• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2024 Presidential Primaries and Election

I don't know what's hard to understand about my post. Trump has a huge lead. People voting for Trump won't say anything already known about Trump make them less likely to vote for him. So "more likely" and "just as likely" have an overwhelming majority.

Those are clown questions for a candidate as well-known as Trump.
 
The Colorado Supreme Court barred Trump from appearing on the ballot based on the 14th amendment.

The state Supreme Court decision only applies to Colorado but the historic ruling will roil the 2024 presidential campaign. It tees up an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which could settle the matter for the entire nation. Colorado election officials have said the matter needs to be settled by January 5, which is the statutory deadline to set the list of candidates for the GOP primary.


Ratified after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the wording is vague, it doesn’t explicitly mention the presidency, and has only been applied twice since 1919.


All seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors. Six of the seven subsequently won statewide retention elections to stay on the bench. The seventh was only appointed in 2021 and hasn’t yet faced voters.
Click to expand...
 
Hell yes.

Seems like an obvious ruling, but F if it’s not quite uncertain to hold.
 
ConnorEl said:
Hell yes.

Seems like an obvious ruling, but F if it’s not quite uncertain to hold.
Click to expand...
Can't wait to see the excuses and pretzel-twisting reasoning our "impartial" and "states rights supporting" US Supreme Court majority uses to overturn this decision, as they almost certainly will.
 
Highland Deac said:
Can't wait to see the excuses and pretzel-twisting reasoning our "impartial" and "states rights supporting" US Supreme Court majority uses to overturn this decision, as they almost certainly will.
Click to expand...
That and all of the people trying to beat him in a primary sucking up to voters by saying it’s the gravest act of injustice by woke activist judges ever
 
Hello Wisconsin and Georgia! Hell, Nevada?

Any Dem Lawyers listening? Just one will do!
 
Highland Deac said:
Can't wait to see the excuses and pretzel-twisting reasoning our "impartial" and "states rights supporting" US Supreme Court majority uses to overturn this decision, as they almost certainly will.
Click to expand...

Don't be shocked if it's 9-0.
 
Dear Friend,

Recently, the radical leftist Colorado State Supreme Court ruled that my dear friend and the President of the United States, Donald Trump, could not be on the ballot in Colorado. This is a clear violation of the Democratic values of this great country. The President was only fighting for what he rightfully won and was stolen from him by the deep state. Now is the time to FIGHT BACK and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

This case is now being appealed to the Supreme Court and I need your help to ensure this Marxist ruling is overturned. As a top supporter of President Donald Trump, can I count on you? For only $99.95 (+S&H), you can help President Trump KEEP HIS RIGHTS to be on the ballot.

I NEED YOU to help the Supreme Court make the right choice TODAY.

Say NO TO THE RADICAL LEFT and SAVE AMERICA by hitting the pay button below.

Best,
Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice
 
Shooshmoo said:
There is zero chance the Supreme Court upholds this. Zero. Point. Zero
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but I’m curious to see how they get there. Some of the arguments from the dissents won’t work because they are Colorado state law issues that the Colorado Supreme Court has final say on.

A way to get there without creating real precedent for the future seems to be hold that what Trump did wasn’t engaging in an insurrection for purposes of Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment (not sure exactly how that plays out - do they say a person need to be convicted of an insurrection to be disqualified or do they say that this wasn’t an insurrection and leave it at that (query: if this wasn’t, then what the hell is)?).

I don’t think SCOTUS is going to want to hold that Sec 3 doesn’t apply to POTUS (that seems like a really shitty argument to me - how can POTUS not be an officer under the United States?) or that the POTUS oath isn’t an oath to support the constitution (though this actually seems like at least a non-frivolous legal argument - probably not to the layperson, but rules of construction, etc.) or that Sec 3 isn’t self-executing, unlike virtually all of the other parts of the reconstruction amendments.
 
WFFaithful said:
thehill.com

Sen. Tillis to introduce legislation barring federal funds from states ‘misusing’ 14th Amendment

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is set to introduce a bill barring federal funds for election administration from states “misusing” the 14th Amendment. “Regardless of whether you support or oppose former…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...

exactly how do you prove "misuse"? from what i have read it went through the proper process...just because you don't like it doesn't mean "misuse".
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
I tend to agree, but I’m curious to see how they get there. Some of the arguments from the dissents won’t work because they are Colorado state law issues that the Colorado Supreme Court has final say on.

A way to get there without creating real precedent for the future seems to be hold that what Trump did wasn’t engaging in an insurrection for purposes of Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment (not sure exactly how that plays out - do they say a person need to be convicted of an insurrection to be disqualified or do they say that this wasn’t an insurrection and leave it at that (query: if this wasn’t, then what the hell is)?).

I don’t think SCOTUS is going to want to hold that Sec 3 doesn’t apply to POTUS (that seems like a really shitty argument to me - how can POTUS not be an officer under the United States?) or that the POTUS oath isn’t an oath to support the constitution (though this actually seems like at least a non-frivolous legal argument - probably not to the layperson, but rules of construction, etc.) or that Sec 3 isn’t self-executing, unlike virtually all of the other parts of the reconstruction amendments.
Click to expand...

Surely the person needs to be convicted of an insurrectionist act before being disqualified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top