Has Disqualification Begun?

[fskimospy]

One can guess what the Supreme Court will eventually decide, though.

They will find a way to keep him on the ballot but this forces them to make a very embarrassing ruling.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause​

The Colorado Supreme Court is removing former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, saying he is ineligible to be president after his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. It sets up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.


There is some though that the Nine might punt given that elections are supposed to be run by the states.

 

[K1052]

It would be hilarious if Roberts and one other conservative justice decided to fuck him over. Very unlikely but potentially very funny.

 

[ivwshane]

If the Supreme Court rules against Colorado SC then they are basically saying that presidents are immune from facing any accountability when they commit crimes. I don’t think even this federalist society Supreme Court would have the balls to overrule this. We shall see though.

 

[APU_Fusion]

One can guess what the Supreme Court will eventually decide, though.

the poisoned blood immigrant children’s father Drumpf is the true American Hero and Biden led the insurrection so Drumpf is allowed on ballots would be my guess

 

[KMFJD]

Elections are handled by the states and it's quite explicit about that i read, scotus shouldn't touch this

 

[Jaskalas]

Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause​

The Colorado Supreme Court is removing former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, saying he is ineligible to be president after his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. It sets up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to decide whether the front-runner for the GOP nomination can remain in the race.

If the Supreme Court rules against Colorado SC then they are basically saying that presidents are immune from facing any accountability when they commit crimes. I don’t think even this federalist society Supreme Court would have the balls to overrule this. We shall see though.

Perhaps people should at least be charged with said crimes first.
List of Charges against Trump.

The Colorado SC jumping ahead of any legal recognition of an insurrection, appears to give lie to the idea that they are working within the law themselves. They have skipped due process.

 

[eelw]

Elections are handled by the states and it's quite explicit about that i read, scotus shouldn't touch this

Shouldn’t but it won’t stop them!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps people should at least be charged with said crimes first.
List of Charges against Trump.

The Colorado SC jumping ahead of any legal recognition of an insurrection, appears to give lie to the idea that they are working within the law themselves. They have skipped due process.

Absolutely not.

This is basic dual sovereignty. A state does not rely on the federal government for an interpretation of the law.

 

[KMFJD]

From the Ruling:

Consequently, the Court finds that Petitioners have established that
Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the
First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.

In light of these and other proffered definitions, the district court concluded
that “an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat
of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the
Constitution of the United States.

lol,lmfao

 

[iRONic]

Elections are handled by the states and it's quite explicit about that i read, scotus shouldn't touch this

Absolutely not.

This is basic dual sovereignty. A state does not rely on the federal government for an interpretation of the law.

Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause​

There is some though that the Nine might punt given that elections are supposed to be run by the states.

So much these!!!!

 

[Thump553]

It would be hilarious if Roberts and one other conservative justice decided to fuck him over. Very unlikely but potentially very funny.

I don't see any humor in that situation at all. If the current placeholders on the Supreme Court rule for Trump they would be placing their party loyalty above their duty to uphold the Constitution. Basically that means abandoning any pretense that the Supreme Court is a legitimate, functioning part of the US democracy any more.

I can guarantee that the so-called conservatives will be frantically searching for some technicality that will reverse the effect of this decision without actually ruling on constitutional grounds.

 

[K1052]

Basically that means abandoning any pretense that the Supreme Court is a legitimate, functioning part of the US democracy any more.

Pretty sure we crossed that particular bridge with Bush v Gore.

 

[HomerJS]

It would be hilarious if Roberts and one other conservative justice decided to fuck him over. Very unlikely but potentially very funny.

There is a distinct possibility they could do just that. Do date nobody when they had the chance stood up to Trump because they were too chickenshit. Most Republicans behind closed doors can't stand Trump but continue to suck his mushroom dick.

 

[K1052]

There is a distinct possibility they could do just that. Do date nobody when they had the chance stood up to Trump because they were too chickenshit. Most Republicans behind closed doors can't stand Trump but continue to suck his mushroom dick.

Getting rid of Trump once and for all would serve the interests of the conservatives on the court and electoral interests of Republicans generally.

I mean do you want Nikki Haley or the guy doing this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1737279673791603120

 

[Zorba]

Perhaps people should at least be charged with said crimes first.
List of Charges against Trump.

The Colorado SC jumping ahead of any legal recognition of an insurrection, appears to give lie to the idea that they are working within the law themselves. They have skipped due process.

The amendment was written to prevent confederates from getting elected, and almost no confederates were actually charged with insurrection.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

These are the people who have been driving the right further right .....

The attempt to bar Trump under the 14th Amendment explained​

MSN|47 days ago
Technically, yes — maybe. The two Federalist Society experts contend that the relevant section of the 14th Amendment is "self-executing." In layperson's terms, this argument holds that the ...

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from ... - Vox​

Aug 11, 2023Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for...

 

[ondma]

If the Supreme Court rules against Colorado SC then they are basically saying that presidents are immune from facing any accountability when they commit crimes. I don’t think even this federalist society Supreme Court would have the balls to overrule this. We shall see though.

Not really, because Trump has not been found guilty of any crime related to the insurrection. As much as I would love to see him lose the election, taking him off the ballot just seems like a surefire way to perpetuate the claims of election tampering. If he had been convicted of inciting the insurrection, then of course it would be a different matter.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Why do people keep saying that? Once again, 14-3 DOES NOT REQUIRE a criminal conviction, or even charges to be filed.

 

[fskimospy]

L

Not really, because Trump has not been found guilty of any crime related to the insurrection. As much as I would love to see him lose the election, taking him off the ballot just seems like a surefire way to perpetuate the claims of election tampering. If he had been convicted of inciting the insurrection, then of course it would be a different matter.

Basically all the confederates the 14th amendment disqualified were never criminally convicted of anything either.

It’s frankly weird how people are inventing new requirements that are not in the constitution. If the people who wrote the 14th amendment wanted it to require a criminal conviction they would have written it to say this.

 

[fskimospy]

Also if the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to someone who literally attempted a coup then we might as well remove that part from the constitution as it is meaningless.

 

[pmv]

These are the people who have been driving the right further right .....

The attempt to bar Trump under the 14th Amendment explained​

MSN|47 days ago
Technically, yes — maybe. The two Federalist Society experts contend that the relevant section of the 14th Amendment is "self-executing." In layperson's terms, this argument holds that the ...

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from ... - Vox​

Aug 11, 2023Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for...

Those are interesting articles. Seems to highlight the limitations of constitutions and legal systems in the context of serious political crises. Apparently if a sufficient proportion of the population hate each other with sufficient intensity, the ostensible political structures of a political system cease to mean very much.

 

[pmv]

Also if the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to someone who literally attempted a coup then we might as well remove that part from the constitution as it is meaningless.

Arguably it's _all_ meaningless as long as there's extreme political polarisation. I guess ultimately things only mean what people want them to mean.

 

[fskimospy]

Arguably it's _all_ meaningless as long as there's extreme political polarisation. I guess ultimately things only mean what people want them to mean.

Yeah I've said this many times. As an example if you read the Soviet or North Korean constitutions you'll see they are hugely protective of human rights and... well... yeah.

This is why I've said the law will not save us here - this is going to be a political fight and potentially a civil conflict.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Those are interesting articles. Seems to highlight the limitations of constitutions and legal systems in the context of serious political crises. Apparently if a sufficient proportion of the population hate each other with sufficient intensity, the ostensible political structures of a political system cease to mean very much.

That generally devolves into a civil war/upheaval, in which case the structure of the govt means little as you said, because it's about to be reformed.