|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Dec 19, 2023 23:51:58 GMT
Just now, on Twitter/X
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 5:38:36 GMT
Somehow even though the conservative justices are all about states rights, I don't think they're going to let this stand. Aside from legal issues, can you imagine the uproar from Trump supporters if he's off the ballot in some states? I don't actually see that ending well. I don't like courts meddling in medical decisions or elections. 2000 didn't turn out too well for Gore or the Democrats. My prediction is Thomas will refuse to recuse himself from this case, too www.nytimes.com/live/2023/12/19/us/trump-colorado-ballot-newseta - My thoughts too |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 5:47:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 5:49:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Dec 20, 2023 12:24:01 GMT
I have seen several attorneys who said that we would be better off if he ran and lost. I agree with that opinion. Don’t get me wrong-I love this opinion, and also believe that Trump should be disqualified. BUT as a practical matter, this will lead to more cries of “Election interference!” from his base, and they might get violent. x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1737292240681095667?s=61&t=M1OfLFf7y0WKg7wrxjM59g |
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Dec 20, 2023 12:44:40 GMT
I have seen several attorneys who said that we would be better off if he ran and lost. I agree with that opinion. Don’t get me wrong-I love this opinion, and also believe that Trump should be disqualified. BUT as a practical matter, this will lead to more cries of “Election interference!” from his base, and they might get violent. x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1737292240681095667?s=61&t=M1OfLFf7y0WKg7wrxjM59gHe ran and lost in 2020 and his supporters got violent so... |
|
|
|
Post by Restless Spirit on Dec 20, 2023 14:16:51 GMT
And in retaliation, red states will try to remove Biden from the ballot. This is not going to end well for the Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Dec 20, 2023 14:35:17 GMT
And in retaliation, red states will try to remove Biden from the ballot. This is not going to end well for the Democrats. On what basis would they try to remove Biden from the ballot? People seem to be ignoring the very real reasons why Trump is different than any other candidate we have ever had in this country. |
|
sueg
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,174
Location: Munich
Member is Online
Apr 12, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
|
Post by sueg on Dec 20, 2023 14:39:58 GMT
And in retaliation, red states will try to remove Biden from the ballot. This is not going to end well for the Democrats. On what basis would they try to remove Biden from the ballot? People seem to be ignoring the very real reasons why Trump is different than any other candidate we have ever had in this country. Reasons don’t matter to his base. They don’t believe he’s done anything wrong, and want to go along with his ideas of retaliation against anyone on the other side. I mean, what are their reasons for trying to impeach Biden? They can’t give a coherent answer for that, so why would they need a coherent reason to remove him from the ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Dec 20, 2023 14:44:08 GMT
On what basis would they try to remove Biden from the ballot? People seem to be ignoring the very real reasons why Trump is different than any other candidate we have ever had in this country. Reasons don’t matter to his base. They don’t believe he’s done anything wrong, and want to go along with his ideas of retaliation against anyone on the other side. I mean, what are their reasons for trying to impeach Biden? They can’t give a coherent answer for that, so why would they need a coherent reason to remove him from the ballot. True. But unless the judges are even more compromised than we think, those lawsuits would go nowhere. |
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,622 
|
Post by pinklady on Dec 20, 2023 14:46:08 GMT
And in retaliation, red states will try to remove Biden from the ballot. This is not going to end well for the Democrats. On what basis would they try to remove Biden from the ballot? People seem to be ignoring the very real reasons why Trump is different than any other candidate we have ever had in this country. Someone, a Senator I believe, on Fox suggested he be removed from the Texas ballot due to the border crisis. You just can't fix republican stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 16:49:51 GMT
And in retaliation, red states will try to remove Biden from the ballot. This is not going to end well for the Democrats. Yeah, no. This is not a both sides of the aisle issue. Republicans can try but without a legitimate reason, their efforts will go nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 16:51:44 GMT
Jamie Raskin, as always has a great perspective www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/opinion/editorials/the-colorado-ruling-is-a-rebuke-for-the-ages.htmlBut there is a reason we have a written Constitution, and courts tasked with interpreting it. Not every decision in our system is left solely to voters. The 14th Amendment’s bar on insurrectionists serving in office, which was drafted to target former Confederates after the Civil War, “is a statement that certain things will be withdrawn from the terrain of electoral contest,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a former constitutional law professor, told me recently.
Voters still get to cast their ballots for nearly anyone they want, Mr. Raskin said. But “the framers of the 14th Amendment contemplated that there would be people who would be otherwise attractive to a certain portion of the population who must be kept off the ballot because they are a threat to the Republic. Their obnoxiousness is not within the normal course of American electoral politics.” |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 19:26:31 GMT
more thoughts. After Trump's nonsense with Obama and his "birther" claims, his claims to disqualify Hilary and Cancun Cruz, it seems fitting that a court of law found Trump not eligible www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/20/trump-refrain-disqualification-thee-not-me/But there’s another way to look at this. And that’s that Trump is yet again suffering under a standard he himself attempted to set for America’s political system.
Trump on Tuesday night derided the ruling as “eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.” But not only did Trump try to overturn the will of voters after the 2020 election, he has on myriad occasions pushed the idea that candidates should be disqualified irrespective of the voters’ will.
That was basically the thrust of Trump’s rise to political prominence. He built a base in the early 2010s with the ugly and false “birther” campaign, whose entire premise was that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be president. A sampling:
“The birther issue is an issue that’s very important, because if you’re not born in the United States, you can’t be president,” Trump said in March 2011.
“You are not allowed to be a president if you’re not born in this country,” he said on NBC’s “Today” a week later.
“I think it’s an important fight because, you know, essentially you’re right down to the basics,” he said on Fox News in 2012. “The answer is if you’re not born here, you can’t be president. So it’s not like, ‘Oh, gee, let’s not discuss it.’ ”
Trump didn’t stop there. During the 2016 GOP primary campaign, he repeatedly pushed the idea that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) might — and even should — be disqualified, both because he was born in Canada and because he purportedly cheated in the Iowa caucuses, which Cruz won. And Trump explicitly called for two others to be prohibited from running, including Hillary Clinton — a lot:
Trump repeatedly pointed to the possibility that lawsuits could disqualify Cruz over his birthplace, adding, “I don’t want to win it on technicalities, but that’s more than a technicality. That is a big, big factor.”
He added that a constitutional lawyer who questioned Cruz’s eligibility “should go into court and seek a declaratory judgment because the people voting for Ted, for Ted Cruz, those people — I think there’s a real chance that he’s not allowed to run for president.”
Shortly after Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, Trump tweeted, “The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated — a total fraud!” (The thrust was that Cruz allies had promoted the false claim that Ben Carson had suspended his campaign, affecting the results.)
Trump also said in 2011 that then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) “should never ever be allowed to run for office” because of his sexting scandal.
And during the 2016 campaign, on dozens of occasions he said that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t “be allowed to run” because of her private email server. “She shouldn’t be allowed to run for president. She shouldn’t be allowed,” Trump said shortly before Election Day 2016. “I’m telling you, she should not be allowed to run for president based on her crimes. She should not be allowed to run for president.”
Needless to say, there is more than a vein of irony in Trump’s having said that promoting false information about an election should lead the authorities to disqualify someone. And Trump has repeatedly pushed the idea that a candidate’s eligibility for president shouldn’t be left up to voters. The candidate who a court now says is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president once showed great interest in having people he disagreed with disqualified under the Constitution’s standards.
This isn’t necessarily a good-for-the-gander situation. But it’s worth emphasizing that Trump’s supposedly principled response is undermined by his past words.
And if it sounds familiar, it should. After all, long before Trump derided the idea that a presidential candidate and former president like him could be indicted, he called for the prosecutions of both his 2016 and 2020 opponents, as well as former president Obama.
If the whole 14th Amendment exercise is the political farce that Trump says it is, he certainly played a role in writing the script.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 20, 2023 19:34:13 GMT
CNN Trump has answered Smith filing(not sure that is correct wording) that he does NOT want J6 immunity case to go through SCOTUS.... wants it to go back the appeals court. JUST WANTS THE DELAY!!! aj2hall |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 19:39:33 GMT
Regardless of what happens with this particular case, the Supreme Court will play a big role in the 2024 election www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/20/supreme-court-trump-biden-elections/The Supreme Court will be pressed to answer multiple questions crucial to next year’s presidential election, thrust into a pivotal role not seen since its 2000 decision that sealed the victory for President George W. Bush.
The justices already have said they will decide the validity of a law used to charge hundreds of people in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, which also has been levied against Trump as part of his four-count federal election obstruction case in Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 20, 2023 19:54:14 GMT
But 2000 was only about Bush v Gore. Only because neither was a totally unhinged loon set to destroy America and our democracy!
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 20, 2023 20:04:23 GMT
This may be TFG's nightmare!! And the Kavanaugh covers why an "impeachment and guilty" is so very important. Making immediate removal to enter the legal system. Essentially, Kavanaugh agreed that the Department of Justice should not pursue charges against Clinton while he was still in office, as that would prove too disruptive to government operations. Instead, he believed that a remedy to a criminal president was impeachment and removal by Congress — and only after that should he face criminal charges. "The Framers thus appeared to anticipate that a President who commits serious wrongdoing should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate — and then prosecuted thereafter," wrote Kavanaugh in 1998, before he even became a judge."There is simply no danger that such crimes would go criminally unpunished; the only question is when they can be punished." In other words, if Kavanaugh still holds this view today, it appears that he's a likely vote against Trump on his presidential immunity claims.www.rawstory.com/trump-brett-kavanaugh/ |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Dec 20, 2023 20:50:49 GMT
Question --- Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection. How can the CO Supreme Court basically punish him as if he has been convicted? I know he is guilty. What about due process? While I am completely OK with him not being on the CO ballot I am not sure this is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 20, 2023 21:06:02 GMT
Question --- Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection. How can the CO Supreme Court basically punish him as if he has been convicted? I know he is guilty. What about due process? While I am completely OK with him not being on the CO ballot I am not sure this is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court. I think a lower Colorado court found him guilty in terms of this case. I don't think he needs to be convicted on the federal charges in order to be ineligible. eta - www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/colorado-trump-legal-questions-supreme-court.htmlThough the provision was devised to address the aftermath of the Civil War, it was written in general terms and, most scholars say, continues to have force. Congress granted broad amnesties in 1872 and 1898. But those acts were retrospective, scholars say, and did not limit Section 3’s prospective force.
A Colorado trial judge had ruled that Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection but accepted his argument that Section 3 did not apply to him, reasoning that Mr. Trump had not sworn the right kind of oath and that the provision did not apply to the office of the presidency.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the first part of the trial judge’s ruling — that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election; trying to alter vote counts; encouraging bogus slates of competing electors; pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution; and calling for the march on the Capitol. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 20, 2023 23:20:45 GMT
Guess TFG's Colorado lawyers are threatening all involved it that case, lawyers and judges too .. Jesse Binnall, an appellate attorney for Donald Trump, warned that a "real" Department of Justice would federally prosecute Colorado State Supreme Court justices who voted to remove the former president from the state's primary ballot.During an appearance on Real America's Voice on Wednesday, Binnall slammed the court's decision to disqualify Trump based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents anyone who participated in an insurrection from holding office. Binnall told the conservative network that there was a way a future Department of Justice could punish the Colorado justices with federal prosecution and civil rights laws. He suggested a "real" DOJ would take action against the Colorado justices and "other judges" if Trump won the 2024 election. "And what needs to happen is there are already federal statutes on the books about violation of civil rights and the color of law," he explained. "Every single one of these people, and [when] we actually have a real Department of Justice, should be held to account for their decision to throw our justice system into the fire, effectively, and leave the rule of law that has made our country so special over the years, and instead decide to make decisions based on politics and not the law." "There needs to be accountability," Binnall added. www.rawstory.com/trump-prosecute-colorado-judges/ |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Dec 21, 2023 0:32:00 GMT
Question --- Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection. How can the CO Supreme Court basically punish him as if he has been convicted? I know he is guilty. What about due process? While I am completely OK with him not being on the CO ballot I am not sure this is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court. Here is one persons explanation www.instagram.com/reel/C1GEt5PREd5/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Dec 21, 2023 0:57:36 GMT
Question --- Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection. How can the CO Supreme Court basically punish him as if he has been convicted? I know he is guilty. What about due process? While I am completely OK with him not being on the CO ballot I am not sure this is going to be upheld in the Supreme Court. Here is one persons explanation www.instagram.com/reel/C1GEt5PREd5/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==Thanks - I will read up. |
|
pantsonfire
Drama Llama
Take a step back, evaluate what is important, and enjoy your life with those who you love.
Posts: 5,045
|
Post by pantsonfire on Dec 21, 2023 1:15:03 GMT
And now CA is looking to do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Dec 21, 2023 1:17:07 GMT
I have seen several attorneys who said that we would be better off if he ran and lost. I agree with that opinion. Don’t get me wrong-I love this opinion, and also believe that Trump should be disqualified. BUT as a practical matter, this will lead to more cries of “Election interference!” from his base, and they might get violent. x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1737292240681095667?s=61&t=M1OfLFf7y0WKg7wrxjM59gMy big issue with this line of thinking is that we don’t let any other types of crimes slide just because people might get violent. This can’t be the reason why Trump isn’t ultimately held accountable for what he actually did, and didn’t, do. The whole world watched it all go down in real time. The Constitution must be upheld, otherwise what is the point of having one? |
|
caangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,520
Location: So Cal
|
Post by caangel on Dec 21, 2023 1:31:23 GMT
"There needs to be accountability," Binnall added. I agree with him on this part and still waiting for it to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Dec 21, 2023 1:35:49 GMT
I, for one, am enjoying all the salty MAGA tears over this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Dec 21, 2023 4:33:32 GMT
if he wins this will just be one more reason for him to try and withhold funds for the states involved. Remember when he didn't want to release emergency funds for the wildfires in California because we weren't nice enough to him? Not that he needs a reason as it will be a revenge tour anyways, but this will make it worse and then those in Texas trying to keep Biden from being on the ballot in their state. I'm not saying that this isn't right but ... it isn't going to end well.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Dec 21, 2023 10:59:00 GMT
I have seen several attorneys who said that we would be better off if he ran and lost. I agree with that opinion. Don’t get me wrong-I love this opinion, and also believe that Trump should be disqualified. BUT as a practical matter, this will lead to more cries of “Election interference!” from his base, and they might get violent. x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1737292240681095667?s=61&t=M1OfLFf7y0WKg7wrxjM59gMy big issue with this line of thinking is that we don’t let any other types of crimes slide just because people might get violent. This can’t be the reason why Trump isn’t ultimately held accountable for what he actually did, and didn’t, do. The whole world watched it all go down in real time. The Constitution must be upheld, otherwise what is the point of having one? I know. There is no solution that won’t inflame Trumpers. What a time we live in! ETA: 3 guesses as to what Stonekettle thinks, lol. www.threads.net/@stonekettle/post/C1HqtrpLbMz/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Dec 21, 2023 13:52:45 GMT
And now CA is looking to do the same. Will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on this. It was genius of the Colorado court IMO to cite Gorsuch's prior ruling on states' rights to oversee their own elections. Of course, if it's only blue states who do it, it won't make much difference from an electoral college point of view. Watch a swing state go down this road and then we'll see some fireworks. Get the popcorn! |
|
