(02-08-2024, 03:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I would certainly fear for my judgement day if I voted for Trump.

You can fool us but you ain't fooling Jesus mate ...

(02-08-2024, 03:29 PM)pally Wrote: they won't rule on the insurrection question.  The ruling will hinge on whether an individual state can keep a candidate off the ballot.  Cases, BTW, that have been brought in the individual states by Republicans, not Democrats.

(02-08-2024, 07:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I see a possible unanimous decision stopping states from interfering in federal elections of the POTUS.

(02-08-2024, 09:01 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I hope so for the sake of our country. 

(02-08-2024, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, as much as I think Trump qualifies to be removed under the clause, I don't have any problems with SCOTUS keeping him on. I don't think everyone is thinking through the implications, though, when it comes to the power of the states to run their own elections, but that's a different matter. If people like giving the feds more power over the states then that is on them.

What my biggest concern over this case has been is just how bad the arguments from Trump have been. Like, really bad. SCOTUS will have to essentially make an argument for the Trump team in order to keep him on the ballot and not set awful precedents.

(02-08-2024, 10:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think what we're going to see is not a ruling on whether a state can kick a POTUS candidate off the ballot, but rather whether the pretext for CO doing so is legitimate.  That would nice solve the usurpation of state's rights issue you mention in your post.  I think Kavanaugh's line of questioning indicates this when he asked if Trump had been charged with insurrection under a Federal law that precisely covers that.

(02-08-2024, 07:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They did address the insurrection question in the oral arguments, I believe more than one justce brought up due process. They asked how do you define insurrection. They were very concerned any state could take steps to remove anyone off the ballot without a lack of due process as no one had a chance with a court of law and urrs to defend themselves. BTW, it was a judge appointed by a Democrat that raised the issue of Trump got no due process.

They said Colorado was making up a qualification to run for POTUS.

I see a possible unanimous decision stopping states from interfering in federal elections of the POTUS. I am guessing liberal media was bringing on guests with the opinion this was a slam dunk win for Colorado and any states wanting to remove Trump. It is one more example of liberal news delivering fake news to its viewers, telling them what they want to hear versus sound legal standards used.

(02-08-2024, 10:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hmmm, that would be interesting. That approach would really go against textualist and originalist principles. I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, we both know how much of a cynic I am when it comes to SCOTUS, but there will likely be some acrobatics involved for them to get on board with that.

Quote:We know Roberts will be working hard to ensure this isn't a typical 6-3 or 5-4 decision so they will really have a fine line to walk.

(02-09-2024, 02:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How so? 

(02-09-2024, 02:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting that you say that.  I've read several tweets from court watchers who are predicting a 8-1, maybe even a 9-0 decision in Trumps favor based on the tenor of the judge's questioning.  I'm not talking about far-right people here, either.

(02-08-2024, 09:30 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Is that because the guy who broke his oath of office and organized a slate of fake electors in multiple states to steal an election and illegally seize power, and lied to the American public on a daily basis, and incited the mob who ransacked the capital and searched for the vice president to hang him, because that guy and his cult following would do something stupid?

(02-09-2024, 12:11 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: What an imagination you have there Mr. Nati, B. It's not good for any state to feel they have the power to decide who becomes POTUS. Our political system is a joke already spiraling out of control. Could you imagine what allowing Colorado to interfere with the election could do for further elections to come? The problem with the lefties is all this wild bill bullshit they've been pulling for the last 7 years creates a precedent of things to come. This is why our political arena is becoming a joke. 

(02-09-2024, 01:20 PM)pally Wrote: The Colorado lawsuit was filed by a life long Republican and former Trump voter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02-09-2024, 08:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, from a textualist perspective there is no requirement for charges or conviction. It is an entirely open question based on the text. From the originalist perspective, during the contemporary time period they did not require having been charged. Hell, they had people pardoned and still needed the disability removed by Congress. There is no historical precedent from the time of the amendment to justify the requirement of conviction or even indictment.

Quote:Oh, I expect that as the overall opinion. However, do the conservative justices write an opinion that the more liberal justices can't sign onto? Does Roberts try to write the opinion and provides one that is too milquetoast for the others? This case really needs a unified front on the court and the reasoning behind the opinion is a big part of that.

(02-09-2024, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You keep banging this drum like it has anything to do with the question at hand.  I'll save you some time, it doesn't.  Who brought this suit has zero bearing on its merits, implications, or validity.