Trump is appealing to the US Supreme Court. He probably hopes the mostly conservative judges will rule in his favor. However history dictates that may not happen. The same court in 1974 had to rule on if Nixon had to handover the secret tapes. He lost that one and stepped down as President.
It's not the same court, though. I don't know a lot about them, but I do know about Justice of the Frat Court, and Justice gimme gimme gimme. They are also far enough right to overturn Roe v Wade, so I have zero faith in that institution to do what is right for humanity.
It's not the same court, though. I don't know a lot about them, but I do know about Justice of the Frat Court, and Justice gimme gimme gimme. They are also far enough right to overturn Roe v Wade, so I have zero faith in that institution to do what is right for humanity.
This might be the one time where a lifetime appointment might be an upside. The court may be Republican but they are also mostly a lot younger than Trump. Now that they got their appointments, there's really no need to stay loyal to him at all. He'll be long gone and they'll still be Supreme Court justices.
I dunno. This is pretty wild stuff. If he's left off the ballot anywhere there's going to be a lot of mad crazy people with guns.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
It's not the same court, though. I don't know a lot about them, but I do know about Justice of the Frat Court, and Justice gimme gimme gimme. They are also far enough right to overturn Roe v Wade, so I have zero faith in that institution to do what is right for humanity.
I should have explained myself better. Both courts had or now have President appointed judges. Nixon was sure he was going to win and bragged about it, however he was shocked when he didn't. The same could happen to Trump.
I should have explained myself better. Both courts had or now have President appointed judges. Nixon was sure he was going to win and bragged about it, however he was shocked when he didn't. The same could happen to Trump.
The Nixon judges were actual judges though. Not idealogues. We have an accused fratboy rapist, a Christian Barbie (who has virtually no experience practicing law btw), and a man who has repeatedly pimped himself to the GOP.
They overturned Roe V Wade at the first opportunity, ignoring precident.
There is no justice to be had with SCOTUS at the moment.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SutterBrother For This Useful Post:
John Fetterman's office also came out and said that he is not progressive and never was progressive. Anyone that has followed him for the past number of years would be confused, so people are wondering what the hell is going on here.
I thought Fetterman’s reputation was as a blue dog Democrat- more of a centrist who’s liberal on social issues.
The online left is also going after him hard for his support of Israel. That may be causing him to lash out a bit too.
This might be the one time where a lifetime appointment might be an upside. The court may be Republican but they are also mostly a lot younger than Trump. Now that they got their appointments, there's really no need to stay loyal to him at all. He'll be long gone and they'll still be Supreme Court justices.
I dunno. This is pretty wild stuff. If he's left off the ballot anywhere there's going to be a lot of mad crazy people with guns.
Um, those people exist with or without this ruling or Trump. This is America!
Interestingly, this decision was brought about by a suit from Republican and independent voters.
Six Republican and independent voters from Colorado invoked the provision in a lawsuit this fall meant to keep Trump off the ballot.
Seems like there are plenty of those on the right that either believe Trump to be an existential threat to the country, or are just so tired of losing elections with him running the party that they want to get rid of him once and for all. either way, I'm good with it.
Also from the article, we get a win/win!!!
Quote:
Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running against Trump for the Republican nomination, said in a statement to The Washington Post: “I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately — or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.”
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Last edited by Cali Panthers Fan; 12-19-2023 at 07:00 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SutterBrother
The Nixon judges were actual judges though. Not idealogues. We have an accused fratboy rapist, a Christian Barbie (who has virtually no experience practicing law btw), and a man who has repeatedly pimped himself to the GOP.
They overturned Roe V Wade at the first opportunity, ignoring precident.
There is no justice to be had with SCOTUS at the moment.
Phang asked, “do you think then, if they’re intellectually honest, that the members of SCOTUS will not only take up this case, but would be forced to follow the text of section three of the 14th amendment and affirm the decision to not let Donald Trump be on a ballot?”
“I do,” Katyal definitively replied. “When it comes to Donald Trump, it’s important to remember this is the court that ruled against him many times in the 2020 election.”
“It’s the court that ruled against his executive privilege claims over the January 6 committee in an eight-to-one decision last year.”
“So, you know, I think that a fair-minded reading of this provision really compels this result.”
The Colorado Supreme Court, he added, “took pains to say, you know – this is just a quote from the opinion – ‘we’re mindful in our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.’ And I think that the United States Supreme Court would apply that same standard. Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.”
Phang asked, “do you think then, if they’re intellectually honest, that the members of SCOTUS will not only take up this case, but would be forced to follow the text of section three of the 14th amendment and affirm the decision to not let Donald Trump be on a ballot?”
“I do,” Katyal definitively replied. “When it comes to Donald Trump, it’s important to remember this is the court that ruled against him many times in the 2020 election.”
“It’s the court that ruled against his executive privilege claims over the January 6 committee in an eight-to-one decision last year.”
“So, you know, I think that a fair-minded reading of this provision really compels this result.”
The Colorado Supreme Court, he added, “took pains to say, you know – this is just a quote from the opinion – ‘we’re mindful in our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.’ And I think that the United States Supreme Court would apply that same standard. Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.”
On Roe they were able to rely on 18th century interpretations of the constitution, ignoring subsequent precedent. This ruling is based exactly on the constitution as written so is harder for the originalist to ignore. The question is how they would interpret Trump’s role in Jan 6 given his acquittal in the senate.
On Roe they were able to rely on 18th century interpretations of the constitution, ignoring subsequent precedent. This ruling is based exactly on the constitution as written so is harder for the originalist to ignore. The question is how they would interpret Trump’s role in Jan 6 given his acquittal in the senate.
Well there the issue that the 14th amendment doesn’t name the President, you can’t be in congress and you can’t be an officer of the US. So this may not be as clear as you think.
I think the easy out is that deferring to the electorate to make the choice eliminates the need for the state. The purpose of the constitution is to effectively ensure that the will of the electorate isn’t overrode by the actions of the elected. (Also some tyranny of the majority stuff too).
But if you start from the original democratic principle that the people while power it would become fairly easy to argue that unless it explicitly stated something having the electorate make the decision rather than judges provides a lot of cover.
So many people have bowed down to Trump for so long that when suddenly the law calls it exactly like it is, it seems outrageous to some. How dare they?
Wish more states would follow suit, somehow. He clearly shouldn't be able to run for President again.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
Another weird thing afoot is that Bob Good has taken leadership of the House Freedom Caucus and come out in favor of Desantis and against Trump. That's generally the most Trumpy faction of the Republican congress.
A reminder that Bob Good is well known here in Virginia for primaring out Denver Riggleman who was a well liked businessman who owned a distillery, had libertarian tendencies and was a vocal member of the freedom caucus. Riggleman did officiate a same sex wedding though and that caught the ire of the very crazy republicans in Jerry Fallwell country.
They knew they couldn't primary him out in the traditional sense, so the local Republican committee changed the rules to move to hastily organized drive thru convention vote in a church parking lot.
Good taking over the freedom caucus, showing he is capable of all the dirty tricks and coming out against Trump with all the backing of the mega church fundamentalists seems like it should be much bigger news than it is.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
