Spork3245 Posted December 21, 2023 Share Posted December 21, 2023 7 hours ago, Jason said: Imagine thinking this SCOTUS is incapable of just making shit up to get the conclusion it wants. Also isn't Newsweek basically Fox now? You’re probably thinking of NewsMax which is to the right of Fox. Newsweek’s non-opinion articles are often fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted December 21, 2023 Share Posted December 21, 2023 8 hours ago, outsida said: Supreme Court boxed into corner over Donald Trump decision WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM Donald Trump has been removed from the Colorado ballot, but the U.S. Supreme Court may be able to save his candidacy. In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court quoted Neil Gorsuch, who was a Colorado judge when he blocked a presidential candidate from the state ballot in 2012. In the 2012 ruling, Gorsuch noted that the independent candidate, Abdul Hassan, was born in Guyana, which excluded him from running for president and that Colorado has the right to set its own ballot rules. "One of the things that you'll find in this ruling is some reliance is based on writings of Neil Gorsuch -- Justice Gorsuch -- and what he had to say about protecting ballots from people who did not belong on them," Nicolais told CBS News after Tuesday's Colorado Supreme Court decision. "So I think there's actually a very good chance we can win at the U.S. Supreme Court level." Very interesting! They certainly tee'd this up in anticipation of a SCOTUS hearing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 21, 2023 Author Share Posted December 21, 2023 Colorado supreme court justices face death threats after Trump ruling | Colorado | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Report finds ‘significant violent rhetoric’ against justices and Democrats online after ruling to exclude Trump from ballot 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted December 21, 2023 Share Posted December 21, 2023 10 hours ago, Spork3245 said: You’re probably thinking of NewsMax which is to the right of Fox. Newsweek’s non-opinion articles are often fine. My understanding is that the current version of Newsweek is a clickbait content farm that spews out recycled news that been rewritten by an army of 22 year olds being paid like $15 an hour to fart out 10+ articles a day. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokra Posted December 21, 2023 Share Posted December 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Jason said: Colorado supreme court justices face death threats after Trump ruling | Colorado | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Report finds ‘significant violent rhetoric’ against justices and Democrats online after ruling to exclude Trump from ballot A more accurate/complete headline would be: "Colorado supreme court justices face death threats after Trump ruling and right-wing media incitement." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakoo Posted December 22, 2023 Share Posted December 22, 2023 7 hours ago, ort said: My understanding is that the current version of Newsweek is a clickbait content farm that spews out recycled news that been rewritten by an army of 22 year olds being paid like $15 an hour to fart out 10+ articles a day. Hey that is not a seasoned investigative reporter, It's just 4 interns in a trench coat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted December 22, 2023 Share Posted December 22, 2023 20 hours ago, Jason said: Colorado supreme court justices face death threats after Trump ruling | Colorado | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Report finds ‘significant violent rhetoric’ against justices and Democrats online after ruling to exclude Trump from ballot It’s only death threats. Imagine how bad it would have been if people protested outside their houses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 29, 2023 Author Share Posted December 29, 2023 Trump back on ballot in Colorado while state Republicans appeal ban to Supreme Court WWW.CBSNEWS.COM The Colorado Republican Party has appealed that state's Supreme Court decision that found former President Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 Quote The Supreme Court on Thursday seemed prepared to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot, expressing deep concerns about the ability of a single state to disqualify a candidate from seeking national office. The indications from the justices came as they heard arguments on the unprecedented question of whether Trump should be barred from the ballot because of his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. https://wapo.st/4buKpBl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Probably the right call, but yet another example of how fundamentally broken the Constitution is in the modern age! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 3 minutes ago, Chris- said: Probably the right call, but yet another example of how fundamentally broken the Constitution is in the modern age! States keep federal candidates off the ballot all the time, e.g. for not getting enough signatures. The line of argument they're going with basically says nobody can disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 I still believe in my heart that Donald Trump has zero chance in a national general election... so with that in my mind... I think this is actually for the best. I do believe that he shouldn't be qualified, but it's so messy to win that way, so let's not even go there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 2 minutes ago, ort said: I still believe in my heart that Donald Trump has zero chance in a national general election... so with that in my mind... I think this is actually for the best. I do believe that he shouldn't be qualified, but it's so messy to win that way, so let's not even go there... President Gaetz will totally remember this when deciding whether to block Democratic presidential nominee AOC from the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 If Matt Gaetz is elected president, I am quitting everything... driving to DC and burning down every government building I can find until I am arrested or killed. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
best3444 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 minute ago, ort said: If Matt Gaetz is elected president, I am quitting everything... driving to DC and burning down every government building I can find until I am arrested or killed. This is quality stuff right here. I'll be right by your side buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbob42 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Bring flamethrowers, they're the only way to melt his waxy facade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Congrats you guys are now on a list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 of people I like 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Vic20 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Day One Patch attorney, Nigel Feltchers says: Everything said on Day One Patch is satire! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 50 minutes ago, Jason said: States keep federal candidates off the ballot all the time, e.g. for not getting enough signatures. The line of argument they're going with basically says nobody can disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot. Failing to meet a signature requirement is objective (for the most part), this is much more open to interpretation. Ruling in Colorado’s favor would give every Republican state the opportunity to keep Democratic presidential candidates off the ballot with near-impunity from a federal standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Jason said: The Supreme Court on Thursday seemed prepared to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot, expressing deep concerns about the ability of a single state to disqualify a candidate from seeking national office. This is what the South was fighting for. State's rights. They should be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 @FBI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 I don't think the the lawyer arguing for Colorado really did a good job. Trump's lawyer was more compelling. And that's my opinion, even though I think Trump shouldn't be able to run because I think he is an insurrectionist. I think it will be a 9-0 decision in favor of Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bataar Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 19 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: I don't think the the lawyer arguing for Colorado really did a good job. Trump's lawyer was more compelling. And that's my opinion, even though I think Trump shouldn't be able to run because I think he is an insurrectionist. I think it will be a 9-0 decision in favor of Trump. Damn, I must have missed that. When was he found guilty of insurrection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 5 minutes ago, Bataar said: Damn, I must have missed that. When was he found guilty of insurrection? Constitution doesn't require it and Congress not enacting a mechanism would be a defacto back door repeal to the 14th Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 5 hours ago, Chris- said: Failing to meet a signature requirement is objective (for the most part), this is much more open to interpretation. Ruling in Colorado’s favor would give every Republican state the opportunity to keep Democratic presidential candidates off the ballot with near-impunity from a federal standpoint. Yeah I kinda agree. This is a bit wishy washy and very much a slippery slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signifyin(g)Monkey Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I am now legitimately interested in what the proper legal scope of the disqualification statute in the insurrection act is: Quote Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Putting aside the broader political/ethical question of whether it’s a good idea to use it to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot in the first place, does this even require that someone be convicted of the specific crime of insurrection to be ineligible? It seems like it’s quite a bit broader than that. And is it talking about the narrow statutory definition of insurrection or the broader historical definition? I know some of the January 6 rioters were convicted of ‘seditious conspiracy’, which is basically the ‘manslaughter’ to insurrection’s ‘murder’. Could they still legally qualify for office if this were applied to them? Trump’s speech before the riot also does seem to come awfully close to meeting the ‘incite’ or ‘assist’ clauses. It’s not as implausible as it seems before you read the actual legal text. Even if, alas, it’s probably still a bad idea to use it to disqualify him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 9 Author Share Posted February 9 2 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said: Putting aside the broader political/ethical question of whether it’s a good idea to use it to kick a presidential candidate off the ballot in the first place, does this even require that someone be convicted of the specific crime of insurrection to be ineligible? It seems like it’s quite a bit broader than that. Jefferson Davis was never convicted of treason, and argued that the fact that he'd already been barred from ever holding office again under the 14th Amendment was punishment enough and that he thus shouldn't be tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finaljedi Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 41 minutes ago, Jason said: Jefferson Davis was never convicted of treason, and argued that the fact that he'd already been barred from ever holding office again under the 14th Amendment was punishment enough and that he thus shouldn't be tried. Alexander Stephens won a Senate election in Georgia, he wasn't allowed to serve in the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork3245 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 10 hours ago, Bataar said: Damn, I must have missed that. When was he found guilty of insurrection? Damn, I must have missed that. When did you need to be found guilty for section 3 of the 14th amendment to be enacted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Party of law: MAGAs demand that it be proven in court that Trump was guilty of insurrection. Party of lol: MAGAs ignore court rulings proving the election wasn't stolen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, Spork3245 said: Damn, I must have missed that. When did you need to be found guilty for section 3 of the 14th amendment to be enacted? Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be WWW.THEONION.COM ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signifyin(g)Monkey Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Interesting factoid after a bit more googling: 'rebellion' has no specific legal definition. So it seems like if the condition is engaging in/assisting/inciting/etc. in 'insurrection OR rebellion' we're diving into the historical definition of terms, not just their narrow legal definition. It doesn't seem like too crazy of an argument that actions sufficient to find you guilty of 'seditious conspiracy' also qualify you as having engaged in 'rebellion'. (not saying it's iron-clad, either, just not as wild a stretch as the critics of Trump's disqualification are making it out to be) And, as mentioned before, there are already January 6th rioters who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. So if Trump 'assisted' or 'incited' them... Honestly, the fact that 'rebellion' doesn't have a clear-cut legal definition is kinda concerning. It seems like an open invitation to abuse the statute. If nothing else positive comes from this Colorado case, maybe we'll at least get legal precedents that will in the future prevent unscrupulous alt-right lawyers and lawmakers--or a future Orban-esque president--from stretching the law to disqualify political opponents for dumb shit like 'attending a protest that included antifa members' or 'upvoting an internet forum post that said that Republican Congressmembers should be burnt at the stake'. Emphasis on 'maybe'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Listening to The Daily this morning on my way into work, and I had a scenario pop into my head concerning this case. While I don't think the following outcome is likely, it would sure be interesting! SCOTUS rules that Trump violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in insurrection/rebellion, however the court is sympathetic to Trump's lawyer's argument that a state (or states) can't remove a person from the ballot based on the reading of that amendment. Quote 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. 14.3 states that a person can't become any of the named positions (and arguably President as well), but it doesn't say they can't be a candidate. So if states want to exclude Trump from the ballot based on January 6th, they can't. However, if Trump wins a particular state, the state could refuse to certify their win. A 2/3rds vote by Congress after the election, but before the electoral votes are certified would permit the state to move forward and give those EVs to Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreePi Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 The problem is always that the burden of proof for Dems is way higher than Republicans. If Dem states don't certify a Trump win on the basis of him assisting Jan 6th, then you just need a Wisconsin/Georgia/etc to not certify Biden on some bullshit about "insurrection at the border" or some shit. It'll come down to state legiatures and the gerrymandering therein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.