If the SCOTUS votes to keep TFG on the ballot,

[Bluethroughu]

Last edited Fri Feb 9, 2024, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

They are setting a dangerous precedent minimizing the 14th Amendment, that protects US against enemies from within, and protecting other GOP members that participated in the planned coup that day.

?si=XU-q65jFLu0q7JhJ

This IS a political snuff out of our Democracy by Justices of the GOP, that have taken millions in gifts and extras by the people that have been working to end our Democracy.

[Brainfodder]

1. Billionaire class of sickos!

They have a clusterfuck of useful idiots that they pay like a dime a dozen for vs. their insane fortunes?

Fortunes that make them insane, I get it, I too would be bored once I realized $ aint everything and even all the sexual stuff would get dull after a while, and when we see them (Mark Z as example) how out of place and wiped out/numb does that guy always seem?

[Caliman73]

2. I am not sure that is correct.

They seem to have a way out and showed that in some of their questioning and argumentation. They are saying that while the States administer elections, that because this is about a Federal Election, the States do not have jurisdiction to decide unilaterally that anyone can be disqualified. Since no Federal court has adjudicated that Trump engaged in insurrection, the State Courts cannot simply assert it and take him off.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but it is actually a relatively clever way to avoid some of the problems with it. Obviously Trump is going to lie that he was "COMPLETELY EXONERATED" but that is expected. It will be a narrow, thread the needle decision.

I would actually rather see Trump on the ballot. As his other cases heat up and he gets closer to getting convicted, people will be paying attention and will move away from him. President Biden will win bigger than last time and Trump will be humiliated. He won't have this issue to whine about, though we know he will whine about everything anyway.

[Bluethroughu]

4. There were plenty of judges that charged the insurrectionists

With insurrection.

The insurectionisys were told at the rally before they attacked to SAVE AMERICA.
Fight like HELL, they may lose everything, there will be blood, and we're fighting for the grievances, lies of trump. He then stated he would go with them, and did nothing to stop them. It was his insurrection.

[Caliman73]

11. True.

There are A LOT of mafia members behind bars for killing people, extorting, etc... How many mafia bosses are behind bars? That is why RICO was put together as a set of laws. It is a lot easier to arrest and convict a person who broke a window and climbed into the Capital building chanting "Hang Mike Pence" than it is to convict someone who said, "You got to fight like hell or you won't have a country". This is why Mafia bosses never said, "Hey Tony, I want you to go over and put six bullets in Freddy the Fish's head and kill him." They said, "Hey Tony, I want you to handle this thing with Freddy the Fish." Without RICO type laws, Tony gets asked, "Did Don Gino tell you to kill Freddy the Fish?" and without actually lying, Tony can say, "Don Gino never ordered me to kill Freddy the Fish" because the words Kill, murder, shoot, etc... were never uttered. Trump didn't say, "I want you all to go over to the Capital building, break through the barricades bash in windows and assault whoever gets in your way so that you can disrupt the certification of the election".

Don't make me defend Trump's legal position. I think that he did engage in insurrection. He set the tone, lit the match, and set the people out based on what he knew were lies. HOWEVER, as I said. HE has not been convicted for Insurrection yet. This is what Smith and Judge Chutkan, and the DC Jury are waiting to determine.

If and when he is convicted, then parties can petition the Federal Court to have his name removed from the ballot across the country.

Imagine if that happens in August or September? Once Trump locks up the Republican nomination and the General election starts. It would be crazy, but interesting situation.

[Bluethroughu]

12. It does not say trump has to be charged or convicted of insurrection.

He participated. He said yesterday it was an insurrection, but blamed Pelosi, the one who got help to stop it because he told armed, angry individuals they would lose their country if they didn't fight for it.

Facts are he is an insurrectionist.

[FBaggins]

27. It actually does

If an amendment was added saying that murderers could not serve as presidents. It would not give some state court the power to determine whether or not a candidate was a murdered absent conviction for that crime.

14A does say that Congress has the power to enact legislation enforcing the amendment. Congress had already created the federal crime of insurrection... so clearly anyone convicted of that crime is already ineligible. They later enacted additional legislation that was later repealed... but at no time did Congress give a state court the ability to hold someone accountable for insurrection absent a conviction for same.

[Farmer-Rick]

35. Well...then do the other required qualifications

Need to be adjudicated at the federal level too?

The US Constitution requires presidents to have been residents of the US for 14 years to be eligible. What if someone left the country, moved their citizenship, then moved back to the US. Where would their 14 years start and end. Would it have to be consecutive or split. Would a federal court have to decide that too?

What if they were to turn 35 one day after the vote for president? Would they still be eligible? Would a federal court have to adjudicate their age?

Would a state be able to prevent the person from being on the ballot if they were under 35 and had not lived in the US for 14 years? Or would they have to wait for a federal court to decide? And what happens to state rights to manage the election?

[NoRethugFriends]

7. Totally specious reasoning.

Plenty of insurrection evidence, and decision to keep off ballot would have been made not by the states, but by the SC.

[Caliman73]

13. No they are not. SCOTUS isn't making the decision...

They are deciding whether it is within the framework of the Constitution, within the balance of power between State and National governments for States to decide to kick someone off the ballot.

Take the case in Oregon as a counter example. I doubt that the Supreme Court will get involved in this situation. Why? because the Oregon Courts have jurisdiction to decide what is fair and legal in the borders of the State. The Republicans who broke the law in Oregon, got kicked off the ballot in Oregon. They took their case all the way up to the highest court in Oregon and the court sided with other courts in the state who said the Republicans' actions forfeited their ability to hold office.

I am not arguing the merits of whether Trump committed Insurrection. I am explaining the reasoning of the Court in JURISDICTION.

When the Confederates were kicked out of office after the war, it was the Federal government that decided whether they could hold office. Many Confederates held State and local offices after the war, including the Mayor of Los Angeles, governorships, etc... Where they ran into problems was when they tried to hold Federal office, unless their "disability" was cured by the National Congress.

I don't like the decision, but that is likely how they will come down. It isn't specious, cowardly maybe, but not specious. Several legal scholars had posited that this was one likely way out for the Court.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. You get it.

Thanks for your eloquent explanation of the likely ruling.

[limbicnuminousity]

14. Am curious whether there will be inconsistencies addressing the border issue.

If states don't have the right to unilaterally disqualify a federal candidate then they don't have authority to patrol or regulate federal borders. They've been consistent in their signaling. But the SC has proven incapable of enforcing the intent behind their ruling on the border. So, what's to prevent Coloradans from flipping off the SC and saying "no, thanks but no" while setting up checkpoints to catch and release nomadic Texans who wander out of the badlands?

[Caliman73]

17. That has been a problem historically.

Andrew Jackson was attributed as saying, "John Marshall made his ruling, now let him enforce it" . Back then, in the 1830's, it showed one of the glaring limits to the "co-equal" powers of the 3 Branches. SCOTUS determines whether laws are Constitutional, but Certainly the States and the other branches of the National government can simply ignore the SCOTUS' ruling. It would be up to the executive branch to enforce the SCOTUS ruling. Jackson wanted the Cherokees out of Georgia, so he wasn't going to let the Court tell him or the State of Georgia what they couldn't do and the Court didn't have agents or an army to force Georgia or Jackson to respect the Cherokee's right to the land. Hence the "Trail of Tears".

Biden has several options at his disposal to enforce the SCOTUS ruling regarding Texas interfering with immigration actions at the border. He simply has chosen not to act on them at this time.

Colorado could simply ignore the ruling and keep Trump's name off the ballot, but I actually think that Biden, who actually cares about the Constitution and respects the co-equal theory of American Government, would likely intervene to make sure Colorado follows the ruling.

[limbicnuminousity]

44. Your assessment is astute.

I think we're going to be hearing a lot about the (mis)jurisprudence of Samuel P. Chase in the editorials and funny sections.

Random bits from the wiki on Chase:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_P._Chase

Perhaps Chase's chief defect was an insatiable desire for high office.[30] Throughout his term as Treasury Secretary, Chase exploited his position to build up political support for another run at the presidency in 1864. Benjamin Wade, a Republican commented: "Chase is a good man but his theology is unsound. He thinks there is a fourth person in the Trinity."[31]

To honor Chase for introducing the modern system of banknotes, he was depicted on the $10,000 bill printed from 1928 to 1946. Chase was instrumental in placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on United States coins in 1[864.[33]

For his defense of people arrested in Ohio under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, Chase was dubbed the "Attorney General for Fugitive Slaves."[12] His argument in the case of Jones v. Van Zandt on the constitutionality of fugitive slave laws before the U.S. Supreme Court attracted particular attention. Chase contended that slavery was local, not national, and that it could exist only by virtue of positive state law. He argued that the federal government was not empowered by the Constitution to create slavery anywhere and that when an enslaved person leaves the jurisdiction of a state where slavery is legal, he ceases to be a slave; he continues to be a man and leaves behind the law that made him a slave. In this and similar cases, the court ruled against him, and the judgment against John Van Zandt was upheld.[citation needed]

As Chief Justice, Chase also presided at the impeachment trial of U.S. President Andrew Johnson in 1868. As the justice responsible for the 4th Circuit, Chase also would have been one of two judges at the trial of Jefferson Davis (who was imprisoned at Fort Monroe in Virginia), because trial for major crimes such as treason required two judges. However, Davis's best defense would be that he forfeited U.S. citizenship upon secession, and therefore could not have committed treason. Convicting Davis could also interfere with Chase's presidential ambitions, described below. After the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, Chase invited Davis's lawyer to meet with him privately, and explained his theory that Section 3 of the new Amendment prohibited imposing further punishment on former Confederates. When Davis's lawyer repeated this argument in open court, Chase dismissed the case, over the objection of his colleague, U.S. District Judge John Curtiss Underwood, and the government chose not to appeal the dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[40]

Chase sought the Republican nomination for president in the 1860 presidential election, but the party chose Abraham Lincoln at its National Convention. After Lincoln won the election, he asked Chase to serve as Secretary of the Treasury. Chase served in that position from 1861 to 1864, working hard to ensure the Union was well-financed during the Civil War. Chase resigned from the Cabinet in June 1864, but retained support among the Radical Republicans. Partly to appease the Radical Republicans, Lincoln nominated Chase to fill the Supreme Court vacancy that arose following Chief Justice Roger Taney's death.

It boggles the mind that this one man did so much damage. The constitutional issues being addressed now are the remnants of issues that should have been resolved 150 years ago.

Chase's decisions are illustrative of the consistent moral terpitude which has characterized radical republicans for forever. His objection to slavery referred not to the Rights of Man but instead laid the foundation for originalists like Scalia by saying the Constitution doesn't explicitly give permission to enslave.

And then he turned around, cut Jeff Davis free and ignored the incompetence of the Johnson administration during Reconstruction. There are lessons to be learned there.

[LeftInTX]

49. Border issues are complex.

Immigration: Who becomes a US citizen, who gets deported, ports of entry: Federal govt.
Border itself: Much of it is on private property, so the property owner actually controls who has access to the property. Much of Texas doesn't have a border wall.
Rio Grande (water) itself: Federal govt. Banks of the river: Whoever owns the property, if it isn't a port of entry.

In the case of the park, it's city property, but since Texas is the state, Abbott has put up shop there. The city could sue, but would likely lose. The razor wire needs to stay on land and not in the water. Buoys put up by Abbott are illegal.

However, there is the spirit of the law and letter of the law. State, local and federal officials all should work together.

[GreenWave]

21. The orginal insurrectionists did not face court trials.

They were kicked out.

[Caliman73]

23. Original as in Civil War original?

They weren't kicked out. They left. When they tried to come back, they were thwarted, unless Congress allowed them back in. You do know that there were some Confederates that did go back to serve in the National government. Congress gave General Amnesty between 1868 and 1872.

This is why we need actual history taught in school.

I do not want Trump anywhere near power ever again, but people do not seem to be taking their positions from actual legal and historical information.

[GreenWave]

37. Agreed and I did mean the Civil war traitors.

[FBaggins]

46. Except they weren't barred from *running* for the office

They could be elected and then have Congress remove the disability

[jimfields33]

3. Or it could be used to keep anybody they feel like

Off the ballot. Look at how impeachment has become a joke. Not serious at all. Just throw up a vote with no reason.

[Bluethroughu]

5. You need proof of an insurrection, we have almost 24 hrs of documentation he created one.

[NoRethugFriends]

6. No it couldn't

And has nothing to do with impeachment.
Who is your "they" here.
The SC found nothing wrong with the Colorado decision.
They just ignored it, as well as ignoring the constitution.
Fuck 'em

[FBaggins]

47. The SC found nothing wrong with the Colorado decision?

Did you listen to the oral arguments?

On the contrary - it's hard to find anything that any of the justices thought they did correctly.

[HariSeldon]

24. In Colorado, there was a trial and appeal

Portraying this as "tossed him off the ballot" is doing a grave injustice to the process Colorado followed.

I could see how it would be better that this be explicit in the SCOTUS ruling: states may only take this action when due process exists. I'd even like to see this be a direct appeal from the highest, in-state review (CO Supreme Court in this case) to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, so that the appellate decision is nationally binding. Such an appeals path would probably require passing a law, though.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. Their ruling, likely unanimous, will be more nuanced

My guess is they will rule that an individual state does not have the authority to enforce disqualification under the 14th amendment for a federal office.

Hopefully, the ruling will imply/suggest that a suit in federal, not state court, is the appropriate course of action.

[Bluethroughu]

10. Well the textualists will be legislating from the bench again.

It says nothing about states unable to disqualify at the state level.

[LaMouffette]

15. It seems like SCOTUS's lame excuse is that they don't want some states using the 14th Amendment, sec. 3, to

kick Trump off their ballots, while other states keep him on their ballots. That the 14th Amendment, sec. 3, should be enforced at a nationwide, federal level.

Well, then, why doesn't the Supreme court do just that? Tell all the states that Trump carried out an insurrection and can't be on ANY ballots???

I admit I'm totally ignorant of how these legal proceedings proceed, but how do these sweeping Supreme Court decisions happen, like when gay marriage was legalized? Does someone have to bring a lawsuit? Why hasn't that happened?

Or is that what DID happen on Thursday, and the Supreme Court, as many people seem to be predicting, is about to drop the ball?

[Caliman73]

19. SCOTUS decisions are made when cases are brought to them.

Yes, there has to be an injured party. In this case, the State of Colorado took Trump's name off the ballot, the Supreme Court of the State affirmed the decision, and Trump, being the injured party, appealed the Colorado decision to the Supreme Court based on multiple arguments including contesting that he engaged in insurrection AND jurisdiction issues.

Same sex marriage was codified by the Obergefell V Hodges decision which incorporated the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses to say that licenses granted in one state for marriage, had to be respected in other states.

[LaMouffette]

50. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Caliman73! I feel at this point that every American is an injured party from the

relentless trauma we've had to endure since 2016.

[Polybius]

30. Tell all the states that Trump carried out an insurrection and can't be on ANY ballots???

Because it hasn't been defined that it was an insurrection. If it's defined that it was, then by all means kick him off.

[Bluethroughu]

36. Federal and State judges convicted or kicked off people on ballots for insurrection

Of 1/6 ers.

NM dumped a local on the ballot.

[Polybius]

42. In Trump's Colorado case, it was the state SC upholding it

I think it would (and should) have to be federally decided.

[RussBLib]

16. Overly dramatic, IMHO

Lots of judges decisions have been going our way. Not everything will, and while this (pending) decision will probably keep Traitor Trump on the ballot, things could be far worse.

We'll just have to crush his ass in November, if he's still alive by then. Shouldn't be too hard.

[Bluethroughu]

18. It's not about our ability to beat him at the ballot box

It's about holding those inside government, acting against our Constitution, accountable.

Should a traitor be allowed to run for office with his army, declaring he will be a dictator on day one?

[RussBLib]

20. If they were a convicted traitor, no

....but accusations of wannabe dictator carry.little weight in a court of law. We should have charged Traitor Trump with insurrection. And of course the Republicans in the Senate voted not to convict him at.the impeachments.

Frikkin' spineless coward Republicans.

[Bluethroughu]

38. Impeachment is removal from office, he is not in office.

It does not say someone needs to be charged with insurrection.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
Constitution.Congress.gov

[rubbersole]

22. The SC is bought and paid for.

There is a silver lining. tfg remaining on the ballot guarantees the gop has massive losses across the country. Eight more months of daily treasonous insanity will doom them. Just sayin'.

[Bluethroughu]

39. I hope you are right.

[relayerbob]

25. I put this squarely on McConnell

He should have convicted Trump instead of punting it to the courts. At the moment, Trump has not been convicted, or even charged with insurrection, and was not found guilty in the impeachment FOR January 6. It was his decision, alone, not to bring the impeachment to a vote that has created this mess.

[William Seger]

26. If the SCOTUS votes to keep TFG on the ballot...

... they damn well better explain how the 14th is supposed to be enforced!

[kelly1mm]

28. My (barely informed) opinion is they will keep him on the ballot and not by a 6-3 decision. Perhaps

unanimous. Even the 3 'liberal' justices seemed to have a problem with any particular state deciding that a candidate should be removed from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.
I will hedge my bet a bit to say 8-1 he stays with Justice Jackson the lone dissent.

[Polybius]

29. Or maybe they are right if it's 9-0

Perhaps the Amendment should have said "convicted of insurrection" from the start.

[brush]

31. IMO it was pretty obvious from their questions that they were looking for a way...

rule against Colorado to keep him on the ballot. This SCOTUS's actions have a decided right wing spin.

I wasn't all that impressed with their constant interuptions when the Colorado attorney was trying to respond to a question...then asking a completely different question.

IMO they're about to diminsh the protections the 14A offers against insurrections, sedition and treason....similar to what was done to civil rights and Citizens United.

[Bluethroughu]

40. Yes, if they rule to keep him on, it's another nail in the coffin of our Democracy.

[William769]

32. I am curious how the liberal Justices vote on this.

I know I want them to rule in our favor but if they don't, I am going to have to rethink this. That's how I am feeling right now.

[Joinfortmill]

33. I listened to the entire hearing. It sounds like Trump will be on the ballot. Vote.

I think Trump will be soundly trounced. But this is going to be the vote of a lifetime for everyone.

[Bluethroughu]

41. Every vote, every election is the vote of a lifetime.

This is how you hold on to Democracy.

[Bev54]

34. Not if, it is when they do.

[Emile]

43. Wondering if all this could have been avoided if Garland

would have went after Trump first. .

[Bluethroughu]

45. No need to wonder, he didn't and now were here.

He didn't want it to be political.

[Think. Again.]

51. Considering political concerns...

....when deciding whether or not to do your job is being political.

garland must go.

[FBaggins]

48. Yes

If he were charged with the federal crime of insurrection and convicted of that crime... all of this would absolutely have been avoided.

The problem is that it's unlikely that he would have been convicted - but that, too, would have avoided all this.

[ebbie15644]

52. I agree but politically it's bad

For them. Haley has a better chance in the general than trump. You would think they would be considering that angle, especially how political they are