Trump Disqualified in Colorado

[taiwan_girl]

I am semi listening to that. Thanks for the link. Quite interesting to hear something like that. (Not just this case, but how the Supreme Cort works.)

[Jolly]

Alito destroyed the attorney during questioning.

[Horace]

I listened to an interview with David French recently. He's of the opinion that keeping Trump from the ballot via lawfare is less destabilizing than letting him run. So that's where one mainstream cultural conservative is at. I guess he represents millions.

Of course, there's zero chance any such claim can be established to any degree of certainty. The only certain thing is that the precedent is novel, and will be reused in the future. The claim is only a gut feeling, shared by millions of weak minded TDS sufferers, safe in the mob they are surrounded by.

[Mik]

Whether the net effect would be good or bad is irrelevant. This is not about how everyone feels.

Although if we let them have their way with the constitution it one day might be.

[Jolly]

"Glacial" is the word being used to describe the Colorado's attorney's argument reception by SCOTUS, even the more liberal judges.

Could we see an unanimous decision?

[George K]

Kagan is the only one who "seemed" sympathetic, according to accounts.

And by "sympathetic," I don't mean she agreed.

[jon-nyc]

She seemed skeptical in her questioning

[jon-nyc]

I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.

What's the end result in the long run?

Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?

[89th]

Hopefully it does.

[Horace]

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.

What's the end result in the long run?

Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?

If Trump had been a lot more serious in his attempt to steal our democracy via paperwork filed by faithless electors, it would have gotten to the Supreme Court and shot down summarily. So the fact that SCOTUS will actually have to shoot this down summarily, means that the anti-Trump crowed made a more legit attempt at subverting our Democracy via paperwork, than Trump ever did. Those are just facts. Or, they will be, when SCOTUS shits on this attempt.

[Jolly]

Another 2 cents...I can't remember Trump thumbing his nose and ignoring a court decision, Scream, kick, curse, appeal, use every piece of legal tactic available and be dragged to compliance, but he complied.

The Biden Administration seems like they can ignore what they don't like.

[LuFins Dad]

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

Another 2 cents...I can't remember Trump thumbing his nose and ignoring a court decision, Scream, kick, curse, appeal, use every piece of legal tactic available and be dragged to compliance, but he complied.

The Biden Administration seems like they can ignore what they don't like.

How so?

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.

What's the end result in the long run?

Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?

Yeah it’ll be dead, assuming at least 5 sign on to the same reasoning that kills it, such as the enabling legislation argument. Which I think they will.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.

What's the end result in the long run?

Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?

If Trump had been a lot more serious in his attempt to steal our democracy via paperwork filed by faithless electors, it would have gotten to the Supreme Court and shot down summarily. So the fact that SCOTUS will actually have to shoot this down summarily, means that the anti-Trump crowed made a more legit attempt at subverting our Democracy via paperwork, than Trump ever did. Those are just facts. Or, they will be, when SCOTUS shits on this attempt.

This is just wrong. He attempted to overturn an election. These two states attempted to keep a single name off a ballot.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.

What's the end result in the long run?

Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?

If Trump had been a lot more serious in his attempt to steal our democracy via paperwork filed by faithless electors, it would have gotten to the Supreme Court and shot down summarily. So the fact that SCOTUS will actually have to shoot this down summarily, means that the anti-Trump crowed made a more legit attempt at subverting our Democracy via paperwork, than Trump ever did. Those are just facts. Or, they will be, when SCOTUS shits on this attempt.

This is just wrong. He attempted to overturn an election. These two states attempted to keep a single name off a ballot.

According to the polls, that single name not being on the ballot is likely to change the results of the next election.

[jon-nyc]

In 2020 Colorado went for Biden by 13.5.

Maine splits their electoral votes and Biden got 3 to Trump’s 1.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

In 2020 Colorado went for Biden by 13.5.

Maine splits their electoral votes and Biden got 3 to Trump’s 1.

So we're quibbling over price, when precedent is obviously the important thing here. If it works in CO and ME, then what?

[George K]

@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

So we're quibbling over price, when precedent is obviously the important thing here. If it works in CO and ME, then what?

Exactly. This is a dangerous precedent. What’s to stop Texas from disqualifying Biden because he’s ignoring immigration laws?

And, it doesn’t even matter if he is. All they have to do is say that he participated in an insurrection is.

[jon-nyc]

From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule. I just don’t think that using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot is on the same level as trying to overturn a presidential election.

The constitution doesn’t guarantee Trump a right to try it again.