SCOTUS to hear arguments on keeping Trump off 2024 ballot

[Rambunctious]

It won't change anything, because I think SCOTUS is going to have to say you need a conviction.

Of course they will...You can't be guilty of something just because your political rivals thing you might be... where would that stop... and that's the question the supreme court will ask itself....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How would that be constitutional?...

How would it not be?

 

[Rambunctious]

How would it not be?

Because you are not guilty of something because your political rivals think that you are... that's not the American way... do you want to change that?....

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This issue is not whether a conviction is needed or not, but that the hodgepodge of states cannot be allowed to make up contradictory standards.

It's why we have a SCOTUS. And those justices will holler "oh, yeah, billy, we will set the standard, you betcha."

 

[Auld Phart]

It doesn't but SCOTUS will say that is the suggestion and spirit of Section 3.

The argument will be that we cannot have a patch make up of the several states setting different stand.

It doesn't but SCOTUS will say that is the suggestion and spirit of Section 3.

will they?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes he does have to be convicted of it or it never happened... and the 14th amendment won't apply...

Bullshit is still bullshit no matter how many times you repeat the bullshit. Even if you start to believe your own bullshit, it is STILL bullshit . Even the voices in your head know it’s bullshit –they are just fucking with you .

Got that professor?

 

[hadit]

While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.

Seditious conspiracy: 11 Oath Keepers charged in Jan. 6 riot​

And therein lies the rub. There WAS no attempt to overthrow the government, as evidenced by the complete and total lack of any plan what to do should the government that has F-15s and nukes be destroyed by grandmas waving little flags. For the court to credibly accuse TRUMP! of insurrection, they would have to agree that the riot was a serious attempt to overthrow said government, and that's going to be a tall order.

 

[Rambunctious]

Bullshit is still bullshit no matter how many times you repeat the bullshit. Even if you start to believe your own bullshit, it is STILL bullshit . Even the voices in your head know it’s bullshit –they are just fucking with you .

Got that professor?

Dream on... don't you get tired of being wrong?...

 

[Rawley]

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed that Trump engaged in an insurrection, but ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does, in fact, apply to the presidency, meaning that Trump could not appear on the ballot. Dec 20, 2023

Two strikes.

 

[Rawley]

If SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, and he is later convicted of insurrection - what then?

He hasn't, and won't be charged with insurrection. DOJ already made that decision.

 

[Rawley]

They will and you will be whining yet again.

They already have - scroll back up.

 

[Muhammed]

The Democratic party of slavery tried this same BS to keep Lincoln off the ballot.

Their nefarious plan didn't work then and it isn't going to work now.

 

[Lakhota]

The Democratic party of slavery tried this same BS to keep Lincoln off the ballot.

Their nefarious plan didn't work then and it isn't going to work now.

And now they're all Republicans! Hilarious!

 

[Lakhota]

And now they're all Republicans! Hilarious!

BTW, don't forget that we currently have a NaziCon Republican SCOTUS.

 

[Lakhota]

Colorado will make headlines across the world this week as the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case challenging Donald's Trump eligibility to run for office in the Centennial State. The lead plaintiff in the case is a 91-year-old former state lawmaker and diehard Republican. Norma Anderson says she never dreamed she would be part of an effort to keep her own party's leading candidate off the ballot. That is, until Jan. 6, 2021.

For nearly 20 years, Anderson made headlines at the Colorado State Capitol. The former state lawmaker and diehard Republican was the nation's first female majority leader in state politics. She led creation of the department of transportation and helped write the Public School Finance Act. Now she's making headlines again, this time as the lead petitioner in a case that could upend the 2024 election.

"Our democracy is too precious to let a Donald Trump be president and destroy it," she said this week at her Lakewood home.

More at the link below...

Meet the Colorado Republican who is the lead plaintiff in the case aimed at keeping Trump off the ballot

‘When duty calls, you do it’: The 91-year-old lawmaker who could have Trump disqualified​

She is a diehard Republican!

 

[Lakhota]

The U.S. Constitution wasn't created for dictators! No matter how much lipstick SCOTUS tries to put on their decision!

 

[Winston]

Yes he does have to be convicted of it or it never happened... and the 14th amendment won't apply...

8. Is a criminal conviction necessary to trigger Section Three?

No. Section Three says nothing of the sort, and it could have easily done so had its drafters aimed to enact such a requirement. Grant did not require convictions for those deemed ineligible under Section Three in 1869 Virginia and elsewhere.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf

 

[Winston]

This issue is not whether a conviction is needed or not, but that the hodgepodge of states cannot be allowed to make up contradictory standards.

It's why we have a SCOTUS. And those justices will holler "oh, yeah, billy, we will set the standard, you betcha."

This Court is thus not the only decisionmaker in a complex electoral-college system. States have wide discretion in structuring their systems, both procedurally and substantively. See Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 487 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J.) (“[A] state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office”). In many ways, state courts, and not this Court, are the main backstops. See Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. at 34–37

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf

 

[Rambunctious]

8. Is a criminal conviction necessary to trigger Section Three?

No. Section Three says nothing of the sort, and it could have easily done so had its drafters aimed to enact such a requirement. Grant did not require convictions for those deemed ineligible under Section Three in 1869 Virginia and elsewhere.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf

There has to be proof he ordered an insurrection....

insurrection

1. an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

And he didn't... he is on video tape saying go in peace... that's all I need to know... the group was riled up by members of our FBI.... so if anyone should be convicted its them....
And Pelosi and the capitol police chief...

 

[Winston]

There has to be proof he ordered an insurrection....

insurrection

1. an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

And he didn't... he is on video tape saying go in peace... that's all I need to know... the group was riled up by members of our FBI.... so if anyone should be convicted its them....
And Pelosi and the capitol police chief...

In Trump’s case—as with the paradigm case of Floyd—there exists a complex web of spidery actions and inactions, as the trial court below made clear in its findings of fact. Especially because some of Trump’s own actions of plotting and incitement prompted actual violent insurrection by others, he was under a stronger duty to take affirmative steps to arrest that insurrection once it erupted into a deadly assault on the Capitol. It was perfectly sensible for the trial court to consider Trump’s entire course of conduct, including his inactions, as a whole

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf