RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

JVoV -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/18/2024 9:09:11 AM)

With Trump winning bigly in Iowa, I have little hope that the Maine and Colorado decisions are any more thanwith Trump winning so big in Iowa, I'm quite certain that he will be the Repiblican nominee.

SCOTUS could decide against that, but I doubt they will. I think the decision will be split down party lines.

That takes us to the Georgia trial. Apparently, the prosecutors have some personal dirt which has now been raised by the defense. When dealing with anything Trump, you have to be above even the appearance of wrongdoing. My faith in a conviction has weakened immensely. This would likely be the last hope for disqualifying Trump from running.

So, with Trump pretty much guaranteed the Republican nomination, Biden's win in the general election becomes the only thing to stop Trump at all. That's not exactly guaranteed,, but there's still hope



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/18/2024 7:33:12 PM)

A schoolteacher in my OWN county filed a lawsuit to get Trump off the ballot here. It appears that the state GOP got the case moved to a redder Thurston county, where the judge dismissed it citing that primaries are not really elections, but rather, "nominating contests", and therefore the Constitution and state ballot laws do not apply.

Washington's law on this is vague and dates back to the early 1900's. It just says that a candidate can't be on the ballot if he committed "bad acts" (No definition there)

The judge does have a point on the "nominating contests". There are actually dozens of parties that nominate their candidates through their own methods. There are no state sponsored primary elections for them. The state shouldn't even be involved in primaries. The parties aren't government organizations. They are private. If I wanted to start a Jaguar party, and nominate myself as the candidate, I am free to do so.

It will be fascinating to read what SCOTUS writes on this.



wickedsdesires -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/19/2024 3:44:01 AM)

Bad Acts are bound to include:
Insurrection - plural
Election Interference - plural
Rape - found guilty

He has so many I need to look them up https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/feb/07/donald-trump-list-legal-cases I don't know if that's all of them.

Trump was forecast to win Iowa easily.

If Scotus decision is along party lines then there is something very wrong with the justices. It is just another political wing of some orange rapist nutter.




wickedsdesires -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/19/2024 4:02:58 AM)

Donald Trump has urged the US Supreme Court to put a "swift and decisive end" to his exclusion from Colorado's presidential primary ballot.

In a court filing on Thursday, Mr Trump said "chaos and bedlam" would be unleashed if other states followed Colorado and banned him from primaries.

Colorado's top court banned Mr Trump in December, accusing him of engaging in insurrection over the Capitol riot.

An identical ruling in Maine was placed on hold by state judges on Wednesday.

The 14th Amendment of the US constitution excludes anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office.

But in his filing on Thursday, Mr Trump's lawyers argued that the provision does not apply to the presidency, writing that the office is not among those listed in the amendment.

"The Court should reverse the Colorado decision because President Trump is not even subject to section 3, as the president is not an 'officer of the United States' under the Constitution," the submission read.

"And even if President Trump were subject to section 3 he did not 'engage in' anything that qualifies as 'insurrection," it added.

The 77-year-old remains the firm frontrunner in the Republican presidential race, and his lawyers argued that his disqualification from the ballot would "disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans".

But not like:
Election Interference - plural
Having some bamboo wanton pandas recount ballots several times in various States - again plural, as is the following - 20 million Ghosts voted for Biden, and that's his saner shit.
the fact that almost zero house Republican's voted to ratify Joe Biden.
please add to the list because I will be forgetting lots.





JVoV -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/19/2024 4:00:20 PM)

Wicked, you keep saying that Trump was found guilty of rape. He wasn't. He has never been convicted of the crime, or even charged.

When dealing with the constant barrage of lies in his favor, the only way to beat Trump is being steadfast in our convtions and the truth. Haley and DeSantis would have been all over a convicted rapist as their opponent, but that's not the case because it isn't the truth. Not even Chris Christie has said such a thing.

Repeating such nonsense puts you in a class with that syphilis conspiracy theory dude. I believe it's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's the same school of thought that turns pizza joints into pedo rings and has a cabal of leftist elites drinking the blood of newborns.

Reality may suck at times, but we kinda have to deal with it.

MJ, you're right in that the primaries as they are shouldn't be controlled by government. The parties themselves aren't even in the Constitution. As such, SCOTUS is likely to reverse the Colorado and Maine decisions. That said, the decision to allow Trump to be on primary ballots does not necessarily allow him to be on the general ballot. I seriously doubt we've heard the last of this.



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/19/2024 6:48:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Wicked, you keep saying that Trump was found guilty of rape. He wasn't. He has never been convicted of the crime, or even charged.


No. But he was found civilly liable under a suit brought under the Adult Survivors Act of Sexual Assault. Yes the standard in a civil trial is "Preponderance of the Evidence" and not "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"...
Po - Tay - to
Po - Tah - to

quote:


MJ, you're right in that the primaries as they are shouldn't be controlled by government. The parties themselves aren't even in the Constitution. As such, SCOTUS is likely to reverse the Colorado and Maine decisions. That said, the decision to allow Trump to be on primary ballots does not necessarily allow him to be on the general ballot. I seriously doubt we've heard the last of this.


Primaries are subsidized and the rules are largely set by the state legislatures. (Which in my mind is ridiculous). If I were the GOP chairman, I would:

1. Stop all state primaries
2. Declare Trump the nominee

DONE....

Then the only question then becomes the general election ballot.

Trump's lawyers filed a brief with SCOTUS with an interesting argument (and it actually has merit!) (NOTE: You will never see Alina Habba in front of SCOTUS)

Trump's lawyers argue that
1. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President (they are just making shit up here) (as wicked pointed out above)
14th Amendment - Section3
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.

2. (The argument that makes some sense here) The 14th amendment ALLOWS Congress to pass a law to enforce this (which they have yet to do) Absent that law the amendment is unenforceable.

One could say that for a good part of the Constitution.

Emoluments anyone?




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/19/2024 7:19:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

2. (The argument that makes some sense here) The 14th amendment ALLOWS Congress to pass a law to enforce this (which they have yet to do) Absent that law the amendment is unenforceable.




Holy f*cking sh*t!!!!!


Was just reading Section 5 of the same amendment.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I think the Trump lawyers are on to something. I think the intention WAS for Congress to pass laws to enforce the amendment.
Here is my prediction on the SCOTUS ruling:

Roberts will give the majority opinion, He will look at section 5 and say the amendment's intention was for legislation to be passed to enforce the provisions. Absent that legislation, it is not for state legislatures or state Sos's or courts to make that determination.

If I were council for the state of Maine I would argue"

If it please the court:
(referring only to thr general here, not the primary)
Article II - Section 1 of the Constitution says precisely that it IS for state legislatures to make that determination.

Article II Section 1 reads:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Our state legislature passed a law that says, based on an evidentiary hearing, our Secretary of State may determine a candidate as unqualified under the 14th amendment to be on the ballot.

If I were Justice Roberts, I would say the at article empowers the legislature to determine generally the MANNER in which electors are chosen. Not make determinations of a candidates participation in insurrection.


If I were council for Maine, I would say: Hmmmph! and walk out.




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (1/26/2024 7:36:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Maine Superior Court stayed the SoS decision pending the US Supreme Court decision on Colorado.



UPDATE: SoS appealed the Maine Superior Court decision to stay her original decision to the Maine Supreme Court.
The Maine Supreme Court upheld the Maine Superior Court's decision to stay her decision until the US Supreme Court ways in on Colorado.


Confusing a bit :) Basically Maine wants to wait for SCOTUS to rule :)



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (2/5/2024 7:46:25 PM)

Oral arguments tomorrow at 10AM Eastern on the Colorado case.

This one will be interesting!



JVoV -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (2/5/2024 10:45:54 PM)

Depending on the outcome and the cases used, this could be a chance for the conservative SCOTUS to overturn precedent again.

I liked the court better when there was actually a swing vote to keep things balanced and sensible.



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (2/6/2024 5:32:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Oral arguments tomorrow at 10AM Eastern on the Colorado case.

This one will be interesting!



I meant Thursday morning.



JVoV -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (2/6/2024 10:46:04 AM)

All the justices have tthis is where it gets tricky. Are primary elections private or public? There is a case to be made either way. The DNC and RNC are both private organizations, so by Freedom of Association, they should be able to decide who can represent them. But ballots are handled by the government, not the parties, so government should be able to disqualify an individual, as Colorado and Maine have done.

It's a coin-toss really, and with a conservative court, I don't like the odds.

Cuz like, Trump only did a teeny tiny little bit of insurrectioning. Can that really be held against him?



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (2/6/2024 7:18:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

All the justices have tthis is where it gets tricky. Are primary elections private or public? There is a case to be made either way. The DNC and RNC are both private organizations, so by Freedom of Association, they should be able to decide who can represent them. But ballots are handled by the government, not the parties, so government should be able to disqualify an individual, as Colorado and Maine have done.

It's a coin-toss really, and with a conservative court, I don't like the odds.

Cuz like, Trump only did a teeny tiny little bit of insurrectioning. Can that really be held against him?



As it turns out.... The "Primary" elections question may not be as critical as I first thought.

At the end of the day, the parties are private organizations. Yes , if they have an election printed by the state, they are subject to the state's elecion laws.

HOWEVER...

They can easily get around this by:

1. Making the primary meaningless (awarding ZERO delgates)
2. Having a Caucus (in-person meetings, no ballots, no state rules)

That is precisely what they did in Nevada.

They can also cancel the entire process and just declare Trump the winner. It is their party. They can cry if they want to. (You would cry too if it happened to you)

So... getting Trump off the primary ballot reall doesn't matter. It's the General that is the issue.

It is true that the 14th Amendment doesn't' say he can't run, just that he can't serve.

However, Maine and Colorado state law CLEARLY say that someone who is not qualified by federal or state law can't run. The 10th amendment keeps the federal government from doing anything about that.

Technically, states don't even have to have a popular vote for President (unless it is in their state constitutions). Technically, per the US Constitution, the state legislature can just pick a candidate and send that candidate's electors to their capitol to vote.

I think if Trump is off the ballot in a whole lot of states, you will find Republican state legislatures just picking Trump (on the ballot or not).

(Which means the 14th amendment HAS to be enforced at the Federal Level)



JVoV -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (3/5/2024 6:49:57 AM)

So SCOTUS has weighed in, disallowing any state from removing Trump from the ballot.

This has been today:s reminder that Biden is our only hope. Depending on what insurrection may happen after this election.



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (3/15/2024 5:22:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

So SCOTUS has weighed in, disallowing any state from removing Trump from the ballot.

This has been today:s reminder that Biden is our only hope. Depending on what insurrection may happen after this election.



This is what happens when you put Trumpist activist hacks and Woke Affirmative Action activist hacks on the Supreme Court instead of legal scholars.

The Supreme Court got this completely WRONG.

From Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson

quote:


The majority rests on such principles when it explains why Colorado cannot take Petitioner off the ballot. “[S]tateby-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving,” the majority explains, “would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that ‘the President . . . represents all the voters in the Nation.’” Ante, at 11


MORONS!!!! You have JUST identified the MAJOR flaw in our Electoral College System! Madison IMMEDIATELY realized what a monster he created and tried to reign it in until he died. The late 18th and early 19th centuries. states had at least 3 different ways of choosing electors

1. A vote by the state legislature
2. Popular vote (For the electors by name, NOT the President)
3. District vote for ELectors (similar to congressional vote)

There has NEVER been uniformity and consistency nor adherence to the principle that the President represents all the voters in the nation.
Remember Bush v Gore in 2000?


A Republican legislature passed a law on top of Florida's existing ban on ex-felons voting. The law gave power to the state's Republican Secretary of State to (who also doubled as the state's Republican party chair (Only in the US is this shit legal) to decide who was or was not an ex-felon. She hired ChoicePoint (a company owned by Republican donors to "cleanse" the voter rolls.

NOW they realize there is the potential for a single state to impact an election??????

What happened to that fat fuck Antonin Scalia (the biggest right wing judicial activist masquerading as a "Strict Constructionist" ) I pray that he is rotting in hell.


And Barrett's disasterous...

quote:


On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment grants new power to Congress to enforce the provisions of the Amendment against the States. It would
be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office.

Agreed... but they ALREADY had that power in the Electors clause and the 10th Amendment, as the attorney for the State of Colorado eloquently argued!

quote:


The only other plausible constitutional sources of such a delegation are the Elections and Electors Clauses, which authorize States to conduct and regulate congressional and Presidential elections, respectively. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1;
Art. II, §1, cl. 2.1 But there is little reason to think that these Clauses implicitly authorize the States to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates. Granting the States that authority would invert the Fourteenth Amendment’s rebalancing of federal and state power.


COMPLETE and total nonsense. The Electors clause gives the states Plenary power to do whatever the fuck they want! They do NOT even have to HAVE a statewide election for President at all.

Madison knew this and spent his dying days trying to reform this mess.

The bottom line is, true the 14th amendment does not empower the states to enforce it. But the electors clause DOES!!!! The states could say "Anyone who is Orange cannot appear on the ballot" They are free to make any rules they want as to how they choose their electors.


This decision is a practical one for sure, but it is legally and constitutionally bankrupt.



JVoV -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (3/16/2024 4:33:55 PM)

The balance of SCOTUS shifted during Trump's term, probably for a generation or so. I'm not against activist judges being in SCOTUS, as long as it is balanced with at least one imperial judge to base their decision on the applicable laws, precents, and the ever-changing world around us. But no, I do t agree with the decision. I don't agree with a lot of the ringwing activist judges decisions.

I don't believe I have ever been negatively impacted by Affirmative Action. If I didn't get a job, which was rare cuz I'm kinda awesome, then it was either because of nepotism or the person eventually hired was kinda awesome too. I firmly believe in and support Affirmative Action to help correct laws that were designed to keep "those people" down.

Though I am quite liberal on social issues, I have a lot of libertarian ideals as well. If government isn't there to help, then it shouldn't get in my way.

I don't see much difference between true American conservatism and American liberalism. But I don't believe we're dealing with true American conservatism anymore. We're dealing with what used to be a fringe group that has taken over and corrupted conservative ideals. That's how we got stuck with Trump. Not that I love Biden as his opponent, but he'll get my vote.

I believe that any laws specifically designed to negatively impact a specific race is unAmerican and unconstitutional.

Yeah, SCOTUS struck down Affirmative Action at Yale and Harvard. In truth, we shouldn't need Affirmative Action now, but we still do, on so many levels. Racial equality, gender equality, gay rights, trans rights... There are always goind to be things I don't understand about other people. Hell, there are things I don't understand about myself sometimes. But I don't have to understand everything to fundamentally know right from wrong.

I believe that family planning is a medical right. I also believe that abortion is murder, and anyone getting an abortion will have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives. Luckily, being fay, that's not a decision I have to worry about.

I don't understand everything about this new trans thing, because it's explained in an overly complicated way and now so many people are riding that movement. Wtf is nonbinary or gender-fluid? How is that a thing? And who the hell cares? All of this just confuses things for trans rights, and I think makes people more knee-jerk reactive than they need to be.

Trans rights are human rights, American rights. Medical care should be an American right, and in emergencies it is, although you sure af get billed for it later. And mental health is health. I think everybody needs to see a shrink now and then. Everyone needs at least one person in their lives that they can be totally real with, without fear of judgment. Male fashion kinda suck compared to women's, but us dudes are fine with it mostly. I am happy af with jeans and a t-shirt. And having short hair, so I don't need so many products. And I probably save thousands each year not having to buy makeup, pantyhose, tampons, and other girly stuff. I've never questioned my gender. Genetics maybe, since I've had the same damn high forehead since forever, and now I'm at the age it looks more like a receding hairline. Nope, just a high forehead. No balding yet.

Ugh. I'm rambling. What was the topic? Oh yeah. SCOTUS screwed us. But did we really think they wouldn't?



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (3/16/2024 7:26:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The balance of SCOTUS shifted during Trump's term, probably for a generation or so. I'm not against activist judges being in SCOTUS, as long as it is balanced with at least one imperial judge to base their decision on the applicable laws,


That is disappointing to read :(

quote:


I don't believe I have ever been negatively impacted by Affirmative Action. If I didn't get a job, which was rare cuz I'm kinda awesome, then it was either because of nepotism or the person eventually hired was kinda awesome too. I firmly believe in and support Affirmative Action to help correct laws that were designed to keep "those people" down.


Affirmative Action is racism in its purest form :(

quote:


Yeah, SCOTUS struck down Affirmative Action at Yale and Harvard. In truth, we shouldn't need Affirmative Action now, but we still do, on so many levels. Racial equality, gender equality, gay rights, trans rights...

No we certainly do NOT need Affirmative Action. It sets back the very groups it is designed to help. It is destructive.

It is Affirmative Action and Partisan activism that produced this horrible ruling from SCOTUS.



JVoV -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (3/17/2024 8:41:30 PM)

I don't see Affirmative Action as a bad thing. I see the need for such a thing to ever exist as the bad thing. The inequality that has existed for generations must be corrected. Affirmative Action doesn't make all schools in a district equal in any way. It hasn't ended the racial wealth inequality. I don't think it is doing what it was meant to, then again, like most things in this country (including the Constitution), it was just meant as a starting point that was never taken up again, because Congress kinda sucks and politics just gets in the way of doing the right thing so often.

We can't go back and change time, so slavery was never a thing on this continent, but we can do a hell of a lot more to make sure that everyone has an equal chance at success now. And I don't just mean Black folks. I'm talking about everybody. Mississippi, the Appalachian Mountains... Proper education for everybody.

I was actually going to move to Mississippi with my dad the summer between junior high and high school, only to find that I was like 17 years ahead of anything they taught. Luckily, that fell through. Being me in an Orlando high school was hard enough, I can't imagine what my life would have been like there. I seriously doubt I would have found a theater department. But I probably would have been fucking my cousins... third cousins, so I think that's not too incesty? Idk.



MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Trump disqualified in Colorado (3/17/2024 8:48:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I don't see Affirmative Action as a bad thing. I see the need for such a thing to ever exist as the bad thing. The inequality that has existed for generations must be corrected. Affirmative Action doesn't make all schools in a district equal in any way. It hasn't ended the racial wealth inequality. I don't think it is doing what it was meant to, then again, like most things in this country (including the Constitution), it was just meant as a starting point that was never taken up again, because Congress kinda sucks and politics just gets in the way of doing the right thing so often.


Affirmative Action is pure racism and is destructive to the very people it aims to help. Racial preferences on hiring over merit is the worst thing anyone could do. I have hired talented people of various races, genders, and sexual orientations, and never for any reason, other than their skills and abilities.

That is how it should be.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625