Donald Trump in Hot Water

[Edgy MD]

Pretty amazing. Most such petitions have failed. I expect it to fail on Supreme Court appeal also, but the ruling will open up a lot of new doors.

[TransMonk]

You beat a person at the ballot box, not in a courtroom.

If only we had already done that with Trump.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, that's not a lost point. Beating a guy at the ballot box isn't beating him if he won't stand down and we are unwilling to use the law to force him to stand down.

[Centerfield]

Pretty amazing. Most such petitions have failed. I expect it to fail on Supreme Court appeal also, but the ruling will open up a lot of new doors.

I had expected no State Court to take this bold step. But now that it’s before the Supreme Court I don’t know what will happen.

At first I thought they would just reverse the decision. But if they do that, aren’t they directly overruling the Constitution? He did participate in an insurrection. Seems little doubt about it.

If they overrule, can they ever enforce this provision?

[nymr83]

Pretty amazing. Most such petitions have failed. I expect it to fail on Supreme Court appeal also, but the ruling will open up a lot of new doors.

I had expected no State Court to take this bold step. But now that it’s before the Supreme Court I don’t know what will happen.

At first I thought they would just reverse the decision. But if they do that, aren’t they directly overruling the Constitution? He did participate in an insurrection. Seems little doubt about it.

If they overrule, can they ever enforce this provision?

decent breakdown here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10569

[Edgy MD]

I appreciate and value Congressional Research Service, but I get frustrated when I read passages like:

The breach of the Capitol resulted in numerous injuries, multiple deaths, and significant property damage. It also delayed Congress’s constitutional duty of certifying electoral votes for President-elect Joseph Biden and caused Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel to evacuate the Vice President and Members of Congress from the House and Senate floors to safer locations.

The issue isn't what resulted, but what was the intended result. I realize that CRS has to be careful to remain detached, but it's right out there, begging to be addressed.

Less frustrating is this:

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary

This is much more interesting. In the Colorado case, of the three dissenters, one explicitly opposed the decision in the case because President Trump has not been charged with insurrection, while another voted to dismiss because the former president has not been convicted of a crime. The third did not believe the court had the authority to decide the issue under the state’s elections code.

To take that statement as guidance, precedent would dismiss the concerns of the first two dissenters, while the case going to the Supreme Court would render the concerns of authority of the third dissenter irrelevant.

Also, not being "charged with insurrection" seems to seize to tightly too the letter of the law, if what he has been charged with is tantamount to insurrection, but the statute he is charged with violating uses a different term to describe seditious actions.

So, what is left it would seem is for the court to rule on whether Colorado had the authority to kick him off a primary ballot, which six of seven members of Colorado's court seemed to think they do, and if so, whether, they need to over-rule the state's conclusion that he has engaged in insurrection.

Reviewing the facts and evidence rather than procedure and application is usually not the role the Court wants to take, but since this is generally considered a "novel" concern, they could well (and I suspect probably will) consider this as a matter of application.

But it's after midnight and I'm a-guessing.

[Lefty Specialist]

Pretty amazing. Most such petitions have failed. I expect it to fail on Supreme Court appeal also, but the ruling will open up a lot of new doors.

I had expected no State Court to take this bold step. But now that it’s before the Supreme Court I don’t know what will happen.

At first I thought they would just reverse the decision. But if they do that, aren’t they directly overruling the Constitution? He did participate in an insurrection. Seems little doubt about it.

If they overrule, can they ever enforce this provision?

They'll find a logic to overrule. Technically he hasn't been convicted of insurrection....yet. They could make it one of their 'for this particular case only and not a precedent' rulings as they did in Bush v. Gore in Florida 2000. The fact that this has been rejected by state Supreme Courts in other states like Michigan, Minnesota and Arizona may play into it as well.

[whippoorwill]

I wonder if it would have been easier to convict if the insurrection had played out to his goal.

Even the Supreme Court would have to back the (real) law on that

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think if the insurrection had achieved its goal, Trump would still be President.

[metsmarathon]

if the insurrection achieved its goal, trump would be king

[A Boy Named Seo]

I'm glad CO did and hope other states follow. Make the SC overturn it. We collectively have to push back on Trump when he violates law and ignores the Constitution, otherwise that sheet of paper is meaningless and we should just close shop on this little American experiment.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You beat a person at the ballot box, not in a courtroom.

Yup. Yup. And Yup.

Bullshit. By that logic, a 20 year old could run for President. Or a French-born.

Anyways, Trump is fucking Satan. He needs to be destroyed by any means possible.

But don't hold your breath hoping for a SCOTUS affirmance. Bush v Gore.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Anyways, Trump is fucking Satan.

And I bet Trump is enjoying it more than Satan is.

[Centerfield]

Pretty amazing. Most such petitions have failed. I expect it to fail on Supreme Court appeal also, but the ruling will open up a lot of new doors.

I had expected no State Court to take this bold step. But now that it’s before the Supreme Court I don’t know what will happen.

At first I thought they would just reverse the decision. But if they do that, aren’t they directly overruling the Constitution? He did participate in an insurrection. Seems little doubt about it.

If they overrule, can they ever enforce this provision?

They'll find a logic to overrule. Technically he hasn't been convicted of insurrection....yet. They could make it one of their 'for this particular case only and not a precedent' rulings as they did in Bush v. Gore in Florida 2000. The fact that this has been rejected by state Supreme Courts in other states like Michigan, Minnesota and Arizona may play into it as well.

I think this is probably right.

We can't apply it yet in this situation because the trial is still pending...bla bla blah.

Which would mean that the next guy can roll a tank up to the Capitol, guns blazing, wearing a shirt that says "INSURRECTIONIST", carrying signs that say "----> this way to the insurrection", while screaming "this is an insurrection against the United States of America and I am leading it". And he could still appear on the ballot if the trial is still pending.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Supreme Court could do whatever the fuck it wants to do. It'll reverse Colorado and if it has to apply the most shameless, contrived or absurd reasoning, then so be it. Whaddyagonnado about it?

[metirish]

Who wants to tell him?

[TransMonk]

RFK, Jr.: "...his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable."

No different than it is now Bobby K. Trump supporters did not accept the result when he lost last time. They will not accept the result in 2024 if he loses again.

This is a stupid hill to fight on...proving that RFK is just a blowhard provocateur and not a serious person.

[Centerfield]

Supreme Court denies Smith's request to hear the immunity argument on an expedited basis. Meaning it goes to the Circuit Court first, then potentially the Supreme Court.

The delay, of course, helps Trump. The partisan fucking assholes will try in the most chickenshit way possible to drag things out and help the fucker without making it explicit that they are helping the fucker.

The Court used to be the one thing keeping us from anarchy. Can't help but think we may be completely fucked.

[MFS62]

Can't help but think we may be completely fucked.

A brief, but accurate, description.
Later

[MFS62]

This just in.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump's appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Arguments will be held in early February.

Later

[MFS62]

Here's some more ad fodder for the Democrats - Mushroom Man didn't sign an Illinois loyalty pledge to not try to overthrow the government.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 140360007/

Later

[Lefty Specialist]

Speaking of water, hot or otherwise, apparently Trump has no idea how magnets work when water is involved.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1743473561837179153

There's your cognitive decline for you.

[MFS62]

Speaking of water, hot or otherwise, apparently Trump has no idea how magnets work when water is involved.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1743473561837179153

There's your cognitive decline for you.

There should be a snack named after him - Screaming Yellow Bonkers.
Later

[Edgy MD]

I fear we may be turning this into the "Donald Trump is an Awful Candidate" thread.

[Lefty Specialist]

'Water' was the key.

I think perhaps we need a 'Donald Trump is BOTH dangerous and stupid' thread.