American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[chedder]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Trump will never take the office again. Won't happen.

Don't do this to the world. We remember the last guarantee you made.

(I'm just kidding here, don't read this as anything else).

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by chedder

Don't do this to the world. We remember the last guarantee you made.

(I'm just kidding here, don't read this as anything else).

I never said I guarantee it. Just my opinion.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

The Colorado ruling doesn't change much. Trump will still get elected President and democracy in the USA will be dead.

You’d better be wrong. A friend feels as you do and offered to bet me $1,000. His wife told him NO so our bet is $100 on whether Trump wins; I say no.

[Dion]

Strict reading of the law supports Colorado ruling — but SCOTUS won't: columnists

"The four justices who voted in the majority adhered to three stalwart principles of judicial conservatism: textualism (by which judges endeavor to strictly apply the plain text of the Constitution), originalism (by which they refer to historical sources for a contemporaneous understanding of that text), and federalism (by which judges take pains to respect the dual sovereignty of the states alongside the federal government as well as the state courts’ concomitant prerogative to construe their own laws)," she wrote.

It will all likely be ignored, however, she said, because, after all, they've ignored their own laws before in Bush v. Gore. The court ruled in 2000 that the manual recount under Florida law violated the Constitution's equal-protection clause, and then handed George W. Bush the win with 537 votes.

At the time, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers."

Bloomberg Law Noah Feldman doesn't expect the national Supreme Court to uphold the Colorado decision, regardless of what the text from both the state and federal Constitution says.

"The high court has several means at its disposal to overturn the Colorado ruling, none of which are ideal from the standpoint of the conservative majority. But all are at least conceivable," he wrote. "To see the justices’ options, here’s a short tour through the main points of the Colorado decision."

First, he said, they could ignore the Gorsuch opinion entirely, saying a state doesn't have any authority to decide their own ballots, despite the inconsistency.

Second, the one case that has been used to address Section 3 does not go into effect until Congress passes a law providing for its execution, which it hasn't done. Written in 1869 it might not work as it isn't a technically binding precedent.

The third option involves the meaning of the words "an officer of the United States." While Colorado said that it applies to any and everyone in elected office not directly mentioned, the High Court could ignore it entirely and say the president isn't an "officer." Still, the presidency is an office that was created under the Constitution and therefore "of the U.S.," said Feldman.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit...601bbc0da&ei=7

[Dion]

SCOTUS gives Trump a hand as justices kick can down the road on immunity claim

The super-conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court is refusing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request to rule on ex-president and criminal defendant Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” and cannot be prosecuted for any crimes he may have committed during his time as President.

Smith had requested the nation’s highest court take up this question: “Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”

Trump is claiming both absolute immunity and ineligible for prosecution because the U.S. Senate found him not guilty after the House impeached him.
The justices’ response to Smith’s request was a short as possible: “Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment DENIED.”

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...6ee5a7d9&ei=13

[MoneyGuy]

If presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes, someone should tell Biden.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

If presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes, someone should tell Biden.

I mean, that is basically how you end up with banana republics where the sitting president can just have their opposition killed off.

[nfotiu]

Back to having a duel to decide the next president I guess.

[photon]

Duel? The president is immune, they can just openly disappear their opponent.

[Coach]

Honestly, from hearing what some of the usual legal guests on the networks, this seems to me like it might have been a good long play by Smith.

- You push the conservative Supreme Court (with three Judges appointed to their lifetime positions by the Defendant, which is completely ridiculous on it's own). To make a pretty tough decision. If the court was liberal with the one (or possibly two appointments - I think RGB would have retired during Obama if the Republicans hadn't been playing dirty with appointments) they would probably take it up and rule right away (as they actually should). But they chicken out and push it back to the state.

- He never actually cited the election as a reason for the need for speed. A bunch of vagaries about the "public interest", which is what Trumps team argued down as an illegitimate reason.

- This will (I think) force the state to move ASAP. Even on a moderate timeline this trial would be happening during the election run-up. So if they trial ASAP and he's found guilty (which he very clearly should be), it's up to Trump to try and get the SCOTUS to move as fast as possible, for the very same reasons he just argued against.

- His whole public defence of attacking the integrity of the court will fall apart when facing a conservative SCOTUS that has 3 judges appointed by him.

I think Trump is in a real tight spot here. In the end it will be a toss up between the court upholding the law or not, not a question of whether or not he's guilty. I do have genuine fear what might happen in some parts of the US if he is found guilty at either level, but it just HAS to be if they want to prove to the world and themselves that their whole system isn't just a sham. We all know there are parts of it that are, and honestly, the weakness of the judicial system is what allowed Trump to become what he is. If it wasn't broken as is, he would have been in jail years before he ever had a chance to run for President. So it's not just him that needs to be flushed, but it's a very public test of the highest legal matters.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Back to having a duel to decide the next president I guess.

I think with the current two candidates a bicycle race would be far more entertaining.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I think Trump is a pig but the Colorado decision is a terrible legal mistake and an awful precedence that hopefully will be overturned and likely will be overturned. This can only lead to Tit for Tat reprisals and further law fair. The idea that a democratic appointed court can remove someone off of ballot without due process is pretty silly to me

Is the lawsuit not the due process? I'm confused.

[dino7c]

defendant Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” and cannot be prosecuted for any crimes he may have committed during his time as President.

sounds like something an innocent man would argue in court lol

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by dino7c

defendant Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” and cannot be prosecuted for any crimes he may have committed during his time as President.

sounds like something an innocent man would argue in court lol

I honestly believe that in his mind, that if he believes he can’t be touched, for whatever he does, that qualifies as innocence.

He has no moral conscience.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by dino7c

defendant Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” and cannot be prosecuted for any crimes he may have committed during his time as President.

sounds like something an innocent man would argue in court lol

I mean, if that's the case . . . wouldn't Biden just liquidate him in broad daylight? Or say all the members of an entire political party that he doesn't like?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I mean, if that's the case . . . wouldn't Biden just liquidate him in broad daylight? Or say all the members of an entire political party that he doesn't like?

Absolute Immunity wouldn't apply to Biden, just Trump. Why on Earth would it apply to Biden?!

[Reggie Dunlop]

Biden could just shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.... right?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Biden could just shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.... right?

I mean if Trump wins his argument he could have Trump offed and should. That is why there is no way in hell the SC can rule that way.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I mean if Trump wins his argument he could have Trump offed and should. That is why there is no way in hell the SC can rule that way.

I wouldn’t bet on that.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

i mean if trump wins his argument he could have trump a few supreme court justices offed and should. That is why there is no way in hell the sc can rule that way.

fyp