9--0 States have no power to remove a POTUS candidate

[Luvnit2]

Democrats once again made to look stupid and interfere with a federal election at the state level. Over 30 states were looking into removing Trump from the ballot. A clear overreach and helped Trump's case he was being persecuted as a candidate.

All 3 liberal justices joined in for a 9-0 decision.

Democrats continue to make their party look stupid and make Trump's case with every lawsuit including the ones brought here. It was expected after the legal arguments were presented to the SC. But some in this forum actually thought there was case to remove a POTUS candidate as they listened to liberal media attorneys giving false information once again. They were destined to lose and did in a dominant ruling.

Those screaming insurrection please use common sense, this is the US, and we don't convict people based on opinion. Trump has never been charged with insurrection once in court, yet many take the stance he is guilty because of an opinion. Congress is a political court (impeachment) and has no bearing in criminal court.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2024, 01:16 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Democrats once again made to look stupid and interfere with a federal election at the state level. Over 30 states were looking into removing Trump from the ballot. A clear overreach and helped Trump's case he was being persecuted as a candidate.

All 3 liberal justices joined in for a 9-0 decision.

Democrats continue to make their party look stupid and make Trump's case with every lawsuit including the ones brought here. It was expected after the legal arguments were presented to the SC. But some in this forum actually thought there was case to remove a POTUS candidate as they listened to liberal media attorneys giving false information once again. They were destined to lose and did in a dominant ruling.

Those screaming insurrection please use common sense, this is the US, and we don't convict people based on opinion. Trump has never been charged with insurrection once in court, yet many take the stance he is guilty because of an opinion. Congress is a political court (impeachment) and has no bearing in criminal court.

This was already posted in the thread about him being removed.

The SC did not consider anything about an insurrection.

[Luvnit2]

(03-04-2024, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: This was already posted in the thread about him being removed.

The SC did not consider anything about an insurrection.

Why would they consider anything about an insurrection. Trump has never been indicted criminally for an insurrection.

The case was a strong rebuke to any state trying to remove any POTUS candidate off of a federal election ballot. 

The misinformation has been rampant fueled by Democrats, it is simply a political case made by Democrats in Congress, never taken up by the Senate so just a bunch of hot air.

I find it interesting Democrats and fake news liberal sites tried to tell us the George Floyd riots that went on for weeks all over the country were mostly peaceful, when in fact they were riots. Jan. 6th a riot that lasted a few hours, no days or weeks. Most see the hypocrisy, obviously you are don't.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2024, 06:35 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why would they consider anything about an insurrection. Trump has never been indicted criminally for an insurrection.

The case was a strong rebuke to any state trying to remove any POTUS candidate off of a federal election ballot. 

The misinformation has been rampant fueled by Democrats, it is simply a political case made by Democrats in Congress, never taken up by the Senate so just a bunch of hot air.

I find it interesting Democrats and fake news liberal sites tried to tell us the George Floyd riots that went on for weeks all over the country were mostly peaceful, when in fact they were riots. Jan. 6th a riot that lasted a few hours, no days or weeks. Most see the hypocrisy, obviously you are don't.

I was referring to your rant about the insurrection in the OP.

[BigPapaKain]

We're all for states rights.

No not like that.

[*Nately120*]

(03-04-2024, 06:35 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why would they consider anything about an insurrection. Trump has never been indicted criminally for an insurrection.

Is there any possibility Trump faces a trial to judge if he is guilty of this?  Is this one of the cases against him that is being pushed back until after the election?  That'd be pretty odd if they keep delaying that but the SC works rather quickly to decide if he can be on the ballot in regards to his guilt in a case that isn't going to take place soon if ever.  Is that what is going on?  I can't even keep up, honestly.

(03-04-2024, 06:35 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I find it interesting Democrats and fake news liberal sites tried to tell us the George Floyd riots that went on for weeks all over the country were mostly peaceful, when in fact they were riots. Jan. 6th a riot that lasted a few hours, no days or weeks. Most see the hypocrisy, obviously you are don't.

They were riots and weren't peaceful, but the difference to me is that the rioters weren't (to my knowledge) uniformly outfitted in attire and waving flags with a specific politician's name upon them.  But then again you just called Jan 6th a riot and Trump himself called it an insurrection (insofar as he could blame it on Nancy Pelosi) so I guess there is some progress being made.

Just from a people-watcher perspective, CRT and BLM and DEFUND THE POLICE used to be the issues of the day years ago, then came and went woke and now we're onto the border.  It'll be interesting to see what the buzzwords are in 8 months but BLM is old hat as far as liberal bogeymen go. 

[hollodero]

(03-04-2024, 06:35 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I find it interesting Democrats and fake news liberal sites tried to tell us the George Floyd riots that went on for weeks all over the country were mostly peaceful, when in fact they were riots. Jan. 6th a riot that lasted a few hours, no days or weeks. Most see the hypocrisy, obviously you are don't.

That is apples and oranges. No matter whether one sees Trump's actions as an insurrection attempt (I personally would not know what else to call an attempt to pressure a state secretary to find some votes to upend the election result and then some, but whatever) - riots on the streets are not an insurrection. But mainly, there's no BLM- or Antifa-member running for president. I wonder though what you would think about a leading, riot-defending BLM member actually being the democrat's presidential candidate. I'd guess you'd have an issue with that.

[Belsnickel]

It was definitely an interesting opinion. The pro curium opinion from the court really runs contrary to other decisions they have made in regards to the 14th Amendment. This court especially has specifically limited Congress's ability to pass legislation based on the 14th Amendment Section 5 while in this case saying that it is Section 5 that requires Congress to act in this case. Very...interesting.

It is also just a bad opinion. Their reasoning for the requirement of congressional legislation was illogical because the language in Section 3 regarding the removal of the disqualification by a two-thirds majority indicates that the disqualification already exists. If legislation was required to place the disqualification then why would the writers have allowed a simple majority to block that disqualification? It makes no sense. They also said the amendment was just about Confederates, but that's not what the amendment says. Had that been the intention it would have specified that but they stated broadly insurrectionists which indicates that they intended this to apply to future instances as well.

Also, while all of the justices agreed with the end decision, the dissent from the Democratic appointees was scathing. They called out the faulty reasoning and just straight up called out the court for being in the bag for Trump. This is going to be a stain on the Roberts Court.

[hollodero]

(03-05-2024, 08:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was definitely an interesting opinion. The pro curium opinion from the court really runs contrary to other decisions they have made in regards to the 14th Amendment. This court especially has specifically limited Congress's ability to pass legislation based on the 14th Amendment Section 5 while in this case saying that it is Section 5 that requires Congress to act in this case. Very...interesting.

So... effectively there is no viable application of the 14th amendment any longer? (Not a trap question of course, just legit wondering from a place of ignorance.)

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 08:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: So... effectively there is no viable application of the 14th amendment any longer? (Not a trap question of course, just legit wondering from a place of ignorance.)

According to this court, Congress is in the driver's seat for actions based on the 14th Amendment, unless of course the Court thinks it is too harsh, and then they will stop it from happening because of...reasons.

[GMDino]

(03-05-2024, 08:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was definitely an interesting opinion. The pro curium opinion from the court really runs contrary to other decisions they have made in regards to the 14th Amendment. This court especially has specifically limited Congress's ability to pass legislation based on the 14th Amendment Section 5 while in this case saying that it is Section 5 that requires Congress to act in this case. Very...interesting.

It is also just a bad opinion. Their reasoning for the requirement of congressional legislation was illogical because the language in Section 3 regarding the removal of the disqualification by a two-thirds majority indicates that the disqualification already exists. If legislation was required to place the disqualification then why would the writers have allowed a simple majority to block that disqualification? It makes no sense. They also said the amendment was just about Confederates, but that's not what the amendment says. Had that been the intention it would have specified that but they stated broadly insurrectionists which indicates that they intended this to apply to future instances as well.

Also, while all of the justices agreed with the end decision, the dissent from the Democratic appointees was scathing. They called out the faulty reasoning and just straight up called out the court for being in the bag for Trump. This is going to be a stain on the Roberts Court.

Without a deep understanding of it I felt that people were ignoring the dissent too much.

[XenoMorph]

(03-04-2024, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: This was already posted in the thread about him being removed.

The SC did not consider anything about an insurrection.

you mean the one ran by Nancy and the Fed?

[GMDino]

(03-05-2024, 10:25 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: you mean the one ran by Nancy and the Fed?

You mean Nikki Haley? 

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 10:25 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: you mean the one ran by Nancy and the Fed?

[*pally*]

(03-05-2024, 08:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was definitely an interesting opinion. The pro curium opinion from the court really runs contrary to other decisions they have made in regards to the 14th Amendment. This court especially has specifically limited Congress's ability to pass legislation based on the 14th Amendment Section 5 while in this case saying that it is Section 5 that requires Congress to act in this case. Very...interesting.

It is also just a bad opinion. Their reasoning for the requirement of congressional legislation was illogical because the language in Section 3 regarding the removal of the disqualification by a two-thirds majority indicates that the disqualification already exists. If legislation was required to place the disqualification then why would the writers have allowed a simple majority to block that disqualification? It makes no sense. They also said the amendment was just about Confederates, but that's not what the amendment says. Had that been the intention it would have specified that but they stated broadly insurrectionists which indicates that they intended this to apply to future instances as well.

Also, while all of the justices agreed with the end decision, the dissent from the Democratic appointees was scathing. They called out the faulty reasoning and just straight up called out the court for being in the bag for Trump. This is going to be a stain on the Roberts Court.

Interesting article that says similar things

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-metadata-sotomayor-trump-dissent.html

[Luvnit2]

It is interesting a 9-0 Supreme Court decision is being debated and trashed by the party of let's kill democracy and not let voters decide the POTUS.

It is simple, states do not have the power to remove a POTUS from a state election.

It was a huge overreach and power play by Democrats, and they were shutdown unanimously.

It is rare for the SC to reach a consensus, but in this case they did, yet liberals still want to fight it. Where is the outrage against the 3 liberal judges from liberals calling them MAGA judges?

[*Nately120*]

(03-05-2024, 01:13 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It was a huge overreach and power play by Democrats, and they were shutdown unanimously.

It wasn't just democrats that were behind this, a lot of traditional republicans would like to move on from Trump and I'd assume you know that since you've been amenable to Nikki Haley being the president and/or haven't talked about throwing her in jail because she's a globalist swamp creature.

Any time Trump has lost and/or done something particularly egregious there have been members of the GOP who go after him, so far they haven't been able to knock him off the top of the mountain, but to say it's just democrats going after Trump in this case and others is inaccurate.  But again, I think you are aware of this and you are spreading some of the more propaganda-style "TRUMP WON" aspects of this ruling.

You yourself have posted polls that show Haley has a better chance of beating Biden in 2024 than Trump does.  Not everyone who wants Trump off the top of the GOP ticket is a democrat, but I also realize the fanatical nature of the MAGA crowd has shut up a lot of dissenting calls coming from inside the house.  With that being said, if Trump loses to Biden in 2024 there may be an all out Roman-style ousting of dear ceasar by his own party.


And as I've said before, if Biden wins in 2024 against Trump it'll be compared to the 1980 election except instead of moving on to Ronald Reagan the GOP decided that Gerald Ford needed a second shot at beating Jimmy Carter. 

[Luvnit2]

(03-05-2024, 03:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It wasn't just democrats that were behind this, a lot of traditional republicans would like to move on from Trump and I'd assume you know that since you've been amenable to Nikki Haley being the president and/or haven't talked about throwing her in jail because she's a globalist swamp creature.

Any time Trump has lost and/or done something particularly egregious there have been members of the GOP who go after him, so far they haven't been able to knock him off the top of the mountain, but to say it's just democrats going after Trump in this case and others is inaccurate.  But again, I think you are aware of this and you are spreading some of the more propaganda-style "TRUMP WON" aspects of this ruling.

You yourself have posted polls that show Haley has a better chance of beating Biden in 2024 than Trump does.  Not everyone who wants Trump off the top of the GOP ticket is a democrat, but I also realize the fanatical nature of the MAGA crowd has shut up a lot of dissenting calls coming from inside the house.  With that being said, if Trump loses to Biden in 2024 there may be an all out Roman-style ousting of dear ceasar by his own party.


And as I've said before, if Biden wins in 2024 against Trump it'll be compared to the 1980 election except instead of moving on to Ronald Reagan the GOP decided that Gerald Ford needed a second shot at beating Jimmy Carter. 

I said I would support the GOP nominee, it won't be Haley so no longer a debate on who does better against Biden now. Trump is beating Biden in every swing state 8 months out, so we will see how it goes in November.

Just an FYI, Democrats have not gone after Haley for 9 years and Trump still is polling better than Haley. As for Haley, if she was the nominees all of the Democrats who voted for her in their state's primary would then go back and pick Biden. But more importantly, Democrats would trash her. Democrats have tried everything politically, used social and liberal media, used our DOJ and yet he is still standing.

I am not saying Trump is a lock to beat Biden, but if I was a liberal, I would feel the same way Republicans felt when McCain ran. I voted for Obama, what does that tell you about the potential Biden gets elected due to so many reasons.

[*Nately120*]

(03-06-2024, 03:40 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I said I would support the GOP nominee, it won't be Haley so no longer a debate on who does better against Biden now. Trump is beating Biden in every swing state 8 months out, so we will see how it goes in November.

Just an FYI, Democrats have not gone after Haley for 9 years and Trump still is polling better than Haley. As for Haley, if she was the nominees all of the Democrats who voted for her in their state's primary would then go back and pick Biden. But more importantly, Democrats would trash her. Democrats have tried everything politically, used social and liberal media, used our DOJ and yet he is still standing.

I am not saying Trump is a lock to beat Biden, but if I was a liberal, I would feel the same way Republicans felt when McCain ran. I voted for Obama, what does that tell you about the potential Biden gets elected due to so many reasons.

All I'm saying is that if Biden does win in 2024 the war within the GOP between the "Trump can't win and he keeps losing" wing of the party versus the "All Trump does is win and he's the only guy who can save this country" wing is going to get amped up as the Trump 2028 signs get instantly printed up.

[Luvnit2]

(03-06-2024, 12:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: All I'm saying is that if Biden does win in 2024 the war within the GOP between the "Trump can't win and he keeps losing" wing of the party versus the "All Trump does is win and he's the only guy who can save this country" wing is going to get amped up as the Trump 2028 signs get instantly printed up.

There is no way Trump loses in 2024 and run again in 2028. If Trump loses a fair election, I don't see supporters protesting. If the election is perceived as unfair to Biden's DOJ persecuting him, it will be an ugly 4 years. Biden has proven he can't unite the country and likely Harris takes over at some point due to Joe's mental decline.

Sadly, regardless of winner, likely our country stays divided versus working together for solutions.