Reputator Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, mclumber1 said: 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. 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. That would be interesting. It's still a slippery slope though that could lose future Democrats certification. It's hard to imagine an outcome here where our democracy survives unscathed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I think there’s too much focus on the term ‘insurrectionist’ in the 14th amendment, which has unfortunately become a loaded political term. I think there should have been more focus on ‘rebellion against’ the government. I’m no JD, but I feel like it’s a pretty easy argument to make, and these facts aren’t disputed by Trump’s legal team. 1. The 14th Amendment bars people from serving who rebelled against the US government 2. The counting of electoral votes is government function required by the constitution 3. Trump told Pence not to count the electoral votes, which is required by the constitution 4. This is a rebellion against the required constitutional function of the government and the role of vice president Because these 4 facts are not in dispute by Colorado or by Trump, he is barred from serving via the 14th amendment. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 The sad thing is that we are even having this conversation. This shouldn't have to go to court. In a sane world filled with sane people, the entire GOP would have severed all ties with Trump at any of the 100+ times it would have made sense to do so in the last 8 years or whatever. Standards and norms should dictate that anyone who behaves like trump, acts like trump and does trump things should not be considered a normal candidate. The way the GOP establishment treats him, the way the media treats him in pursuit of some sort of semblance of fairness or "both sides-ism" is the problem. The whole system breaks down when 50% decide they just don't care about anything and are willing to normalize and defend total insanity to maintain the status quo. This shouldn't even be in court. We shouldn't even be having this conversation. OF FUCKING COURSE HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE FUCKING BALLOT. HOW IN THE FUCK IS HE A LEGITIMATE CONTENDER FOR THE PRESIDENCY? The entire right wing has lost their fucking mind. The media fucking sucks too. Stop normalizing his insanity. Treat every crazy thing he says like it's the fucking craziest whacked out bullshit imaginable, BECAUSE IT IS. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Every time Trump makes an unhinged Truth social post it should be headline news... "Major Presidential candidate posts all caps deranged lie filled tirade on social media. Has he completely lost his mind?" It should be the lead story on every newspaper. If he does it again, run another headline. OVER AND OVER AND OVER. DERANGED. INSANE. UNPRESIDNTIAL. UN-AMERICAN. UNHINGED. IDIOTIC. Stop normalizing anything he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 34 minutes ago, ort said: Every time Trump makes an unhinged Truth social post it should be headline news... "Major Presidential candidate posts all caps deranged lie filled tirade on social media. Has he completely lost his mind?" It should be the lead story on every newspaper. If he does it again, run another headline. OVER AND OVER AND OVER. DERANGED. INSANE. UNPRESIDNTIAL. UN-AMERICAN. UNHINGED. IDIOTIC. Stop normalizing anything he does. Bro that ship has turned to a spaceship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I'm no legal scholar, but I'm a little bit dubious on the idea that a state shouldn't be able to bar a candidate from a federal office because doing so would "effectively determine who becomes the President of the United States." There are all sorts of measures that states currently undertake that push the needle in one direction or another. Heck, the existence of the electoral college seems to me nothing more than a way to make a federal election about a decision between states rather than the cumulative decision of voters. States run elections in any number of ways, from registration to primaries, to the collection and counting of ballots. We already have a situation where two states split their electoral votes. While not tested in court (to my knowledge), the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact seems to operate on the principle that states can decide how they want their votes cast regardless of how the people in those states voted. Personally, I think it might be a good idea for federal elections to be more handled by the federal government. Make everything consistent, from registration to primaries to voting machines, get rid of the electoral college and make presidential elections a popular vote. That isn't the way it works right now though, and telling Colorado they can't apply the constitution in this manner seems at odds with the current flexibility and relative independence that states currently have. Which is all to say that given the system we currently have, Colorado and other states probably should be able to block Trump from being on the ballot, but I'd rather we have a system were they shouldn't be able to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off ballot WWW.NBCNEWS.COM The decision swiftly ended the legal fight over whether states could bar Trump from their ballots based on the Constitution's 14th Amendment. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 I'm not surprised and I'm not even upset. This was the only tenable decision, even if I really wanted him to be ineligible because he is an insurrectionist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Yeah.. unless he's convicted what can you do? He's able to play our legal system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 So Congress can effectively repeal a Constitutional amendment by repealing the enabling legislation? Very cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, mclumber1 said: I'm not surprised and I'm not even upset. This was the only tenable decision, even if I really wanted him to be ineligible because he is an insurrectionist. I always saw it as a long shot anyway, and it's definitely something red states would have used and abused if it was affirmed. So in the end I'm not upset either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5timechamp Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 meh, just another easy victory for the orange buffoon to put on his refrigerator door… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 It's probably for the best to be honest. Since Republicans don't participate in good faith, the same reasoning would be used to remove [insert Democratic candidate here] from the ballot for the [insert political race here] in every GOP state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Although they agreed with the ruling, it's worth reading the 3 liberal judges concurring opinion. They excoriate the 6 conservative justices for creating new constitutional provisions out of whole cloth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, osxmatt said: Although they agreed with the ruling, it's worth reading the 3 liberal judges concurring opinion. They excoriate the 6 conservative justices for creating new constitutional provisions out of whole cloth. Who's going to stop them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, osxmatt said: Although they agreed with the ruling, it's worth reading the 3 liberal judges concurring opinion. They excoriate the 6 conservative justices for creating new constitutional provisions out of whole cloth. ACB actually agreed with the three liberal justices in their opinion, but wrote her own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 So if States can't enforce the requirements for Federal Office does this mean those who don't qualify (not over 35 years old for example) get ballot access? Trump wins 2024 -> States unable to block him from the ballot in 2024 for a 3rd term-> Trump wins -> is SCOTUS or Congress at certification going to "overthrow the will of the people"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: So if States can't enforce the requirements for Federal Office does this mean those who don't qualify (not over 35 years old for example) get ballot access? Trump wins 2024 -> States unable to block him from the ballot in 2024 for a 3rd term-> Trump wins -> is SCOTUS or Congress at certification going to "overthrow the will of the people"? A person doing that would screw over the party they represent. Hypothetically, if they won the election, they would be unable to serve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 The part about "creating a chaotic state-by-state patchwork" is total BS because that's an inherent part of saying states get to decide how to run their elections. Off the top of my head, individual state rules for federal office elections include: New York has fusion voting. California has jungle primaries. Alaska has ranked choice voting (which was explicitly implemented for the express purpose of trying to fuck over Murkowski). How many signatures you need to get on the ballot depends on what state you're in. Most states do primaries, but some do caucuses. Some states allow mail-in and/or early voting, some only allow in-person day-of voting for the vast majority of voters. Etc etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: A person doing that would screw over the party they represent. Hypothetically, if they won the election, they would be unable to serve. Until a court rules "the law says they can't be in office, but it doesn't describe a mechanism for removing them, so they can remain" or some other BS. The people who don't care about the rules aren't going to jump at enforcing them when it means they can hold power. The US is so close to a tipping point where all rules that impede power are going to be ignored through some very thing pretenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 15 minutes ago, Jason said: The part about "creating a chaotic state-by-state patchwork" is total BS because that's an inherent part of saying states get to decide how to run their elections. Off the top of my head, individual state rules for federal office elections include: New York has fusion voting. California has jungle primaries. Alaska has ranked choice voting (which was explicitly implemented for the express purpose of trying to fuck over Murkowski). How many signatures you need to get on the ballot depends on what state you're in. Most states do primaries, but some do caucuses. Some states allow mail-in and/or early voting, some only allow in-person day-of voting for the vast majority of voters. Etc etc etc. Congress has the Constitutional authority to completely takeover federal elections. But they won't, because reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said: So if States can't enforce the requirements for Federal Office does this mean those who don't qualify (not over 35 years old for example) get ballot access? Trump wins 2024 -> States unable to block him from the ballot in 2024 for a 3rd term-> Trump wins -> is SCOTUS or Congress at certification going to "overthrow the will of the people"? There IS a difference between blocking a candidate based on a basic numeric requirement like age or the number of terms already served, and the still ongoing litigation that Trump is responsible for the January 6 insurrection (however obvious it is to us that he is). This ruling really seems narrowly confined to Section 3 of the 14th amendment and nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 hours ago, Jason said: The part about "creating a chaotic state-by-state patchwork" is total BS because that's an inherent part of saying states get to decide how to run their elections. Off the top of my head, individual state rules for federal office elections include: New York has fusion voting. California has jungle primaries. Alaska has ranked choice voting (which was explicitly implemented for the express purpose of trying to fuck over Murkowski). How many signatures you need to get on the ballot depends on what state you're in. Most states do primaries, but some do caucuses. Some states allow mail-in and/or early voting, some only allow in-person day-of voting for the vast majority of voters. Etc etc etc. Because there is a significant difference between divergent voting systems and unilateral decisions made by the individual state secretaries/courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 13 minutes ago, Chris- said: Because there is a significant difference between divergent voting systems and unilateral decisions made by the individual state secretaries/courts. Determining candidate eligibility is a routine function of state courts/secretaries of state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, Jason said: Determining candidate eligibility is a routine function of state courts/secretaries of state. In how many of those instances is a unilateral decision being made against voters? If a candidate meets all of the criteria to be listed, how is it good for elected officials to override those criteria with near impunity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 5 Author Share Posted March 5 14 minutes ago, Chris- said: In how many of those instances is a unilateral decision being made against voters? If a candidate meets all of the criteria to be listed, how is it good for elected officials to override those criteria with near impunity? It's good and correct to say that people who lead a violent insurrection to overthrow the government shouldn't be listed on the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 We're fucked in November 2024 regardless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 6 minutes ago, marioandsonic said: We're fucked in November 2024 regardless No we're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 13 minutes ago, Reputator said: No we're not. I'm too pessimistic to believe otherwise 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, marioandsonic said: I'm too pessimistic to believe otherwise Well it's getting old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Trump is winning and we need to come to terms with that horrifying reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokra Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, TUFKAK said: Trump is winning and we need to come to terms with that horrifying reality. I'm with @Reputator on this. I'm not trying to call you (TUFKAK) or anybody out in particular on this; I've just noticed a lot of cynicism, both here and online in general. I think it's far easier to just say "oh we're fucked" because then we don't have to do anything. If things are already decided, what's the point in struggling against something we don't like? But nothing is decided yet and, whether anyone wants to call me naive or an eternal optimist or a fool, I don't think it is ever too late to do what's right. Even if it doesn't fix things entirely, if it makes things better, it's worth it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork3245 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, Nokra said: I'm with @Reputator on this. I'm not trying to call you (TUFKAK) or anybody out in particular on this; I've just noticed a lot of cynicism, both here and online in general. I think it's far easier to just say "oh we're fucked" because then we don't have to do anything. If things are already decided, what's the point in struggling against something we don't like? But nothing is decided yet and, whether anyone wants to call me naive or an eternal optimist or a fool, I don't think it is ever too late to do what's right. Even if it doesn't fix things entirely, if it makes things better, it's worth it. Counterpoint: if you stay pessimistic and expect the worst you’ll never be disappointed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokra Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, Spork3245 said: Counterpoint: if you stay pessimistic and expect the worst you’ll never be disappointed Sure, but you're probably not much fun at parties. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork3245 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 6 minutes ago, Nokra said: Sure, but you're probably not much fun at parties. Not if I’m living every day like the sun will explode tomorrow 1 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.