Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

It's a roll of the dice as to whether the SC will even decide to hear the case to begin with. Some options
do nothing and allow Colorado's ruling to lapse, refuse to add the case to the docket, or agree to hear arguments and issue a decision themselves.
SCOTUS could take up the case in its shadow docket or issue a stay of its own without making a formal ruling. Doing so would prevent the Colorado decision from going into effect while the appeals process plays out.

The big kick in the pants is if they take the case and agree with CO Supreme Court. Because then Trump would be banned on every state ballot.

[DarkAmbient]

What's the bottom line here. Is this court ruling going to hold up or not?

[Shadowferal]

What's the bottom line here. Is this court ruling going to hold up or not?

Stay tuned...

[zorkuus]

What's the bottom line here. Is this court ruling going to hold up or not?

It's going to take a few days for the supreme corruption to get their marching orders from their donors.

[Benggaul]

It ultimately doesn't matter, really. Unless and until Trump is being held off the ballots in GOP/swing states then it's really just a token gesture more than anything else. SCOTUS will never say that the decision in CO means he has to be kept off the ballot in all states and even if they ruled that it's fine in CO that leaves it up to each state to individually decide--and guess which states will never do it?

And as far as the "but he hasn't been convicted" argument: there is recorded proof of him saying that he's done several of the things which are instant disqualifiers. I don't need to wait for a trial when the guilty party is admitting guilt--even if they're too fucking stupid to realize that's what they're doing.

[s_bushido]

The big kick in the pants is if they take the case and agree with CO Supreme Court. Because then Trump would be banned on every state ballot.

Well that would literally never happen. Neither the supreme court nor GOP politicians/judges in contentious states would follow through with that. Even if there was something that mandated he be barred from ballots if found guilty of a relevant charge, they'd find a way to avoid/ignore it anyway.

[Teriz]

What's the bottom line here. Is this court ruling going to hold up or not?

If our country really upheld the tenets of its laws without giving special treatment to the rich and powerful?

Yes.

The amendment is pretty cut and dry, and Trump clearly was attempting an insurrection.

[Gorsameth]

If our country really upheld the tenets of its laws without giving special treatment to the rich and powerful?

Yes.

The amendment is pretty cut and dry, and Trump clearly was attempting an insurrection.

If its cut and dry please point where the relevant section mentions the President.

I agree with you that it should apply, but no where in the constitution does it say the President is an Officer of the United States so you can't just say its not open to interpretation.

[Breccia]

So apparently Aug 9 2022 the head of the Freedom Caucus had his phone seized w.r.t. Jan 6th investigations. Rep. Scott Perry immediately claimed that all the messages were Congressional work product and therefore protected.

A ruling has now been made. Of the 2,000+ messages, only 400 were covered by the Speech or Debate Clause and, as such, aren't turned over. The rest are.

Rep. Perry was one of the front-runners of the "election was rigged" push, as well as attended at least one meeting about how Pence could overturn the election, and evidently, the DOJ had good faith reason to believe he was involved in the rally and following violent terrorist coup. To be fair, it's possible no such evidence exists on that phone. Perry did file a lawsuit to get the records all hidden, but voluntarily dropped it later because...uh...actually he didn't say why. But if he knew there was nothing on that specific phone, I can see him dropping the lawsuit.

[zorkuus]

If its cut and dry please point where the relevant section mentions the President.

I agree with you that it should apply, but no where in the constitution does it say the President is an Officer of the United States so you can't just say its not open to interpretation.

Why wouldn't the president be an officer? Is it somekind of a special position that is peculiarly never specified/mentioned in the constitution?
If laws are open to silly semantics then they are useless laws.

I guess I can murder someone with an axe because the law says that only murder is illegal but it doesn't specifically say murder with an axe is illegal.

[s_bushido]

If laws are open to silly semantics then they are useless laws.

Well...yeah. There's basically nothing preventing these judges from ruling literally any way they want precisely because they can plausibly point to that ambiguity.

[Gorsameth]

Why wouldn't the president be an officer? Is it somekind of a special position that is peculiarly never specified/mentioned in the constitution?
If laws are open to silly semantics then they are useless laws.

I guess I can murder someone with an axe because the law says that only murder is illegal but it doesn't specifically say murder with an axe is illegal.

Murder is a general law, it doesn't specifically point at a certain weapon have to be used. If Murder was defined as "kill someone with a hammer" then killing someone with an axe would not be murder. Unfortunately for your argument the 14th amendment does specify who it applies to.

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.

The President is not a member of Congress, a member of state legislature or an executive or judicial officer of a state, so that only leaves the Officer of the United States.

Which is mentioned in the Appointments Clause

and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

So the President appoints Officers, but it doesn't say that the President is himself an officer of the united states.

Now you can say its just semantics, but that's basically what the entirety of law and the constitution is based around. Semantics.

[zorkuus]

Then it IS ambiguous. Why would the highest office in the land be exempt from a law against insurrection? It does not make any sense, unless the constitution is a deeply flawed document, no better than toilet paper.

[Endus]

Murder is a general law, it doesn't specifically point at a certain weapon have to be used. If Murder was defined as "kill someone with a hammer" then killing someone with an axe would not be murder. Unfortunately for your argument the 14th amendment does specify who it applies to.
The President is not a member of Congress, a member of state legislature or an executive or judicial officer of a state, so that only leaves the Officer of the United States.

Which is mentioned in the Appointments Clause

So the President appoints Officers, but it doesn't say that the President is himself an officer of the united states.

Now you can say its just semantics, but that's basically when the entirety of law and the constitution is based around. Semantics.

If you want to go to semantics, do we not speak of the "Office of the President of the United States"?

The man who represents such an office is an "officer". That's the origin of the term.

You can also just as easily read "and all other Officers" as referring to "officers other than the President doing the appointing".

[Breccia]

I think we can basically all agree that Trump's best defense against the 14th Amendment is to hide behind loopholes of something hastily written 150 years ago. I don't think anyone here believes a proven insurrectionist should be allowed to seize control of the country, only whether the letter of the law says he can.

[Breccia]

Maybe the drafters of the 14th felt that the Electoral College already prevented something like this from happening? Or they never conceived that the President would do this? Seems a bit naive of them to think so, considering the timeframe in which the 14th was drafted(just out of a brutal civil war).

Indeed, look at the exact text of the 2nd for example. It's exceptionally brief and nowhere near enough to handle the current "who's allowed what weapons" issues.

[Benggaul]

Indeed, look at the exact text of the 2nd for example. It's exceptionally brief and nowhere near enough to handle the current "who's allowed what weapons" issues.

Which is why the Amendments are a thing to begin with. The Constitution is supposed to be a living document that changes--via Amendments--to reflect modern reality...and the Amendments themselves are meant to be amended. Sadly that hasn't happened since, what, the 70s or 80s? Too many people holding the text of 250 years ago as sacred to enact change on that text.

[Gorsameth]

Then it IS ambiguous. Why would the highest office in the land be exempt from a law against insurrection? It does not make any sense, unless the constitution is a deeply flawed document, no better than toilet paper.

I mean... yes the US constitution is a deeply flawed document but gl getting a majority of Congress and the states to agree to something long enough to change anything...

[Orange Joe]

I'm 100% sure that 99% of gun nutters support Trump only as long as he doesn't step on their right to own and fingerfuck firearms.

The moment that Trump goes on tape calling for the rednecks to disarm is the moment he will get a bullet to the head.

Like... They might hate the left and the minorities, but they love their guns more.

You say this but he was already on tape talking about taking guns from people without due process... people still defended him...

[Gorsameth]

Section 3 has never been addressed by any SCOTUS, so I guess we're probably gonna find out. If they take the case, at least we'll get a definitive answer about it. If they don't, I get the sense that it's gonna be yet another tool of government that's gonna be used by the GOP as an act of revenge.

To use section 3 for revenge you first need to actually prove they committed insurrection.

If the SC says "We don't rule on Trump having committed insurrection or not because section 3 doesn't apply to him as a former President so its a moot point." then we're back to 0. Nothing has changed about its use except that an insurrectionist President can run for office again, a very niche case to try a revenge play on.

If they do find section 3 applies to Trump then the SC is faced with having to answer if Trump is guilty of insurrection or not, and from my laymen knowledge I would assume that the SC finding Trump to be guilty (or not guilty) of insurrection would have massive repercussions for every other election related lawsuit he is currently engaged in.

- - - Updated - - -

You say this but he was already on tape talking about taking guns from people without due process... people still defended him...

leopard eating face party.

Trump wants to take libtard guns, not proud patriotic (nazi) Republican guns.
Thats why these people still defend him, because they believe he wouldn't ever be talking about them.

Same thing when poor Republicans on social security shout about wanting to cut social security. Surely they won't cut my SS, just those lazy hippy dems.