Trump banned from Colorado ballot

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-05-2024, 12:10 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It's pretty much already that way.  If a candidate wins the 11 largest electoral States, it doesn't matter what the other 39 States say.

I know that, but at least the campaigning rules don't get changed. 

Removing Trump from CA isn't likely going to change the outcome of the Electoral Votes of the state, however removing him from a Swing state could.

Repubs/Dems don't waste a lot of time in states where they have very little chance to win, they focus on those Swing states and do drive-bys on the states where they have the home crowd and should win. 

If it was done by Popular vote, then ofc They'd be all over the most populous states. It seems like every election we have to explain this over and over to the Dems because they win the Popular vote. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-05-2024, 11:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: For the immigrant invasion:


But the 14th amendment is specifically about insurrection and rebellion after having taken an oath. It can not be used randomly for any of the other reasons you listed.

As far as I can tell, that is.

The 25th Amendment covers when POTUS is mentally/physically unfit.
Although it'd be lame to use to remove him from Ballots. 


For the immigrant invasion:
Article 4. 
Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


if you didn't think Republicans would try to remove Biden from ballots by any means necessary then you are fooling yourselves. 
Tit for Tat is the current motto of both sides. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 08:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will just copy what I wrote in the other thread, here:

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.

As we discussed, I think SCOTUS knew that states removing Trump from the ballot would cause far more harm to the integrity of our institutions than Trump is likely to cause.  So they rallied around the flag, so to speak, and issued a unanimous decision in as milquetoast a fashion as possible.  I think they made the right decision regardless.  Whoever came up with the idea of removing Trump from state ballots is a effing moron.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 11:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: But the 14th amendment is specifically about insurrection and rebellion after having taken an oath. It can not be used randomly for any of the other reasons you listed.

As far as I can tell, that is.

True, but you'll just get people arguing what actually constitutes an insurrection.  If you're a Trump supporter Trump genuinely believed out electoral process had been subverted and was trying to stop that.  Hence, he could not have been guilty of insurrection, quite the opposite!  One could even make the argument that Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate POTUS is sowing the seeds of insurrection.  As defined insurrection requires violence, but with the way people like to change what word mean nowadays it could easily be interpreted, or redefined.  You may have noticed posts in which I ask posters to actually define a statement or word, often a talking point.  Because to me the actual words used matter, and have a definitive meaning.  Far too many people regurgitate words or terms without any real understanding of them, and insurrection is no different.

Sad times we live in.

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 01:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As we discussed, I think SCOTUS knew that states removing Trump from the ballot would cause far more harm to the integrity of our institutions than Trump is likely to cause.  So they rallied around the flag, so to speak, and issued a unanimous decision in as milquetoast a fashion as possible.  I think they made the right decision regardless.  Whoever came up with the idea of removing Trump from state ballots is a effing moron.

Eh, what they didn't wasn't very milquetoast, though. Experts on the 14th Amendment/Reconstruction Amendments have been talking about how it could have long lasting impacts because of the way the PC opinion was written. They could've just stopped at "this would be too much chaos, so no." That was part of what Justice Barrett's opinion was about (she just didn't like how aggressive the liberal justices were about it).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, what they didn't wasn't very milquetoast, though. Experts on the 14th Amendment/Reconstruction Amendments have been talking about how it could have long lasting impacts because of the way the PC opinion was written. They could've just stopped at "this would be too much chaos, so no." That was part of what Justice Barrett's opinion was about (she just didn't like how aggressive the liberal justices were about it).

You'll have to go into more detail, as I saw it they effectively punted the responsibility for using the 14th in this regard to Congress.  Knowing full well that Congress will never be able to reach a consensus in this regard.

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 02:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll have to go into more detail, as I saw it they effectively punted the responsibility for using the 14th in this regard to Congress.  Knowing full well that Congress will never be able to reach a consensus in this regard.

This does a pretty good job summing up the opinion and those written that were partially-concurring.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/

[hollodero]

(03-05-2024, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, but you'll just get people arguing what actually constitutes an insurrection.  If you're a Trump supporter Trump genuinely believed out electoral process had been subverted and was trying to stop that.  Hence, he could not have been guilty of insurrection, quite the opposite!  One could even make the argument that Clinton calling Trump an illegitimate POTUS is sowing the seeds of insurrection.  As defined insurrection requires violence, but with the way people like to change what word mean nowadays it could easily be interpreted, or redefined.  You may have noticed posts in which I ask posters to actually define a statement or word, often a talking point.  Because to me the actual words used matter, and have a definitive meaning.  Far too many people regurgitate words or terms without any real understanding of them, and insurrection is no different.

Sad times we live in.

Yeah I agree with that findings. Which is why I as a non-lawyer never was in favor of banning Trump from the ballot in the first place.

And I understand that by definition, one could not call Trump's actions an insurrection probably (I say probably because there was violence at the Capitol, and Mr. Trump, by his hour-long inaction alone, kinda endorsed it), which is why I switched to the word coup. Which of course is not covered by the 14th, imho weirdly enough. But for me that is a metaphorical hill to die on, that the word coup attempts fits the bill for the several clumsy things Trump tried to upend the election. It should be in the 14th in spirit.

[hollodero]

(03-05-2024, 12:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The 25th Amendment covers when POTUS is mentally/physically unfit.
Although it'd be lame to use to remove him from Ballots.  

Also, hard to prove. Mistaking Macron for Mitterrand and stuff like that is probably not sufficient to declare someone mentally unfit.

Not to mention that if that were a sufficient criteria, Trump would run into problems as well. Things like mistaking Haley for Pelosi aren't much better.

[HarleyDog]

(03-05-2024, 05:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Things like mistaking Haley for Pelosi isn't much better.

Maybe that's what he thinks of her? Not a debate, just a possibility. 

[hollodero]

(03-05-2024, 05:10 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Maybe that's what he thinks of her? Not a debate, just a possibility. 

Would that make it better?

[HarleyDog]

(03-05-2024, 05:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: Would that make it better?

Not really. Just throwing that out there. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-05-2024, 05:24 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not really. Just throwing that out there. 

It could be, you know that Pesky POTUS Obama keeps bothering him

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 02:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This does a pretty good job summing up the opinion and those written that were partially-concurring.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-rules-states-cannot-remove-trump-from-ballot-for-insurrection/

Having read it I don't see where my initial assessment is that far off, if at all.

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 08:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Having read it I don't see where my initial assessment is that far off, if at all.

A milquetoast opinion would have been just relying on the idea that the chaos caused by the removal of a candidate by the states is too much of an issue for it to be allowed. Had they stopped there, the PC opinion wouldn't have had any concurring dissents. However, the majority chose to instead opine on who had the authority and how it could be applied in order to disqualify a federal candidate. They caused additional questions by stating legislation needs to occur because that allows an override by a simple majority rather than the 2/3rds required by the Amendment. It also calls into question the ability for disqualification by the joint session during verification as well as the current situation where rules in the congressional chambers allow each house to handle these issues for their own members themselves.

For example, if legislation is required to disqualify a federal official, then would the removal of George Santos hold up? Based on the rationale's provided, there is a question about that some are raising.

In essence, the majority decided to go further abroad in their opinion than they needed to and used some really off-the-wall lawyering to do so that could have ramifications in the long run.