|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 2, 2024 23:04:01 GMT
So true. Republicans wanted to take away the will of the people in 2020. Now they support the will of the people? Only when it's convenient for them apparently.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 2, 2024 23:47:48 GMT
Trump filed an appeal in Maine www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/02/trump-maine-ballot-appeal-14th-amendment/Voters in Maine challenged Trump’s candidacy under a state law that allows them to file objections with the secretary of state. Bellows last month held a day-long hearing on the issue and two weeks later ruled him ineligible to run again. Trump’s Tuesday filing appeals that decision. State law requires the Superior Court to decide the issue by Jan. 17, according to Bellows. From there, the case could go to Maine’s top court and the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 2, 2024 23:50:22 GMT
According to Trump's not so smart lawyer, voters should decide. If he incited an insurrection, that's irrelevant. The law and constitution shouldn't apply if a candidate is guilty.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jan 3, 2024 4:16:19 GMT
There are not enough eye rolls available on this planet for THAT nonsense.
Lordy, does he hire complete idiots or what?
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 3, 2024 4:32:26 GMT
According to Trump's not so smart lawyer, voters should decide. If he incited an insurrection, that's irrelevant. The law and constitution shouldn't apply if a candidate is guilty. Of course they want the voters to decide. They are betting that in spite of 4 indictments and 90+ charges, actions on his part that put our National Security at risk, the voters will re-elect him and these indictments/charges will magically disappear. That is why I asked the $64,000 question “can the voters be trusted to do the right thing?” And I honestly don’t know if they can be.
|
|
luckyjune
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,685
Location: In the rainy, rainy WA
Jul 22, 2017 4:59:41 GMT
|
Post by luckyjune on Jan 3, 2024 4:34:45 GMT
There are not enough eye rolls available on this planet for THAT nonsense. Lordy, does he hire complete idiots or what? I think the complete idiots are the only ones dumb enough to take on his case. Between the all absurdity and the very real possibility he won't pay his bills, what kind of lawyer would work for him? Maybe ones seeking 15 minute of fame?
|
|
|
Post by wezee on Jan 3, 2024 6:26:35 GMT
We are on a sloppy slope my friends
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 3, 2024 21:58:43 GMT
Trump asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the Colorado ruling www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-colorado-ballot-appeal/Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to ensure he can appear on primary ballots across the country this spring by invalidating a ruling from Colorado’s top court that said Trump is ineligible to serve as president again.
Trump’s opponents have said the Constitution’s prohibition on allowing insurrectionists to serve in office is clear. Trump alone is responsible for sidelining himself from another presidential run, they say, because he summoned his supporters to Washington and told them to march to the U.S. Capitol and “fight like hell” just as Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden’s election victory.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 3, 2024 22:00:43 GMT
Has SCOTUS said they would hear the case yet?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 3, 2024 22:03:05 GMT
Has SCOTUS said they would hear the case yet? No, not yet. However, I think it's almost inevitable that they will hear the case because states ruled in opposing ways. California, Michigan and Minnesota all ruled to keep him on the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 3, 2024 22:11:42 GMT
And they sat and waited until the last minute, but is how TFG does things to cause delay after delay!
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 3, 2024 22:15:21 GMT
An excellent point regarding Trump and charges of insurrection www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/03/donald-trump-14th-amendment/In the second impeachment of Mr. Trump, though he was not convicted by the two-thirds vote required in the Senate, a majority in both houses of Congress (including some members of his own party) found that Mr. Trump had incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Inciting an insurrection necessarily entails engaging in one, thus meeting the factual predicate for invoking and applying Section 3 of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification for holding federal or state office.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 3, 2024 22:17:51 GMT
Christina Bobb may have a big oops on air!! Nah, not so much.. An attorney representing former President Donald Trump appeared to make a Freudian slip during a recent interview defending the ex-president's ballot eligibility. During an appearance on extreme right-wing streaming network Real America's Voice, Christina Bobb — a former Trump administration official and anchor for the far-right One America News Network — appeared to suggest that her boss should be allowed on the 2024 Republican primary ballot even if he incited an insurrection.www.rawstory.com/trump-lawyer-slip-up-see-her-admit-on-air-that-boss-may-be-guilty-of-insurrection/
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 3, 2024 22:35:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 3, 2024 22:49:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jan 3, 2024 23:20:24 GMT
According to Trump's not so smart lawyer, voters should decide. If he incited an insurrection, that's irrelevant. The law and constitution shouldn't apply if a candidate is guilty. ALL of the people? Like the popular vote? Or the crappy electoral college that steals the will of the people
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 4, 2024 14:54:42 GMT
Great point about the former guy www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/the-case-for-disqualifying-trump-is-strong.htmlSince the rise of Trump, he and his movement have transgressed constitutional, legal and moral boundaries at will and then, when Americans attempt to impose consequences for those transgressions, Trump’s defenders and critics alike caution that the consequences will be “dangerous” or “destabilizing.”
This is where we are, and have now been for years: The Trump movement commits threats, violence and lies. And then it tries to escape accountability for those acts through more threats, more violence and more lies. At the heart of the “but the consequences" argument against disqualification is a confession that if we hold Trump accountable for his fomenting violence on Jan. 6, he might foment additional violence now.
Enough. It’s time to apply the plain language of the Constitution to Trump’s actions and remove him from the ballot — without fear of the consequences. Republics are not maintained by cowardice.
Second, it’s crucial to understand that many of the Constitution’s provisions are intentionally antidemocratic. The American republic is a democracy with guardrails. The Bill of Rights, for example, is a check on majoritarian tyranny. The American people can’t vote away your rights to speak, to exercise your religion or to due process. The Civil War Amendments, including the 14th Amendment, further expanded constitutional protections against majoritarian encroachment. Majorities can’t reimpose slavery, for example, nor can they take away your right to equal protection under the law.
So when a person critiques Section 3 as “undemocratic” or “undermining democracy,” your answer should be simple: Yes, it is undemocratic, exactly as it was intended to be. The amendments’ authors were worried that voters would send former Confederates right back into public office. If they had believed that the American electorate was wise enough not to vote for insurrectionists, they never would have drafted Section 3.
Moreover, you’ll note that the plain text of the amendment doesn’t require a court conviction for insurrection or rebellion. Again, this is intentional. The 14th Amendment originally applied to countless Confederate soldiers and continued to apply to them even after they were pardoned by President Andrew Johnson in 1868. It was not until the Amnesty Act of 1872 that most former Confederates were permitted to serve in office again.
Republicans are rightly proud of their Civil War-era history. The Party of Lincoln, as it was known, helped save the Union, and it was the Party of Lincoln that passed the 14th Amendment and ratified it in statehouses across the land. The wisdom of the old Republican Party should now save us from the fecklessness and sedition of the new.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 4, 2024 15:58:44 GMT
We are on a sloppy slope my friends Are we? The constitution seems pretty clear about this.
|
|
|
Post by wezee on Jan 4, 2024 19:48:22 GMT
We are on a sloppy slope my friends Are we? The constitution seems pretty clear about this. We are. Will you feel the same way when they ban guns? Don’t read into that. lol I’m not a gun enthusiast
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 4, 2024 20:00:21 GMT
The constitution does not give politicians the right to hold an insurrection or try to overturn the results of an election and return to office. Again, the wording of the 14th amendment is clear and does not require a conviction or charges of insurrection. Not worried about a slippery slope - if a Democratic president did what Trump did, I would still feel strongly that he or she should not be eligible to return to office.
Guns are a separate issue and not a great analogy.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 6, 2024 0:04:50 GMT
www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/opinion/trump-insurrections-disqualification-14th-amendment.htmlIt may seem obvious, but we should remember that Trump is not an ordinary political figure. And try as some commentators might, there is no amount of smoke one could create — through strained counterfactuals, dire warnings of a slippery slope or outright dismissal of the events that make the Trump of 2024 a figure very different from the Trump of 2020 — that can obscure or occlude this basic fact.
In 2020, President Trump went to the voting public of the United States and asked for another four years in office. By 51 percent to 47 percent, the voting public of the United States said no. More important, Trump lost the Electoral College, 306 to 232, meaning there were enough of those voters in just the right states to deny him a second term.
The people decided. And Trump said, in so many words, that he didn’t care. What followed, according to the final report of the House select committee on Jan. 6, was an effort to overturn the result of the election.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 6, 2024 0:12:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 6, 2024 4:10:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 6, 2024 22:42:27 GMT
Trump is not above the law. The law and the constitution apply to him. Also, for those who think the disqualification effort is a slippery slope, I will ask the question that mcConnell did after the 2020 election - what is the harm in letting the cases play out in court? www.nytimes.com/2024/01/06/opinion/trump-2024-election-silent-majority.htmlThere’s been no shortage of critics of the disqualification effort who have asked us to consider the consequences for American democracy if Trump’s supporters believe he was cheated out of a chance to run for president a third time. It’s a fair point. But I think we should also consider the consequences for American democracy if the nation’s anti-MAGA majority comes to believe, with good reason, that the rules — and the Constitution — don’t apply to Trump.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 6, 2024 23:28:58 GMT
Unfortunately the MAGA people do not care if he follows the laws, in fact they applaud him for breaking the laws!!
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 9, 2024 4:58:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Jan 26, 2024 22:09:59 GMT
As I said, morecowbell , I am zero percent interested in going around in circles with you. By all means, continue to congratulate yourself on getting in the last word. In order to "continue" I would have had to do it in the first place. 🙄 Your objection to a response to your post has made it very clear that your intention was to say your piece and YOUR word was to be the last and final word -in your mind. Now you're upset that it wasn't. So you have to pretend that responding to a message on a message board is some kind of character flaw, just so you have something to post a personal attack about. Which is clearly in order to get YOUR much needed last word. But if a personal attack is the only answer you can muster to what context makes this not true: Per the New York Times: Biden has said "Trump should be prosecuted" and for Merrick Garland to "stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action." He also said: "We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power. If he does run, making sure, under legitimate efforts of the Constitution, (the law) that he does not become the next president.” ...then that says it all. I don't care who gets the last word. Please, go for it. An answer to the question would be an honest discussion. Personal attacks just confirm there is no honest answer.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 28, 2024 5:12:41 GMT
Just to repeat. Regardless of any statements he might have made, President Biden is not behind the effort to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado or any other state. Two conservative judges first proposed the idea of challenging Trumps eligibility last August. In Colorado, 4 Republicans and 2 Independent voters filed the lawsuit to have Trump removed. This non-profit, non-partisan organization that targets government corruption filed the lawsuit with several other lawyers www.citizensforethics.org/“My fellow plaintiffs and I brought this case to continue to protect the right to free and fair elections enshrined in our Constitution and to ensure Colorado Republican primary voters are only voting for eligible candidates. Today’s win does just that,” said petitioner and former Republican majority leader of the Colorado House and Senate Norma Anderson.
The court’s decision today affirms what our clients alleged in this lawsuit: that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist who disqualified himself from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and that Secretary Griswold must keep him off of Colorado’s primary ballot. It is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country,” said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. “Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government. It has been an honor to represent the petitioners, and we look forward to ensuring that this vitally important ruling stands.”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 28, 2024 19:58:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 29, 2024 2:57:26 GMT
|
|