course managed to bring Soros into it.

  6. #87686
    Oof, this just reeks of desperation. Everything the Dems have done to him has simply backfired. I think they woke up and saw the 34% approval rating for Biden and had a moment of panic.

    This will get struck down quickly. And when Trump wins next year...I guess all bets are off?

    This is the problem with weaponizing government - it quickly becomes a zero sum game to obtain total control. There are no winners in the end.

  7. #87687
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'm unsure if they would, or even if they'd have the authority to in this case. States largely have a lot of control and power over how they run elections and all.

    Though I wouldn't be surprised to see it quickly appealed to federal courts with the goal of reaching the SCOTUS. I'm just unsure the exact process and details.
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    Honestly, the US supreme court would have no authority to overrule this only involves how states run their elections. They have the right to disqualify someone for whatever reason they seem fit outside of protected classes. Not saying they won't outright or attempt to overrule this, just that states largely can decide who can or cannot run on their ballots. It is even in the US Constitution to be done this way.
    Judging by recent SCOTUS behaviour - they have claimed the right to meddle in states' decisions when those states invoked federal statutes and stayed away when states decided based on their own constitution. Even when said constitution-based ruling was against the GOP.

  8. #87688
    Quote Originally Posted by Somewhatconcerned View Post
    Oof, this just reeks of desperation. Everything the Dems have done to him has simply backfired. I think they woke up and saw the 34% approval rating for Biden and had a moment of panic.

    This will get struck down quickly. And when Trump wins next year...I guess all bets are off?

    This is the problem with weaponizing government - it quickly becomes a zero sum game to obtain total control. There are no winners in the end.
    rofl

    Trump lost CO in both 2016 and 2020. Trump lost how many of the pathetic election cases he brought trying to pretend he had evidence that he'd actually won? Did it get up to 50, or did it stay down in the 40s? Desperation, indeed.

    edit: No, wait. It was even worse than I thought. He lost 62 cases. I had 42 in my head for some reason.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2023-12-20 at 05:30 AM.

  9. #87689
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The World-Continent
    Posts
    9,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Yeah, gonna side with this. I have no problem with him being kicked off...when he's found guilty of an appropriate crime.
    As Endus mentioned above, except for treason, the Constitution doesn't deal directly with crimes. Much like there is no criminal threshold for impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress deems it to mean) there is no criminality element written in to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. That Amendment does explicitly have a re-qualification threshold: "But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

    While I'm certainly not a lawyer, a court finding of "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" which Congress can remove is not an unreasonable set of standards (presuming you're dealing with a Congress acting in good faith... and if over a third of Congress are holding their own offices in bad faith, you've got bigger problems).

    And on the gripping hand, Trump's own lawyers have been demanding he be treated like a January 6th attacker. I.e. in his motion to attempt to delay his trial in DC, his lawyers explicitly compare him to other January 6th attackers:
    Likewise, this Court regularly allows far more time than the government proposes, even in cases involving protests at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. See, e.g., United States v. Foy, No. 21-cr-0108 (28 months from indictment to stipulated bench trial on 4-page indictment); United States v. Nordean, et al, No. 21-cr-0175 (TJK) (21 months); United States v. Crowl, et al, No. 21-cr-0028 (APM) (23 months); United States v. Kuehne, et al, Case No. 21-cr-160 (29 months); United States v. Hostetter, et al, Case No. 21-cr-0392 (RCL) (24 months).
    Now, part of this is because Trump's broad legal strategy is "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" (and lie about the details). But the fact remains that Donald Trump's own attorneys have repeatedly demanded in court that he be treated the same as any other January 6th defendant; his participation in the events of January 6th (itself established by jury verdicts to be part of a seditious conspiracy) is acknowledged fact by Donald Trump's legal person in court - all he has been disputing is whether or not his own conduct was criminal. Which is, again, outside the scope of the 14th Amendment.

    If SCOTUS wants to end his Presidential ambitious, they have ample ammunition with which to do so. (I doubt they will, but they certainly could.)
    "For the present this country is headed in directions which can only carry ruin to it and will create a situation here dangerous to world peace. With few exceptions, the men who are running this Government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere. Others are exalted and in a frame of mind that knows no reason."
    - U.S. Ambassador to Germany, George Messersmith, June 1933

  10. #87690
    Quote Originally Posted by bladeXcrasher View Post
    Trump is on tape saying take the guns and worry about due process later and they didn't care. The fact that gun nutters didn't care shows how shallow their shtick is.
    Then the democrats failed to use that.

  11. #87691
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Then the democrats failed to use that.
    Use on who? The cult? They've made their mind already, nothing's going to persuade them to ditch tRump.

  12. #87692
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Use on who? The cult? They've made their mind already, nothing's going to persuade them to ditch tRump.
    They will absolutely ditch the Orange Retard if he seriously goes after their guns.

  13. #87693
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    They will absolutely ditch the Orange Retard if he seriously goes after their guns.
    Maybe, we don't know for sure. But as demonstrated, they don't give a flying fuck about the 2A if he goes after other people's guns.

  14. #87694
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Maybe, we don't know for sure. But as demonstrated, they don't give a flying fuck about the 2A if he goes after other people's guns.
    Actually we do know. These people are single issue voters at heart. It might be impossible for people outside of their circles to understand, but hanging onto A2 is the only thing for them that matters, because it is the ultimate representation of power for them. You are not going to get them to relinquish it.

    What they do hope Trump does is declare all but the most inbred whites non-citizens, so that 2A would stop applying to them, and they would get to engage in some recreational ethnic cleansing.

  15. #87695
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Maybe, we don't know for sure. But as demonstrated, they don't give a flying fuck about the 2A if he goes after other people's guns.
    I'm actually in Gabriel's camp on this. The super die-hards don't give a shit, and the mouth pieces might suddenly pivot to some stupid talking points demonizing firearms but only in the hands of people they don't like, but the people who earnestly take their guns seriously (either as weird gun nuts or actual responsible gun owners) don't want any shit that will infringe on that right, even if it comes from their own side.

  16. #87696
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Actually we do know. These people are single issue voters at heart. It might be impossible for people outside of their circles to understand, but hanging onto A2 is the only thing for them that matters, because it is the ultimate representation of power for them. You are not going to get them to relinquish it.

    What they do hope Trump does is declare all but the most inbred whites non-citizens, so that 2A would stop applying to them, and they would get to engage in some recreational ethnic cleansing.
    You're not understanding this. They only care about the 2A when it comes to THEMSELVES. But their strict 2A cheerleading goes straight out of the window when other people are brought into the equation. tRump wouldn't need to take anyone's citizenship away, he could just go after their guns and wholly ignoring the 2A because they're the others, and you wouldn't hear a peep of protest from the 2A nutters.
    Last edited by zorkuus; 2023-12-20 at 07:40 AM.

  17. #87697
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    You're not understanding this. They only care about the 2A when it comes to THEM. But their strict 2A cheerleading goes straight out of the window when other people are brought into the equation. tRump wouldn't need to take anyone's citizenship away, he could just go after their guns and wholly ignoring the 2A because they're the others.
    So how is Trump going to go after their guns without getting rid of 2A?

  18. #87698
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    So how is Trump going to go after their guns without getting rid of 2A?
    He wants to be a dictator and they cheer him for it. Where's the confusion?

  19. #87699
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    He wants to be a dictator and they cheer him for it. Where's the confusion?
    They cheer him on because that's what sub-90 IQ dipshits that can't form abstract thoughts in their head do. They literally can't comprehend that Trump becoming a dictator would mean that he comes after the means of removing a dictator first. That thing being their guns.

    The moment that they actually realize that Trump becoming an actual dictator doesn't mean that they get to shoot the homos and the immigrants, but that he will strip the population of means of getting rid of a dictator, is the moment that they will actually turn on him.

  20. #87700
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    That's what Denver said, and then like an idiot Trump decided to appeal that decision up the chain. I'm not sure how often it happens that someone appeals, gets a worse outcome than before, and then appeals again to go back to the original decision.
    Trump appealed because they ruled he did commit insurrection, but that section 3 doesn't apply to the President. He got the end result he wanted but his ego was utterly unable to accept that they found he did commit insurrection. That is the part he wanted to try and overturn in the appeal, that backfired.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Question for the legal scholars of this forum - if Trump appeals this and it's overturned, is it acceptable for future cases to use Colorado's determination that Trump did engage in insurrection?

    I also initially am a little concerned about him being off the ballot without a conviction of insurrection, but that's the solution Colorado determined. They still established guilt, which in my mind is pretty crucial.
    If the SC overturns this they will do so on the basis of the President not being an officer of the United States, that allows them to completely circumvent the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection because its not relevant if section 3 never applies anyway. And they will make it very clear they are not judging the insurrection part in their verdict.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •