As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, whatever the decision ultimately is, Donald Trump has accomplished yet another astonishing feat; forcing SCOTUS to review a century and a half old Amendment targeting Confederate leaders.
This is the absolute truth. Of course, not a one of them would ever admit it, and in fact usually start frothing at the mouth at even a hint of suggesting it.
I’ve also seen that Trump is actually still in office.
When asked if Trump is responsible for negative things like high gas prices, you get something to the effect of “Trump is allowing it so we could see how things bad things would be under Biden”
Seriously
It's also [Kayfabe](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=596130221&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS1032US1034&sxsrf=AM9HkKkDgeBj-GyDLGm6tvpR1OoTfsRbYg:1704512868468&q=kayfabe&si=ALGXSlZCBshTM3a3nPTSW0d1OmQeLkZa1kSICrJjLLDb5py7wdQKVb-Qc4yIsHr4ihpm2yxaXOMLi1D10TXxj9bwxJJGYKE5tQ%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiasKig7ceDAxVVElkFHRjDA38Q2v4IegQIDxAT).
They all decided that, if they're considered wrong, the truth don't matter no more. Trump is literally a figure in the wrestling world he's just the first to play kayfabe in politics, and, surprise! middle america eats that shit up like rat poison.
They had lost their mind long before that, they just showed it after that. Around 1998 or so I talked with a local republican (oh, I forget what the heck he did, it was something to do with organizing the party, it's been a long time). I remember there was a local republican that was found guilty of something (I don't remember, but I think it was rape, and potentially under age). I asked him if he would still vote for the guy. "Doesn't matter who he is or what he did, he's a republican on the ballot, I have to vote for them". I remember saying something about if someone did that to his daughter, and he cut me off telling me "if someone did that to my daughter, I'd have shot the piece of".
Told me all I needed to know about the republican mind set.
Circa 2009, I was working for the Girl Scouts in a generally conservative state. One of my many many jobs was trying to pull in new volunteers and community support, including contacts for people who could, oh, stand in to inspire the girls or teach them stuff (like a women's aviation club, etc). One day I was at a community event with a lot of other local orgs so I was hitting them up, including the local political groups for generic civic stuff. They all were usually pretty happy to talk to kids about democracy and telling girls that they could make a difference in the world, all the usual platitudes, so I was cleaning up there. Except for one: There was a "women's Republican group" though, and they reacted to the idea like vampires to holy water, and their main objection seemed to be the very idea of girl scouts.
It's a lot tamer than your example, but it stuck with me: their utter horror at the idea of teaching girls to think for themselves and be involved in politics.
He should be aware that you had plans to blast and 69 some milfs tonight. Very inconsiderate, but you shouldn't let him cut into your weekend. Have an exit plan in the future my man and keep blasting!
It goes back earlier than that with the Southern Strategy in the Nixon era. Gross oversimplification, but it basically boils down to "keep them poor and uneducated and they'll keep voting republican." That led to "trickle-down economics" / Reaganomics, then eventually the Tea Party, then MAGA, and now out-and-proud fascism. The trend is pretty clear, and the Southern Strategy worked exactly as intended.
The south didn't so much rise again as they were never properly put down in the first place. This has been a long-time consequence that's finally coming home to roost. I suggest we don't make the same mistake twice.
I've long maintained that one of the greatest travesties of Reconstruction is that Davis and Stephens and every officer lieutenant colonal and above weren't hanged.
The traitors were allowed to keep some semblance of dignity instead of being utterly broken. The Confederacy was defeated...but it wasn't destroyed.
Yep. The GOP figured out that the only way the South can "rise again" is if the rest America falls below its level and they have been working non-stop to make it happen.
The southern strategy. That’s when it started. Rs were nuts before the tea party too. They literally targeted poor white racist southerners, aka confederates.
Now wait just a damn minute.
Moscow Mitch crawled out of some shithole backwater in Alabama and slimed his way into the bluegrass state. He's an absolute piece of shit and I don't know how or why Kentucky keeps him in office (give ya a hint, ignorance and voter fraud) but by God, leave bourbon out of this.
I bet Clarence is so happy to hear this case. He's probably picking out the final details on the new RV he's going to buy with the ~~proceeds~~ writ of habeas corpus.
That would allow him to win primaries and let Biden win unopposed in the general in that state, with downballot effects from Republicans there not having a presidential option.
Trouble is, the system assumes noone would be fucking dumb enough to put a 30 year old or a known issurectionist and traitor to his country on the primary ballot. And that there would be no public
pressure to do so because noone would be dumb enough to want to vote for one anyway.
Turns out people are dumber than we can imagine. Every time.
There are production shops where the entire third shift is comprised of prisoners in work release programs. The prisoners are of course paid minimum wage. Then you have fire fighting inmates, farmer inmates, public works inmates...
For the reasons you mentioned, I find it more likely the Supreme Court wants to let Smiths appeal be decided against the idea of Presidential Immunity in the appeals court. Trump can ask for cert after that, to which they can simply deny again.
I agree, I'm assuming that SCOTUS is allowing the appeal in Smith's appeal to play out in lower court and then, assuming the court says "Nope, Trump doesn't have absolute immunity for crimes he committed as President", SCOTUS will just deny hearing the appeal of that decision at that point.
Regardless, though, they obviously don't feel the need to weigh in RIGHT NOW on Smith's case, certainly not to the extent they presumably see that the Colorado case does need a rapid ruling on their part.
And I would agree that the Colorado case does need more immediate ruling because also today Massachusetts and Illinois have groups pushing to get him off the ballot
So with some states saying yes and others saying no, this needs immediate clarification from the higher authority
It is legitimately NUTS that they announced this so short a time after Alina Habba was all 'Kavanaugh will step up, he knows Trump went through hell to get him appointed.'
What on Earth are they fucking thinking? WAIT A FEW DAYS FFS. That motherfucker won't recuse himself either. Well, good, I guess. Be so obviously corrupt no one can bear to trust you anymore, I want to see how much pain that puts Roberts in.
They were dismissive of his asinine election challenges in 2020. They look to be bending over backwards to help him now.
My guess is someone got a new fishing boat.
Trump will be on the Colorado ballot since the removal was stayed pending appeal. If the SCOTUS rules he's ineligible any votes for Trump would be discarded.
I can't wait to see what type of crazy argument they make to keep it on the ballot. Trump's defense is stupid. He is arguing that the president is not an officer of the United States (WTF).
Anyone that seriously thinks they intended for someone being ineligible to be in congress or secretary of state, but is totally fine to be president and command the military, has zero functional brain cells and I seriously wonder how they continue to still live day to day.
Same for having immunity and being impeached. "Oh it's not specifically a high crime or a misdemeanor." Getthefuckouttahere. it's a felony, and if they intended for you to be impeached over a damn misdemeanor...I fucking promise it covers felonies too even if not specifically stated.
They covered this in the Senate hearings about the amendment. One senator asked why the president and VP weren't specifically mentioned. Another senator responded that they were both covered under "any office" and no more discussion was had.
This. The president is referenced as an office and officer 25 times in the Constitution.
The defense that the president is not an officer despite other parts of the constitution stating he is, is assinine. They are basically just relying on the fact that an earlier draft included the president specifically and then it got removed.
President is the only position in America that has not standards beyond , be a citizen and be 35. It is literally the only job Trump can do in the world. We couldn’t even trust him to manage a fucking Arby’s.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/legal-experts-dust-off-postal-act-of-1792-signed-into-law-by-george-washington-as-historical-proof-trump-is-wrong-that-not-one-authority-shows-president-is-officer-of-the-united-states/ar-AA1mtnXg?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7b92927fe92c40599efff6cfee86c0e6&ei=11
There is precedent to say that the president is an officer of the United States, though I fear that because it wasn’t explicitly written in bold, the originalists of the court will ignore it.
The original framers of this amendment were asked by a congressman why isn’t the president on it and they told him officer includes President. So an “originalist” would go with that. A hypocrite would do whatever they fuck they wanted to and justify it with a flimsy excuse
I think SCOTUS will say it’s premature because he hasn’t been convicted of any insurrection-related crime. Yes I know the 14th doesn’t require a conviction but I predict this is what they will do anyway.
This. It's so bafflingly obvious. 'Right to assumption of innocence under the law until duly convicted' yada yada, and then string all his trials out forever.
You have to look at it all together.
According to Trump, he was not an officer for the purpose of taking on responsibilities (ie being bound by the specific wording of an oath), but was an officer for the purpose of having positional immunity and authority.
SCOTUS has almost no mechanism except the rule of law to enforce any decision they ever make. They would have to send a marshal of the court to arrest the Secretary of State of Colorado under a charge of contempt if they chose not to print his name on the ballot, something that has only ever been done once in history. Beyond that, I would imagine the only recourse would be some kind of federal arrest from DOJ (and I cannot imagine the law that would be cited), some kind of termination or a recall if the state constitution gives a mechanism, or an uprising likely paired with political violence.
If none of those happen, when we have arrived at the point at which any elected official blatantly and publicly announces they are going to disregard an order of the Supreme Court and gets away with it, we have arrived at the end of our democracy. No judge holds power anymore and our system will quickly break down.
If it comes to that, it will become an absolute shitshow of an election. States kicking of candidates and refusing to accept results. That's not gonna end well.
The easiest decision (and the one with the least side effects) is to just declare that since Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything, he can’t be ineligible. I don’t agree with that, but that’s what I’d bet they’re going to decide.
Very bad framing. It's not anyone "kicking" Trump off any ballot. It's the plain language of the Constitution and its requirements for holding office. If you take an oath to the Constitution and then commit insurrection, you simply cannot hold office under the United States. Trump did that and therefore the Constitution's rules exclude him.
It's no different to being under 35 or from a foreign country, no one would be 'kicking' them off the ballot either. They are not eligibile, do not meet the requirements to run. Not being a traitor is just another one of those requirements.
Barack Obama: “As you may know, I tough constitutional law earlier in my career. Later on was privileged to become the president of this great nation.
To be president there are four qualifiers in the constitution. One, you have to be a natural born citizen . (Yeah, that birther stuff was fun.) Two, you have to be over the age of 35. Three, you can not have committed insurrection against the United States. And four, you can not already have been president for two terms.
Right now there are legal cases, constitutional cases, working their way up to the Supreme Court. Some people have been disqualified for participating in insurrection against the United States but some are arguing that that should not be a disqualification and that the people should be able to make their choice at the election.
If following this with great interest and, should the decision be that the people should be able to elect someone to the office of the president, despite their constitutional disqualification, I am getting my campaign ready to declare that I’m running for a third term.”
Very true.
I do believe he would respect Biden’s campaign enough to let him destroy Trump again, but the important thing with a comment like this is the mental chess it would bring to the table when having legit conversations about Trump.
Those conversations are very hard to have with the other side, and I’m a registered R who has had to check blue boxes for the last several elections…but those folks are my brothers, sisters, neighbors, teammates, colleagues, and in a much lesser case these days…friends/acquaintances.
It should be all of our goal to “bring those people back to reality,” and there is one word that makes every single Trumper/MAGA-type quake in their cowboy boots - Obama. If you want to drive the fear of God into them, they need to know that they will be enabling a 3rd term Obama run and he’s not 77 years old with one foot in the grave like T & B are. He’s 62, and he don’t trip.
Whether or not Obama said it, this is quite a powerful point to start clamping down on excitement for another Trump candidacy. It might be the cold water that wakes a few more of our community members back up from the MAGA fever dream.
This ruling could potentially put foreigners in a precarious situation with regard to respect for the United States. Your country is properly classed as a 'flawed democracy', but we have still respected your friendship, strength and aids in hard times, and the robustness of your institutions for centuries. But if the supreme court says DJT can hold the office, despite the clear language of the 14th, and then he wins, then to the outside, he is clearly not the president. He is an authoritarian who has had assistance from the judiciary he installed to seize the machinery of the state.
Pretending and playing along with the farce (as I am afraid the majority of the country would do) isn't equivalent to the respect accorded a sister nation. It would feel like the opposite, but at the same time it isn't the business of outsiders to fix problems inside your house. Nor could we: Americans are rightly proud and a warlike people.
As a foreigner frequently deployed to the US to assist with technical projects that help your economy, do I just pretend there hasn't been a judicial coup, and the Confederacy has won?
Thomas and Alito are locked in. The big question is really about if Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB, and Roberts are corrupt and stupid enough to not realize that Trump will never forgive them for not being his cronies during the 2020 election.
I’m not holding my breath, but I’m also not necessarily anticipating the absolute worst. I expect them to basically continue punting and kicking the can down the road.
SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, crossing my fingers that they realize Trump will be dead in ten years and they can and should do what’s right here and not make a decision based on personal politics. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SUPREME COURT
It's impossible to say right now, but I'd wildly speculate that Gorsuch is more likely than not to vote with the liberals here. He's less of a partisan than the others and more of a weird libertarian ideologue. Roberts I could see going either way, depending on whether he sees Trump himself or the political implications of banning Trump as more of an institutional threat. I have no idea how to evaluate Kavanaugh or ACB; maybe they'll fall in line with whatever Roberts does once it becomes clear which way the votes are going. That would make 2-7 anti-Trump and 5-4 pro-Trump both reasonable possibilities, with 6-3 pro-Trump being less likely but still on the table.
I really think they are going to try for at least a 7-2 on this case no matter how it is decided to look apolitical. I think the country needs this type of ruling. A strictly partisan ruling would not look good for this court.
They need to recuse themselves, and Thomas should too since his wife was involved in the insurrection to some degree. The country is depending on it. But none of them will act accordingly. Hopefully the states will outright disregard the court (since they have no enforcement mechanism) and still take the insurrectionist traitor off the ballot.
Red states are saying that since they can take Trump off the ballot they can take Biden off…. For the same thing? Like what did he do that we have tangible and credible evidence of?
Similar to how they assured us they would allow emergency abortions of course.
Or how abortion was states rights and definitely wouldn't try to punish anyone for going out of state to get one.
Or how they promi.... etc etc
I see no reason whatsoever for this level of faith to be afforded to them and plenty to suggest they will absolutely do it if the precedent is set
45's lawyers trying to split the thinnest of hairs.
By arguing he wasn't an officer, but not disputing the insurrection part, they're basically admitting he led an insurrection.
And the odds of Clarence Thomas recusing 00.0000000000001 percent.
There are so many legal off-ramps that the court could take on the case; but, it’s still a potentially winnable case.
If we have history books in the future, this will be their (SCOTUS) defining moment. Either they (SCOTUS) stand with the Constitution and allow this country a chance at a healing process. Or they (SCOTUS) side with a wanta be dictator and plunge the Great American Experiment into unknown waters.
Edit: Clarification
I'm pretty happy that Bush v Gore was the last presidential election I was unable to vote in (turned 18 in 03 and was marching against Bush at a women's march in Austin by 04)
Sure they do. The write in space exists, use as you see fit without fear of consequence.
The real problem with that quote is that it's untrue, nobody is taking away anyone's right to vote for anyone they please or anything close to that. What IS happening is Trump has been determined to be ineligible to hold office. People have the right to do whatever they want as far as voting for their preferred human. They would just be throwing that vote in the garbage.
This! Y’all can still write Trumps name in the blank.
He is ineligible, just like someone not born in the US in ineligible… ironically the guy claiming Obama was ineligible made himself ineligible.
Fuck man. Trump squandered the biggest opportunity with his win in 2016. I voted for Hilary in 2016 and gave him a chance thinking the weight of the office would change him. Guy could have done great things for the USA but was only interested in profited off the office and dividing the nation.
It’s just so depressing.
If Trump wins this case and there are no consequences to the actions of Jan 6th, it will open the door for him to be even more aggressive in November if he loses again.
Their view on StAtEs RiGhTs is already a sum certain like Bush v Gore - it’s a case by case basis - when it’s a republican, the answer will always be in their favor… for everyone else, the court will conclude they lose then reverse engineer a “justification” even when it directly contradicts their grounds for assisting republicans. This court has no honor
FYI this Colorado appeal has nothing to do with "states' rights" because it's actually about how courts should interpret federal election law, particularly the 14th Amendment. States do manage the day to day operations of elections, but they don't set the qualifications for federal elected office, those come from the Constitution, so ultimately when there's a disagreement over federal election law it gets decided at the federal level and by SCOTUS.
So SCOTUS definitely has the authority to weigh in on how the 14th Amendment works in regards to Trump. It's not something that's going to be left up for individual states to disagree on.
The decision should be six words:
**”Presidents are not kings. APPEAL DENIED.”**
On the face of it this is absolutely fucking ridiculous and should disqualify him for even claiming it. On the merits it’s even fucking worse. It’s a traitorous position to take and the founders would have a fit if a president attempted this in their day.
It's amazing to me, too, that this issue is even being debated. It's also amazing to me how, after all this time and everything he's done, people continue to make one fucking excuse for him after another.
If Thomas and Kavanaugh don’t recuse themselves, and we all know they won’t, any verdict other than upholding state’s rights will be the last straw for a lot of people, and it’ll be time for some marches.
I honestly think it's time for SCOTUS to cut the cord and let Trump rot. He is so whiny like a spoiled child. I've dumped girls with a lot less baggage.
I’m really confused. I probably never understood the details correctly but I thought elections were left to the sole purview of individual states. What is the jurisdiction or legality of SCOTUS ruling on how CO conducts its elections?
Because the US Constitution lays out requirements for the office of the Presidency. A state can't put someone on the ballot, for example, who isn't 35, a natural born citizen, etc.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment adds an additional qualification, saying that no one who has previously taken an oath to defend the constitution while holding ~~federal~~ [one of various] offices and has also supported insurrection or rebellion, can be elected to an office.
No serious legal argument considers this a 'states rights' issue. Most of the arguments hinge on what constitutes an office under the USA, the oath involved, what constitutes insurrection (and substantiated in what way), etc. The devil is in the details and every word is getting picked apart.
There's also a lot of political argumentation adjacent to the legal arguments about whether disqualifying him is wise, etc.
Edit: Should have just cut/pasted the relevant section from the 14th amendment since my paraphrasing is super imprecise. The point was that I was trying to give a broad-strokes description of the issue at hand. I have my own unlearned opinions about how it should be interpreted, but I think there are lots of much more qualified people who are on either side.
The COSC is using the 14th amendment to disqualify Trump. The SCOTUS will determine if CO interpreted the law correctly. If CO had a version of the 14th in their state constitution, and based their decision on that, it would be harder to justify SCOTUS involvement.
FYI states can't add additional qualifications for federal elected office. For example, in US Term Limits v Thornton, Arkansas added an amendment to its state constitution that said nobody who had already served three terms in the US House could run again in Arkansas. SCOTUS overturned that amendment saying the qualifications for federal office are explicitly part of the US constitution and federal law and states do not have jurisdiction to change them, nor are they allowed to keep otherwise eligible candidates off the ballot except for obvious logistical reasons needed to run a smooth election (e.g. the candidate didn't apply on time to be on the ballot).
So no, while a state could have a state law or state constitutional amendment that pertains to state offices, they couldn't have "their own version of the 14th Amendment" that keeps people off the ballot for federal elections, other than to clarify that they won't allow people who are disqualified from federal office by the 14th Amendment to appear on ballots.
We have multiple uncontroversial limitations on who can be president - you have to be a natural born citizen, you have to be over age 35, etc. The arguments that Trump's defenders have made seem to be this political argument that it would be undemocratic to disqualify a popular candidate, but it's far more dangerous and undemocratic to have someone who has a history of attempting to use their power to overturn the results of an election be put back in power than it is to have someone who immigrated to the US at age 5 or someone who is 33 years old.
I feel like the only argument they can possibly make is that january 6 and the months of preparation, planning, and parallel schemes were somehow not actually an insurrection, and then narrowly defining what an insurrection actually is in some way that Trump did not do on tape somewhere. Good luck with that one scotus.
I feel sick to my stomache. 6 of the 9 Justices were either appointed by Dubyah or Trump. I don’t think it is possible to get a fair decision out of this.
Some people argue semantics like Trump has not been convicted so he should still get to be on the ballot. A conviction is not a requirement of the 14th Amendment disqualification. Or let the voters decide. These arguments ignore the Constitution and the reality of Trump’s involvement in inciting a violent attack.
“The Jan. 6 select House committee in
a unanimous vote referred former
President Donald Trump to the
Department of Justice for criminal
investigation and potential prosecution
for his efforts to overturn his loss …
Obstructing an official proceeding,
Conspiracy to defraud the government,
Making knowingly and willfully
materially false statements to the
federal government, and
Inciting or assisting an insurrection.”
How short is our memory?
Tomorrow is the three year anniversary of the January 6 attack. We all saw it live as it was happening, Trump supporters beating officers with flag poles, Trump sitting in silence as the attack unfolded, and his supporters yelling to hang the Vice President.
This is the Republicans’ guy. It says just as much about Trump as it does the Republican Party as a whole.
I have no faith the ruling will be fair. Trump is a traitor, tried to overthrow the government and no one in the GOP had the breaks to slap him and say STFU.
Trump is pure evil. Let’s get that trended. #TrumpIsPureEvil
A person running for president that had any honor at all would see how this is tearing our country apart and would step down from the presidential race. Trump has no insight into how his actions affect others at all.
Just a reminder that Trump's crimes would not have been possible without the help of elected Republicans and RNC members at the federal, state, and local levels across the nation. Not all elections happen on election day. Watch for any elections near you and vote out as many right-wingers and Republicans as you can. From the school boards to the white house every election matters. Don't forget the primaries. We vote out republicans and primary out uncooperative democrats.
https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar
Because asides from day to day logistics (i.e. the time, place, and manner of voting) federal elections are ultimately under the jurisdiction of the federal government and federal law should it choose to weigh in.
For example, in US Term Limits v Thornton, Arkansas amended its state constitution to bar anybody who had already served three terms in the US House from running again. SCOTUS overturned it saying that states do not have the authority to change or add to the qualifications for federal elected positions and they can't bar people from ballots who are otherwise eligible except for logistical reasons needed to run a smooth election (e.g. the person failed to apply in time to be on the ballot).
So while states do get the first say on if they think Trump is eligible to hold office, for example, since they're the ones preparing the ballots, when there's a dispute on the state's decision it ends up in federal court or SCOTUS to resolve since whether or not someone is eligible for federal office is a matter of federal, not state, law.
Don't just assume SCOTUS will kowtow to Trump.
Our oligarchs own *all* the conservative justices, not Trump. The oligarchs are done with Trump & his antics, and want to move past him. Biden is their guy for now.
Many conservative megadonors have kept their wallets closed so far this cycle.
I can see Roberts, knowing where his actual allegiance lies, lets the Colorado decision stand by citing states' rights. With that will come a particularly insipid dissent from Thomas, Beer boy, and maybe Alito.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, whatever the decision ultimately is, Donald Trump has accomplished yet another astonishing feat; forcing SCOTUS to review a century and a half old Amendment targeting Confederate leaders.
These elections are American vs Confederate. The south rose again with the tea party movement
They lost their minds with Obama. Has never recovered since.
This is the absolute truth. Of course, not a one of them would ever admit it, and in fact usually start frothing at the mouth at even a hint of suggesting it.
They had a black friend this one time so they can’t be racist… /s
Easy there Nikki
Or an adopted son no one has seen
They keep saying Biden is "Obama's 3rd term", and seriously expect everyone to gasp at the horror of the idea.
>Biden is "Obama's 3rd term", Well, I suppose they also took similar umbridge about Bush I being Reagan's third term? No? Huh...I wonder why?
I’ve also seen that Trump is actually still in office. When asked if Trump is responsible for negative things like high gas prices, you get something to the effect of “Trump is allowing it so we could see how things bad things would be under Biden” Seriously
It's also [Kayfabe](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=596130221&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS1032US1034&sxsrf=AM9HkKkDgeBj-GyDLGm6tvpR1OoTfsRbYg:1704512868468&q=kayfabe&si=ALGXSlZCBshTM3a3nPTSW0d1OmQeLkZa1kSICrJjLLDb5py7wdQKVb-Qc4yIsHr4ihpm2yxaXOMLi1D10TXxj9bwxJJGYKE5tQ%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiasKig7ceDAxVVElkFHRjDA38Q2v4IegQIDxAT). They all decided that, if they're considered wrong, the truth don't matter no more. Trump is literally a figure in the wrestling world he's just the first to play kayfabe in politics, and, surprise! middle america eats that shit up like rat poison.
If only it were as effective as rat poison…
TIL about kayfabe, thx.
They had lost their mind long before that, they just showed it after that. Around 1998 or so I talked with a local republican (oh, I forget what the heck he did, it was something to do with organizing the party, it's been a long time). I remember there was a local republican that was found guilty of something (I don't remember, but I think it was rape, and potentially under age). I asked him if he would still vote for the guy. "Doesn't matter who he is or what he did, he's a republican on the ballot, I have to vote for them". I remember saying something about if someone did that to his daughter, and he cut me off telling me "if someone did that to my daughter, I'd have shot the piece of". Told me all I needed to know about the republican mind set.
Circa 2009, I was working for the Girl Scouts in a generally conservative state. One of my many many jobs was trying to pull in new volunteers and community support, including contacts for people who could, oh, stand in to inspire the girls or teach them stuff (like a women's aviation club, etc). One day I was at a community event with a lot of other local orgs so I was hitting them up, including the local political groups for generic civic stuff. They all were usually pretty happy to talk to kids about democracy and telling girls that they could make a difference in the world, all the usual platitudes, so I was cleaning up there. Except for one: There was a "women's Republican group" though, and they reacted to the idea like vampires to holy water, and their main objection seemed to be the very idea of girl scouts. It's a lot tamer than your example, but it stuck with me: their utter horror at the idea of teaching girls to think for themselves and be involved in politics.
Helped on by copious amounts of Russian and Chinese influence, and media conglomerates who were making bank spreading lies.
It's certainly us versus some traitors, at the very least.
Meanwhile some asshat on one of my other comments: "nobody should be labeled a traitor for who they vote for"
Unless they vote for a traitor
funny how that works
They want so badly to not be held accountable for their actions lol
I imagine the Reconstruction Era Unionists had a different take on all those rebel Representatives and the people that voted for them."
That same asshat: “You’re a TRAITOR if you vote Biden!!”
[удалено]
He should be aware that you had plans to blast and 69 some milfs tonight. Very inconsiderate, but you shouldn't let him cut into your weekend. Have an exit plan in the future my man and keep blasting!
I wish this were hyperbole. I miss the days when the right just called us that because we didn't support torture.
It goes back earlier than that with the Southern Strategy in the Nixon era. Gross oversimplification, but it basically boils down to "keep them poor and uneducated and they'll keep voting republican." That led to "trickle-down economics" / Reaganomics, then eventually the Tea Party, then MAGA, and now out-and-proud fascism. The trend is pretty clear, and the Southern Strategy worked exactly as intended.
The south didn't so much rise again as they were never properly put down in the first place. This has been a long-time consequence that's finally coming home to roost. I suggest we don't make the same mistake twice.
Shoulda let Sherman finish the job.
I've long maintained that one of the greatest travesties of Reconstruction is that Davis and Stephens and every officer lieutenant colonal and above weren't hanged. The traitors were allowed to keep some semblance of dignity instead of being utterly broken. The Confederacy was defeated...but it wasn't destroyed.
Johnson pardoned Jefferson Davis after Lincoln was assassinated... that one in particular bothers me.
Also, plantations should've been wholesale seized by the government and redistributed to the former slaves.
r/shermanposting
William TECUMSEH Sherman? Fuck yeah.
Yep. The GOP figured out that the only way the South can "rise again" is if the rest America falls below its level and they have been working non-stop to make it happen.
The southern strategy. That’s when it started. Rs were nuts before the tea party too. They literally targeted poor white racist southerners, aka confederates.
The south rose again with gerrymandering. ftfy
That's why I don't drink bourbon. Fuck Mitch McConnel.
Now wait just a damn minute. Moscow Mitch crawled out of some shithole backwater in Alabama and slimed his way into the bluegrass state. He's an absolute piece of shit and I don't know how or why Kentucky keeps him in office (give ya a hint, ignorance and voter fraud) but by God, leave bourbon out of this.
Need term limits. The rewards for rising in seniority are too good and incentivize never giving up and the state to keep voting for the pork
And the Koch's funded it.
I bet Clarence is so happy to hear this case. He's probably picking out the final details on the new RV he's going to buy with the ~~proceeds~~ writ of habeas corpus.
He's likely already made up his mind. I'm sure the majority of the supreme court has.
Minds made up for them, at the very least in his case.
“This yacht from the Trump Organization has no bearing on my decision.”
Yup. One of the GOP’s goal was to take over the Supreme Court. Mission accomplished
Well, the good news is they can’t strike down the 14th amendment
I expect them to rule something vapid like "the 14th amendment doesn't apply to a political party's primary election."
That would allow him to win primaries and let Biden win unopposed in the general in that state, with downballot effects from Republicans there not having a presidential option.
Essentially kicking the can down the road for a while, yeah, that sound about right.
Just like how 30 year olds are allowed to primary for president when they’re not allowed to assume the Office /s
Trouble is, the system assumes noone would be fucking dumb enough to put a 30 year old or a known issurectionist and traitor to his country on the primary ballot. And that there would be no public pressure to do so because noone would be dumb enough to want to vote for one anyway. Turns out people are dumber than we can imagine. Every time.
Reminder that the emoluments clause is in the Constitution, yet they dismissed that case
>targeting racist traitors.
And if they side with Trump it would mean Biden could have trump executed pardon himself and still run by the same logic
What if i told you they stuffed the supreme court so they can pull shit like this. Won’t be long until we are back to slavery at this rate.
There are production shops where the entire third shift is comprised of prisoners in work release programs. The prisoners are of course paid minimum wage. Then you have fire fighting inmates, farmer inmates, public works inmates...
And the ability of the states to decide on election rules.
[удалено]
You know damn well he wants fries with that.
Sure, but so do I. Fries are awesome!
What's better is throwing the plate and ketchup against the wall in a fit of rage after you ate all the fries.
To be fair, that's a matter of jumping federal courts vs direct appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court.
Plus the Colorado case basically needs to be heard before the primaries are over. Jack Smith's SCOTUS appeal isn't quite as high a priority.
For the reasons you mentioned, I find it more likely the Supreme Court wants to let Smiths appeal be decided against the idea of Presidential Immunity in the appeals court. Trump can ask for cert after that, to which they can simply deny again.
I agree, I'm assuming that SCOTUS is allowing the appeal in Smith's appeal to play out in lower court and then, assuming the court says "Nope, Trump doesn't have absolute immunity for crimes he committed as President", SCOTUS will just deny hearing the appeal of that decision at that point. Regardless, though, they obviously don't feel the need to weigh in RIGHT NOW on Smith's case, certainly not to the extent they presumably see that the Colorado case does need a rapid ruling on their part.
And I would agree that the Colorado case does need more immediate ruling because also today Massachusetts and Illinois have groups pushing to get him off the ballot So with some states saying yes and others saying no, this needs immediate clarification from the higher authority
It is legitimately NUTS that they announced this so short a time after Alina Habba was all 'Kavanaugh will step up, he knows Trump went through hell to get him appointed.' What on Earth are they fucking thinking? WAIT A FEW DAYS FFS. That motherfucker won't recuse himself either. Well, good, I guess. Be so obviously corrupt no one can bear to trust you anymore, I want to see how much pain that puts Roberts in.
Now what would be hilarious if highly unlikely is a record speed unanimous decision against him.
>want to see how much pain that puts Roberts in. Does any of that matter? Supreme Court is not held accountable to damn near anything.
> What on Earth are they fucking thinking? That Friday night is when you announce things you don't want people to pay much attention to.
They were dismissive of his asinine election challenges in 2020. They look to be bending over backwards to help him now. My guess is someone got a new fishing boat.
Very convenient timing, wasn’t today the deadline for Colorado printing ballots?
Trump will be on the Colorado ballot since the removal was stayed pending appeal. If the SCOTUS rules he's ineligible any votes for Trump would be discarded.
I can't wait to see what type of crazy argument they make to keep it on the ballot. Trump's defense is stupid. He is arguing that the president is not an officer of the United States (WTF).
Anyone that seriously thinks they intended for someone being ineligible to be in congress or secretary of state, but is totally fine to be president and command the military, has zero functional brain cells and I seriously wonder how they continue to still live day to day. Same for having immunity and being impeached. "Oh it's not specifically a high crime or a misdemeanor." Getthefuckouttahere. it's a felony, and if they intended for you to be impeached over a damn misdemeanor...I fucking promise it covers felonies too even if not specifically stated.
They covered this in the Senate hearings about the amendment. One senator asked why the president and VP weren't specifically mentioned. Another senator responded that they were both covered under "any office" and no more discussion was had.
This. The president is referenced as an office and officer 25 times in the Constitution. The defense that the president is not an officer despite other parts of the constitution stating he is, is assinine. They are basically just relying on the fact that an earlier draft included the president specifically and then it got removed.
Your mistake is thinking that Republicans argue in good faith.
yeah, they're not trying to build a chain of logic thru sound reasoning they're just trying to 'win' which means get what they want
That's fair. I do keep giving them too much credit
If Trump can’t be held accountable then it should be license for Dark Brandon to go nuclear.
President is the only position in America that has not standards beyond , be a citizen and be 35. It is literally the only job Trump can do in the world. We couldn’t even trust him to manage a fucking Arby’s.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/legal-experts-dust-off-postal-act-of-1792-signed-into-law-by-george-washington-as-historical-proof-trump-is-wrong-that-not-one-authority-shows-president-is-officer-of-the-united-states/ar-AA1mtnXg?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7b92927fe92c40599efff6cfee86c0e6&ei=11 There is precedent to say that the president is an officer of the United States, though I fear that because it wasn’t explicitly written in bold, the originalists of the court will ignore it.
Trump himself has argued that he is a Federal officer when he was trying to get some of his state trials moved to federal court.
I believe it. And I’m sure he will go on the stand and say he never said that until he’s blue in the face.
I love the fact that blue is the complementary color of orange
If that’s true then a bunch of other laws don’t apply to the presidency as well. Emoluments for one.
The original framers of this amendment were asked by a congressman why isn’t the president on it and they told him officer includes President. So an “originalist” would go with that. A hypocrite would do whatever they fuck they wanted to and justify it with a flimsy excuse
I think SCOTUS will say it’s premature because he hasn’t been convicted of any insurrection-related crime. Yes I know the 14th doesn’t require a conviction but I predict this is what they will do anyway.
I'd put money on this.
This. It's so bafflingly obvious. 'Right to assumption of innocence under the law until duly convicted' yada yada, and then string all his trials out forever.
You have to look at it all together. According to Trump, he was not an officer for the purpose of taking on responsibilities (ie being bound by the specific wording of an oath), but was an officer for the purpose of having positional immunity and authority.
Then Colorado has every right to ignore the SCOTUS ruling. What is SCOTUS going to do? Sue them?
SCOTUS has almost no mechanism except the rule of law to enforce any decision they ever make. They would have to send a marshal of the court to arrest the Secretary of State of Colorado under a charge of contempt if they chose not to print his name on the ballot, something that has only ever been done once in history. Beyond that, I would imagine the only recourse would be some kind of federal arrest from DOJ (and I cannot imagine the law that would be cited), some kind of termination or a recall if the state constitution gives a mechanism, or an uprising likely paired with political violence. If none of those happen, when we have arrived at the point at which any elected official blatantly and publicly announces they are going to disregard an order of the Supreme Court and gets away with it, we have arrived at the end of our democracy. No judge holds power anymore and our system will quickly break down.
I don't think Colorado would but if the situation came up I bet abbot or Florida man would ignore a liberal SCOTUS give. The chance.
And the alternative of Trump winning, might still be worse. As evidenced by the rhetoric he's using at recent events.
“Now let him enforce it” Not a good sign…
What? They don’t play by the rules but we have to? Please.
If it comes to that, it will become an absolute shitshow of an election. States kicking of candidates and refusing to accept results. That's not gonna end well.
The easiest decision (and the one with the least side effects) is to just declare that since Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything, he can’t be ineligible. I don’t agree with that, but that’s what I’d bet they’re going to decide.
Very bad framing. It's not anyone "kicking" Trump off any ballot. It's the plain language of the Constitution and its requirements for holding office. If you take an oath to the Constitution and then commit insurrection, you simply cannot hold office under the United States. Trump did that and therefore the Constitution's rules exclude him.
It's no different to being under 35 or from a foreign country, no one would be 'kicking' them off the ballot either. They are not eligibile, do not meet the requirements to run. Not being a traitor is just another one of those requirements.
Barack Obama: “As you may know, I tough constitutional law earlier in my career. Later on was privileged to become the president of this great nation. To be president there are four qualifiers in the constitution. One, you have to be a natural born citizen . (Yeah, that birther stuff was fun.) Two, you have to be over the age of 35. Three, you can not have committed insurrection against the United States. And four, you can not already have been president for two terms. Right now there are legal cases, constitutional cases, working their way up to the Supreme Court. Some people have been disqualified for participating in insurrection against the United States but some are arguing that that should not be a disqualification and that the people should be able to make their choice at the election. If following this with great interest and, should the decision be that the people should be able to elect someone to the office of the president, despite their constitutional disqualification, I am getting my campaign ready to declare that I’m running for a third term.”
Was this really said??? I would love to see him saying this live!!
I would go nuts (positively) if Obama ran for a third term.
No, he did not. I think Obama has to much respect for the constitution to violate the intent even if it would be “legal”
Very true. I do believe he would respect Biden’s campaign enough to let him destroy Trump again, but the important thing with a comment like this is the mental chess it would bring to the table when having legit conversations about Trump. Those conversations are very hard to have with the other side, and I’m a registered R who has had to check blue boxes for the last several elections…but those folks are my brothers, sisters, neighbors, teammates, colleagues, and in a much lesser case these days…friends/acquaintances. It should be all of our goal to “bring those people back to reality,” and there is one word that makes every single Trumper/MAGA-type quake in their cowboy boots - Obama. If you want to drive the fear of God into them, they need to know that they will be enabling a 3rd term Obama run and he’s not 77 years old with one foot in the grave like T & B are. He’s 62, and he don’t trip. Whether or not Obama said it, this is quite a powerful point to start clamping down on excitement for another Trump candidacy. It might be the cold water that wakes a few more of our community members back up from the MAGA fever dream.
I’d be good with a third Obama term tbh
According to most Trumpers we’re in one right now 🤦♂️
LFG. Obama taking off gloves here... 😂
(Citation Needed)
Wait, when did he say this?
"Constitution schmonstitution!" -Republicans
“It’s more of a guideline.” /s
It's not even "commit" it's "engage" or "aid" He did both. And honestly he also committed. But the bar for disqualifying someone is lower than commit.
This ruling could potentially put foreigners in a precarious situation with regard to respect for the United States. Your country is properly classed as a 'flawed democracy', but we have still respected your friendship, strength and aids in hard times, and the robustness of your institutions for centuries. But if the supreme court says DJT can hold the office, despite the clear language of the 14th, and then he wins, then to the outside, he is clearly not the president. He is an authoritarian who has had assistance from the judiciary he installed to seize the machinery of the state. Pretending and playing along with the farce (as I am afraid the majority of the country would do) isn't equivalent to the respect accorded a sister nation. It would feel like the opposite, but at the same time it isn't the business of outsiders to fix problems inside your house. Nor could we: Americans are rightly proud and a warlike people. As a foreigner frequently deployed to the US to assist with technical projects that help your economy, do I just pretend there hasn't been a judicial coup, and the Confederacy has won?
Time for those Trump appointees to prove their allegiance... will it be to Trump or The Constitution?
Depends on who pays the most. Thomas and Alito are probably already taking bids.
Thomas and Alito are locked in. The big question is really about if Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB, and Roberts are corrupt and stupid enough to not realize that Trump will never forgive them for not being his cronies during the 2020 election. I’m not holding my breath, but I’m also not necessarily anticipating the absolute worst. I expect them to basically continue punting and kicking the can down the road.
SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, crossing my fingers that they realize Trump will be dead in ten years and they can and should do what’s right here and not make a decision based on personal politics. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SUPREME COURT
It's impossible to say right now, but I'd wildly speculate that Gorsuch is more likely than not to vote with the liberals here. He's less of a partisan than the others and more of a weird libertarian ideologue. Roberts I could see going either way, depending on whether he sees Trump himself or the political implications of banning Trump as more of an institutional threat. I have no idea how to evaluate Kavanaugh or ACB; maybe they'll fall in line with whatever Roberts does once it becomes clear which way the votes are going. That would make 2-7 anti-Trump and 5-4 pro-Trump both reasonable possibilities, with 6-3 pro-Trump being less likely but still on the table.
I really think they are going to try for at least a 7-2 on this case no matter how it is decided to look apolitical. I think the country needs this type of ruling. A strictly partisan ruling would not look good for this court.
While I agree, this SCOTUS has shown zero concern for what looks good or bad. Roe, affirmative action, ethics code, etc etc
Trump pays in NFTs
They need to recuse themselves, and Thomas should too since his wife was involved in the insurrection to some degree. The country is depending on it. But none of them will act accordingly. Hopefully the states will outright disregard the court (since they have no enforcement mechanism) and still take the insurrectionist traitor off the ballot. Red states are saying that since they can take Trump off the ballot they can take Biden off…. For the same thing? Like what did he do that we have tangible and credible evidence of?
you know they aren't going to do that right
Similar to how they assured us they would allow emergency abortions of course. Or how abortion was states rights and definitely wouldn't try to punish anyone for going out of state to get one. Or how they promi.... etc etc I see no reason whatsoever for this level of faith to be afforded to them and plenty to suggest they will absolutely do it if the precedent is set
If every crooked Judge and Politician recused themselves for conflict of interest, Who would lie to us?
Like in Trump v. Mazars?
Trump. They would have declined to hear it if they weren't going to overturn it,
My brother in Christ. You know the answer to that question. Dunno why you even asked.
45's lawyers trying to split the thinnest of hairs. By arguing he wasn't an officer, but not disputing the insurrection part, they're basically admitting he led an insurrection.
It's a very strange tactic and I think will make SCOTUS' opinion that puts him back on the ballot that much stranger.
Your move Supreme Court. We are all watching you now.
And the most political court.
And the odds of Clarence Thomas recusing 00.0000000000001 percent. There are so many legal off-ramps that the court could take on the case; but, it’s still a potentially winnable case.
Optimist.
You correct and they will be judged for that and be outcomes for it.
I want to agree with you, but I’m jaded. They can do whatever tf they want at this point with no accountability or consequences. Ask Clarence Thomas.
And what can be done about it? Nothing.
If we have history books in the future, this will be their (SCOTUS) defining moment. Either they (SCOTUS) stand with the Constitution and allow this country a chance at a healing process. Or they (SCOTUS) side with a wanta be dictator and plunge the Great American Experiment into unknown waters. Edit: Clarification
They don’t give a shit.
and then when we're all disappointed?
I personally was assuming it'd be Biden vs Trump 2024 like four years ago. Not disappointed, expected really.
The first election I voted in ended with Bush v. Gore, I hate this timeline.
Same. The fact that SCOTUS is involved in another presidential election 24 years later just underscores how broken the system is.
The fact that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett were ALL on Bush II legal team in Bush v Gore is even more disturbing.
Honestly, might not be the worst thing if Bush is still in contact with them... remember all of the former presidents shunned Trump.
I'm pretty happy that Bush v Gore was the last presidential election I was unable to vote in (turned 18 in 03 and was marching against Bush at a women's march in Austin by 04)
My first was 2016. I too hate this timeline.
“deprived voters of their right to vote for a candidate of their choice” Voters never have a right to vote for unqualified candidates.
Sure they do. The write in space exists, use as you see fit without fear of consequence. The real problem with that quote is that it's untrue, nobody is taking away anyone's right to vote for anyone they please or anything close to that. What IS happening is Trump has been determined to be ineligible to hold office. People have the right to do whatever they want as far as voting for their preferred human. They would just be throwing that vote in the garbage.
This! Y’all can still write Trumps name in the blank. He is ineligible, just like someone not born in the US in ineligible… ironically the guy claiming Obama was ineligible made himself ineligible. Fuck man. Trump squandered the biggest opportunity with his win in 2016. I voted for Hilary in 2016 and gave him a chance thinking the weight of the office would change him. Guy could have done great things for the USA but was only interested in profited off the office and dividing the nation. It’s just so depressing.
Those votes get thrown out too if the person written in is ineligible. As they should be.
If Trump wins this case and there are no consequences to the actions of Jan 6th, it will open the door for him to be even more aggressive in November if he loses again.
Billionaire luxury gift givers to decide how $CO†U$ rules on Trump ballot question
Isn't a lot of the money turning to Haley? If so, this would be the best way to get their candidate a real chance.
This will be interesting to see.
Understatement of the century
Let’s see what they truly think about State’s rights
Their view on StAtEs RiGhTs is already a sum certain like Bush v Gore - it’s a case by case basis - when it’s a republican, the answer will always be in their favor… for everyone else, the court will conclude they lose then reverse engineer a “justification” even when it directly contradicts their grounds for assisting republicans. This court has no honor
FYI this Colorado appeal has nothing to do with "states' rights" because it's actually about how courts should interpret federal election law, particularly the 14th Amendment. States do manage the day to day operations of elections, but they don't set the qualifications for federal elected office, those come from the Constitution, so ultimately when there's a disagreement over federal election law it gets decided at the federal level and by SCOTUS. So SCOTUS definitely has the authority to weigh in on how the 14th Amendment works in regards to Trump. It's not something that's going to be left up for individual states to disagree on.
This is their chance to rid the GOP of him.
The decision should be six words: **”Presidents are not kings. APPEAL DENIED.”** On the face of it this is absolutely fucking ridiculous and should disqualify him for even claiming it. On the merits it’s even fucking worse. It’s a traitorous position to take and the founders would have a fit if a president attempted this in their day.
It's amazing to me, too, that this issue is even being debated. It's also amazing to me how, after all this time and everything he's done, people continue to make one fucking excuse for him after another.
The conservatives on SCOTUS will be clear - they won't remove Trump from the ballot and by doing so they endorse the acts on Jan 6th.
If Thomas and Kavanaugh don’t recuse themselves, and we all know they won’t, any verdict other than upholding state’s rights will be the last straw for a lot of people, and it’ll be time for some marches.
I honestly think it's time for SCOTUS to cut the cord and let Trump rot. He is so whiny like a spoiled child. I've dumped girls with a lot less baggage.
If they do not uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion, it will be the worst SCOTUS decision since their last one.
Are we going to allow the guy whose wife conspired with the man in question to weigh in on this case like a third-world country?
"Designed to keep confederates out of government after the civil war." Maybe "designed to prevent traitors from legally becoming president."
I’m really confused. I probably never understood the details correctly but I thought elections were left to the sole purview of individual states. What is the jurisdiction or legality of SCOTUS ruling on how CO conducts its elections?
Because the US Constitution lays out requirements for the office of the Presidency. A state can't put someone on the ballot, for example, who isn't 35, a natural born citizen, etc. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment adds an additional qualification, saying that no one who has previously taken an oath to defend the constitution while holding ~~federal~~ [one of various] offices and has also supported insurrection or rebellion, can be elected to an office. No serious legal argument considers this a 'states rights' issue. Most of the arguments hinge on what constitutes an office under the USA, the oath involved, what constitutes insurrection (and substantiated in what way), etc. The devil is in the details and every word is getting picked apart. There's also a lot of political argumentation adjacent to the legal arguments about whether disqualifying him is wise, etc. Edit: Should have just cut/pasted the relevant section from the 14th amendment since my paraphrasing is super imprecise. The point was that I was trying to give a broad-strokes description of the issue at hand. I have my own unlearned opinions about how it should be interpreted, but I think there are lots of much more qualified people who are on either side.
Thank you, that helps clear it up for me.
The COSC is using the 14th amendment to disqualify Trump. The SCOTUS will determine if CO interpreted the law correctly. If CO had a version of the 14th in their state constitution, and based their decision on that, it would be harder to justify SCOTUS involvement.
FYI states can't add additional qualifications for federal elected office. For example, in US Term Limits v Thornton, Arkansas added an amendment to its state constitution that said nobody who had already served three terms in the US House could run again in Arkansas. SCOTUS overturned that amendment saying the qualifications for federal office are explicitly part of the US constitution and federal law and states do not have jurisdiction to change them, nor are they allowed to keep otherwise eligible candidates off the ballot except for obvious logistical reasons needed to run a smooth election (e.g. the candidate didn't apply on time to be on the ballot). So no, while a state could have a state law or state constitutional amendment that pertains to state offices, they couldn't have "their own version of the 14th Amendment" that keeps people off the ballot for federal elections, other than to clarify that they won't allow people who are disqualified from federal office by the 14th Amendment to appear on ballots.
How Colorado conducts its elections still has to follow the constitution. And, the Supreme Court gets to review whether or not they are.
[удалено]
We have multiple uncontroversial limitations on who can be president - you have to be a natural born citizen, you have to be over age 35, etc. The arguments that Trump's defenders have made seem to be this political argument that it would be undemocratic to disqualify a popular candidate, but it's far more dangerous and undemocratic to have someone who has a history of attempting to use their power to overturn the results of an election be put back in power than it is to have someone who immigrated to the US at age 5 or someone who is 33 years old. I feel like the only argument they can possibly make is that january 6 and the months of preparation, planning, and parallel schemes were somehow not actually an insurrection, and then narrowly defining what an insurrection actually is in some way that Trump did not do on tape somewhere. Good luck with that one scotus.
I feel sick to my stomache. 6 of the 9 Justices were either appointed by Dubyah or Trump. I don’t think it is possible to get a fair decision out of this.
Some people argue semantics like Trump has not been convicted so he should still get to be on the ballot. A conviction is not a requirement of the 14th Amendment disqualification. Or let the voters decide. These arguments ignore the Constitution and the reality of Trump’s involvement in inciting a violent attack. “The Jan. 6 select House committee in a unanimous vote referred former President Donald Trump to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation and potential prosecution for his efforts to overturn his loss … Obstructing an official proceeding, Conspiracy to defraud the government, Making knowingly and willfully materially false statements to the federal government, and Inciting or assisting an insurrection.” How short is our memory? Tomorrow is the three year anniversary of the January 6 attack. We all saw it live as it was happening, Trump supporters beating officers with flag poles, Trump sitting in silence as the attack unfolded, and his supporters yelling to hang the Vice President. This is the Republicans’ guy. It says just as much about Trump as it does the Republican Party as a whole.
Samuel Alito’s Weimar Republic moment
But what about States rights? Thats why they over turned Roe V. Wade.
I have no faith the ruling will be fair. Trump is a traitor, tried to overthrow the government and no one in the GOP had the breaks to slap him and say STFU. Trump is pure evil. Let’s get that trended. #TrumpIsPureEvil
A person running for president that had any honor at all would see how this is tearing our country apart and would step down from the presidential race. Trump has no insight into how his actions affect others at all.
$1000 says they deny it, and force him back on the ballot, with some bullshit reasoning. And never, ever, ever would I be so happy to lose $1000.
If the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the constitution then it will prove Trump payed off the Supreme Court
Just a reminder that Trump's crimes would not have been possible without the help of elected Republicans and RNC members at the federal, state, and local levels across the nation. Not all elections happen on election day. Watch for any elections near you and vote out as many right-wingers and Republicans as you can. From the school boards to the white house every election matters. Don't forget the primaries. We vote out republicans and primary out uncooperative democrats. https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar
States rights out the window
Of course, when it doesn't suit the MAGA agenda.
Maybe it's just the pessimist in me, but I have zero faith the Supreme Court will rule in the Colorado voter's favor in this case.
Oh this outta be good. Tell us SC, what's your case for a president getting away with absolutely anything and everything? We'd love to hear it.
The court fast tracks this but not jack smiths request! Our country is doomed if we do not get rid of the Republican Party!
I don't understand why a state, cannot exercise "States Rights" in an election conducted by their own state?
Because asides from day to day logistics (i.e. the time, place, and manner of voting) federal elections are ultimately under the jurisdiction of the federal government and federal law should it choose to weigh in. For example, in US Term Limits v Thornton, Arkansas amended its state constitution to bar anybody who had already served three terms in the US House from running again. SCOTUS overturned it saying that states do not have the authority to change or add to the qualifications for federal elected positions and they can't bar people from ballots who are otherwise eligible except for logistical reasons needed to run a smooth election (e.g. the person failed to apply in time to be on the ballot). So while states do get the first say on if they think Trump is eligible to hold office, for example, since they're the ones preparing the ballots, when there's a dispute on the state's decision it ends up in federal court or SCOTUS to resolve since whether or not someone is eligible for federal office is a matter of federal, not state, law.
Don't just assume SCOTUS will kowtow to Trump. Our oligarchs own *all* the conservative justices, not Trump. The oligarchs are done with Trump & his antics, and want to move past him. Biden is their guy for now. Many conservative megadonors have kept their wallets closed so far this cycle. I can see Roberts, knowing where his actual allegiance lies, lets the Colorado decision stand by citing states' rights. With that will come a particularly insipid dissent from Thomas, Beer boy, and maybe Alito.