Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2024, 21:20 last edited by
"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?
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2024, 21:22 last edited by
Kagan is the only one who "seemed" sympathetic, according to accounts.
And by "sympathetic," I don't mean she agreed.
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2024, 22:04 last edited by
She seemed skeptical in her questioning
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2024, 22:06 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 8 Feb 2024, 22:45 last edited by@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?
-
wrote on 8 Feb 2024, 23:14 last edited by
Hopefully it does.
-
@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?
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 00:12 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 00:16 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 00:32 last edited by@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 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?
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 00:34 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 00:37 last edited by@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 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.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 01:47 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 09:59 last edited by
In 2020 Colorado went for Biden by 13.5.
Maine splits their electoral votes and Biden got 3 to Trump’s 1.
-
In 2020 Colorado went for Biden by 13.5.
Maine splits their electoral votes and Biden got 3 to Trump’s 1.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 14:59 last edited by@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?
-
@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?
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:04 last edited by@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 insurrectionis. -
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:18 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:25 last edited by
In any event it is a sad state of affairs we are in.
-
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.
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:30 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
-
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 15:57 last edited by
It's ok with me if they keep insurrectionists off the ballot.
Before he is kept off the ballot, Mr. Trump would have to be convicted of insurrection, or at least have some kind of due process that condemns him.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
wrote on 9 Feb 2024, 16:29 last edited by@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
From the beginning I’ve said this is unworkable and scotus should overrule.
Yet that doesn't ameliorate your disgust at Trump's electors plan. That too was unworkable and would have been smacked down by scotus.
using a constitutional provision designed to keep insurrectionists off the ballot to keep an insurrectionist off the ballot
Then why should scotus overrule?
Because it’s unworkable and vague as written, at least without enabling legislation.
