Trump banned from Colorado ballot

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 03:12 PM)pally Wrote: Please show me where I ever thought that Trump would not prevail.  I did state his arguments of immunity, that the President wasn't an officer of the US, and he hadn't sworn an oath to uphold the constitution was nonsense.   The SCOTUS ruling was based on federalism, not because of those arguments.  I fully expected the Cpurt, absent a conviction of some sort, to rule in his favor.

You know what, that's fair.  I retract the statement with apologies.

[NATI BENGALS]

Sad day for America. The threat to our democracy the oath breaker represents still hangs over the heads of the majority of the country who voted to get rid of him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 07:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sad day for America. The threat to our democracy the oath breaker represents still hangs over the heads of the majority of the country who voted to get rid of him.

Sad that you equate a unanimous SCOTUS decision with a sad day.  Do the ends justify the means for you, is that what you're saying?

[HarleyDog]

(03-04-2024, 07:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sad day for America. The threat to our democracy the oath breaker represents still hangs over the heads of the majority of the country who voted to get rid of him.

It's a great day for America. It means that political personal vendettas cannot override the right of the people to choose their POTUS. Just because someone's mad, doesn't mean they can force everyone else to abide by their anger. What the left was trying to do was nothing less than socialism at its finest. Trying to tell the people they don't have a right to vote for whom they want to is not only an embarrassment to the country, but a disgrace to the perception of a free nation.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-04-2024, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sad that you equate a unanimous SCOTUS decision with a sad day.  Do the ends justify the means for you, is that what you're saying?

What I mean is it is sad that over half the country has to continue to listen to a cult try to jam a traitor down our throats.

Pretty crazy how weak our system is that a guy who tried to steal an election in front of the world faces no consequences for trying to destroy our democracy and he is free to go try again. And the people who celebrate an oath breaker getting another shot to break his oath again makes me sad.

It’s heartbreaking to see evil prevail. If you haven’t noticed. I whole heartedly believe he is an actual bad guy. Yep. For some reason the guy who was friends with Epstein for a couple decades, the self confessed serial sexual assaulter, who couldn’t even run an honest charitable foundation, that narcissistic pathological liar gives me vibes like he is an actual villain. A win for him is a loss for the good guys.

And the threat he represents to my country got stronger today.

[HarleyDog]

(03-04-2024, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sad that you equate a unanimous SCOTUS decision with a sad day.  Do the ends justify the means for you, is that what you're saying?

Yes. This even makes it better. 9-0 decision. No BS complaints or accusations of court packing. If the SCOTUS rules 9-0 on any issue, it's solid and should be accepted. 

[CJD]

(12-20-2023, 09:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, this isn't going to stand.

Yep.

This was a silly path to go regardless. Glad it's over.

[*pally*]

(03-04-2024, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You know what, that's fair.  I retract the statement with apologies.

accepted

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 08:55 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What I mean is it is sad that over half the country has to continue to listen to a cult try to jam a traitor down our throats.

Technically, by that logic, the whole country has to listen to it.

Quote:Pretty crazy how weak our system is that a guy who tried to steal an election in front of the world faces no consequences for trying to destroy our democracy and he is free to go try again. And the people who celebrate an oath breaker getting another shot to break his oath again makes me sad.

Democracy doesn't mean people choosing the dude you like.  People have different opinions and positions.  I loathe W., yet many see him as a lovable buffoon now.  As for an oath breaker, I completely agree with you.  But I also see Newsome and the vast majority of Dems in my home state as oath breakers as well.  To the same degree?  Probably not, at least on its face.  But I tend to view intentional infringements on the rights of our citizenry as equally awful in tis intent.

Quote:It’s heartbreaking to see evil prevail. If you haven’t noticed. I whole heartedly believe he is an actual bad guy. Yep. For some reason the guy who was friends with Epstein for a couple decades, the self confessed serial sexual assaulter, who couldn’t even run an honest charitable foundation, that narcissistic pathological liar gives me vibes like he is an actual villain. A win for him is a loss for the good guys.

Tons of Dems on that Epstein list as well, my friend.  Powerful people of all ideological stripes.

Quote:And the threat he represents to my country got stronger today.

Maybe, maybe not.  I honestly think keeping him off the ballot via the measures attempted would have been far more destructive long term.  Either you have faith in our institutions and our citizenry or you don't.  I'm not a fan of letting mommy and daddy government deciding what's best for me in terms of my choices for office holders.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 09:42 PM)pally Wrote: accepted

[*Nately120*]

(03-04-2024, 08:50 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: It's a great day for America. It means that political personal vendettas cannot override the right of the people to choose their POTUS.

The people don't choose the president, the state electors do.

(03-04-2024, 08:50 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Trying to tell the people they don't have a right to vote for whom they want to is not only an embarrassment to the country, but a disgrace to the perception of a free nation.

Not to derail things, but there is an absurd amount of bi-partisan scheming that goes into systematically removing and denying ballot access to parties and candidates.  It really speaks to the "D vs R only" nature of our system that people only recognize how unfair this all is once the possibility of it happening to a specific candidate for one of the major parties.  So yeah, if the system telling people who they have a right to vote for gets you upset the two-party system we have should have been frying your bacon long ago.

For example, in 2012 Gary Johnson/Jim Gray were the Libertarian candidates and were not on the ballots of all 50 states, ergo by your own statement this country has only removed itself from disgraceful status in the past 8 years (actually, just because Libertarians were allowed on all 50 states in 2016 and 2020 doesn't mean other parties/candidates weren't denied...so there is my bias that I'm catching).

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-04-2024, 10:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The people don't choose the president, the state electors do.



Not to derail things, but there is an absurd amount of bi-partisan scheming that goes into systematically removing and denying ballot access to parties and candidates.  It really speaks to the "D vs R only" nature of our system that people only recognize how unfair this all is once the possibility of it happening to a specific candidate for one of the major parties.  So yeah, if the system telling people who they have a right to vote for gets you upset the two-party system we have should have been frying your bacon long ago.

For example, in 2012 Gary Johnson/Jim Gray were the Libertarian candidates and were not on the ballots of all 50 states, ergo by your own statement this country has only removed itself from disgraceful status in the past 8 years (actually, just because Libertarians were allowed on all 50 states in 2016 and 2020 doesn't mean other parties/candidates weren't denied...so there is my bias that I'm catching).

Independents have a harder time as they need money and boots on the ground getting those signatures needed to meet being put on the state ballot and time is not always their friend, they have different deadlines to meet in the states and if you don't turn the signatures in on time, you aren't even considered for the ballot. Then if you do turn them in on time, you have to deal with the meticulous pickings from members of both major parties squabbling over the names of the signatures and try to invalidate as many as they can, so you don't meet the minimum requirements.

[Belsnickel]

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.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.

Trump hasn't even been found Guilty of Insurrection, at any level, but most importantly it needs to be a the Federal level. What happened to Innocent til proven Guilty?
If they can find him Guilty on a Federal level then by all means states can feel free to remove him from the ballots. 

The ruling is fair, if you allow it to stand as it was, then going forward, who the hell would want to be POTUS The Political playground is bad enough while being in Office, just imagine the Political Playground after. 

Oh no, Biden laundered money, Remove him from the Ballots! Who cares if he wasn't found guilty. 
Biden is allowing the US to be invaded, Remove him the Ballots! 
Biden is mentally unfit to run for Office, Remove him from the Ballots!

blah blah blah, it's a nasty road to go down and i'm very glad the SCOTUS nipped it now before it starts getting really stupid. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 10:50 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump hasn't even been found Guilty of Insurrection, at any level, but most importantly it needs to be a the Federal level. What happened to Innocent til proven Guilty?
If they can find him Guilty on a Federal level then by all means states can feel free to remove him from the ballots. 

Being found guilty, or even being charged with insurrection, was never a requirement for disqualification from office under the 14th Amendment and, in fact, SCOTUS did not say it was a requirement in their opinion for a reason.

(03-05-2024, 10:50 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The ruling is fair, if you allow it to stand as it was, then going forward, who the hell would want to be POTUS The Political playground is bad enough while being in Office, just imagine the Political Playground after. 

Oh no, Biden laundered money, Remove him from the Ballots! Who cares if he wasn't found guilty. 
Biden is allowing the US to be invaded, Remove him the Ballots! 
Biden is mentally unfit to run for Office, Remove him from the Ballots!

blah blah blah, it's a nasty road to go down and i'm very glad the SCOTUS nipped it now before it starts getting really stupid. 

Good job showing you didn't understand what I was saying, or what the dissents were saying.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-05-2024, 11:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being found guilty, or even being charged with insurrection, was never a requirement for disqualification from office under the 14th Amendment and, in fact, SCOTUS did not say it was a requirement in their opinion for a reason.


Good job showing you didn't understand what I was saying, or what the dissents were saying.

Apparently you didn't get all of what i was saying either.

They don't want it being used as a political weapon and have Names stricken from ballots that will result in wildly contested results and allowing a few states to decide who will the be the next POTUS.  

[hollodero]

(03-05-2024, 11:34 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Apparently you didn't get all of what i was saying either.

They don't want it being used as a political weapon and have Names stricken from ballots that will result in wildly contested results and allowing a few states to decide who will the be the next POTUS.  

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.

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 11:34 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Apparently you didn't get all of what i was saying either.

They don't want it being used as a political weapon and have Names stricken from ballots that will result in wildly contested results and allowing a few states to decide who will the be the next POTUS.  

And I never stated otherwise.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.

The States have no power to enforce section 3 with respect to Federal Offices, especially the Presidency. 

No idea how much clearer that can be. 

Republicans are also searching for a legal means to get Biden removed from the Ballots in half a dozen states. 
This ruling ends all of this crap whether they had a legal leg or not. 

https://www.newsweek.com/states-wanting-kick-joe-biden-ballot-full-list-1859028

[SunsetBengal]

(03-05-2024, 11:34 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Apparently you didn't get all of what i was saying either.

They don't want it being used as a political weapon and have Names stricken from ballots that will result in wildly contested results and allowing a few states to decide who will the be the next POTUS.  

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.