• 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!

Trump Not Allowed on Colorado, Maine Ballots

We all know how this will go. the evidence is clear he tried to steal the election but Thomas wants a raise, so he will get a new house in Fla and Trump is back on the tickets.
 
The SC turning on Trump would be what the best drama writers would write.
 
Nah. Give me SCOTUS ruling that Trump can’t be on the ballots by a 5-4 vote on the Friday before the SC primary. Then on Monday, there’s a leak that the Koch Brothers paid Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to go against Trump. Then Trump wins on Tuesday to kick off a massive GOP write-in for Trump campaign through the rest of the primary.
 
how does trump win on tuesday if he's not in the primary? And we probably want to write in one of the Uso brothers to spear Desantis taking him out of the race.
 
Half tongue in cheek/half honest question: if Trump wins his court cases, Presidents are immune of crimes committed in office and can cause an insurrection. With this new latitude, how could Biden ever lose office? Biden could repel by force any election he lost (at least), or assassinate Trump (at worst).

SCOTUS may try to give Trump a narrowly defined victory (not sure exactly how), but the end result is the Constitution becomes null and void, and the Presidency becomes a free-for-all like we see in Russia and China.
 
dartsndeacs said:
how does trump win on tuesday if he's not in the primary? And we probably want to write in one of the Uso brothers to spear Desantis taking him out of the race.
Click to expand...

He’d still be on the ballot. That wouldn’t be enough time to remove him.
 
DeacsPop said:
Just awful that a federal court can’t convict this SOB of these legitimate charges and be done with the charade Maine and Colorado are trying. Until then, they are simply making him a further martyr to his base who wouldn’t care if they led the bastard away in handcuffs.
Click to expand...
Yet you are still conflicted....

Sent from my SM-S711U using Tapatalk
 
One of the news channels had a seemingly reputable Constitutional scholar do a really good job last night of laying out the irony of how any remotely strict/originalist reading of the Constitution is an obvious loss for Trump, but that's the traditional conservative view versus anti-Trumpers who would typically be open to reasonable application of the 14th given the situation. The hyper-literal bear arms folks don't have any way out of the actual wording of the 14th. A fun takeaway would be to let them extract whatever nuanced interpretation they can that allows Trump on the ballot - then do that for all the parts of the Constitution that are questionable or problematic in modern day life. I'll take Trump on the ballot if it opens the door for states to enact Aussie-style gun reform.
 
As we well know, "originalist" is a position of convenience.

Also, if you notice in Trump's appeal of the Colorado ruling, he's not asserting that he didn't participate in an insurrection. He's hinging his argument on these technicalities.
 
DCDeac said:
One of the news channels had a seemingly reputable Constitutional scholar do a really good job last night of laying out the irony of how any remotely strict/originalist reading of the Constitution is an obvious loss for Trump, but that's the traditional conservative view versus anti-Trumpers who would typically be open to reasonable application of the 14th given the situation. The hyper-literal bear arms folks don't have any way out of the actual wording of the 14th. A fun takeaway would be to let them extract whatever nuanced interpretation they can that allows Trump on the ballot - then do that for all the parts of the Constitution that are questionable or problematic in modern day life. I'll take Trump on the ballot if it opens the door for states to enact Aussie-style gun reform.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we've already seen states try to do that and the court has repeatedly shut them down. This 14th amendment stuff is new ground, and while we would all like to hope their should be some consistency to originalism, we know there won't be. Personally I expect it to be 9-0 allowing him back on the ballot. I'm not sure which is worse between the states having control over who can be on their ballot, or the federal government having control, but I do know that to me personally this all feels like a perverse tipping point towards free and fair elections if the ruling stands. I feel like disqualification should be a national thing, otherwise we will immediately see candidates in state elections run on a platform of excluding the opposition in the future.

10 years ago, I admit I'd have called my position hysterical fearmongering, but I don't know how many times we need to have the previously unacceptable be allowed to occur before we realize it's now the norm.
 
I just saw the ME Sec of State on Velshi. She mentioned that she's bound by law and she kept Trump off the ballot for the same reasoning she'd keep someone who's 25 or not a natural born citizen.

The question I'd like to ask, if that's the case, why did she stay her order pending appeal? If it's a black and white qualification, why stay it? She wouldn't have stayed it if someone who is 25 tried to be put on the ballot.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Yeah, but we've already seen states try to do that and the court has repeatedly shut them down. This 14th amendment stuff is new ground, and while we would all like to hope their should be some consistency to originalism, we know there won't be. Personally I expect it to be 9-0 allowing him back on the ballot. I'm not sure which is worse between the states having control over who can be on their ballot, or the federal government having control, but I do know that to me personally this all feels like a perverse tipping point towards free and fair elections if the ruling stands. I feel like disqualification should be a national thing, otherwise we will immediately see candidates in state elections run on a platform of excluding the opposition in the future.

10 years ago, I admit I'd have called my position hysterical fearmongering, but I don't know how many times we need to have the previously unacceptable be allowed to occur before we realize it's now the norm.
Click to expand...
Sure, but how they get to a 9-0 vote matters. It's not like they will just rule "Trump's back on the ballot!" And they didn't consider a more typical narrow Constitutional question like "is the President an Officer" or what "upholding" means. They're taking up "did they err in removing Trump" instead, which is pretty unusual. So they can take any angle they want to get him back on. And while I certainly wish there was a world where he's kept off and we all move on from Trump nationally, I don't think he should be removed at this point, it's just too late and too contentious. If our country is really going to vote this guy President again it's our own collective fault. Regardless, they'll have to come up with reasoning that essentially subverts the common-sense understanding of the actual Constitutional text. On behalf of conservatives. It's gonna be interesting as hell.
 
WFFaithful said:
As we well know, "originalist" is a position of convenience.

Also, if you notice in Trump's appeal of the Colorado ruling, he's not asserting that he didn't participate in an insurrection. He's hinging his argument on these technicalities.
Click to expand...
He never denies the actions. He's never at fault. They do it too. magats are idiots.
 
awaken said:
Half tongue in cheek/half honest question: if Trump wins his court cases, Presidents are immune of crimes committed in office and can cause an insurrection. With this new latitude, how could Biden ever lose office? Biden could repel by force any election he lost (at least), or assassinate Trump (at worst).

SCOTUS may try to give Trump a narrowly defined victory (not sure exactly how), but the end result is the Constitution becomes null and void, and the Presidency becomes a free-for-all like we see in Russia and China.
Click to expand...

The judges ask the assassination question
www.yahoo.com

“Dead man walking”: Experts say Trump immunity lawyer lost judges after he “set a trap for himself”

Trump team “painted themselves into a corner by taking this absolutist position that was simple, silly and wrong"
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
Biden isn’t actually president though since trump won, so that logic wouldn’t hold for him
 
TimmyClutch said:
I am hearing that Trump isn't on the Nevada ballot, not because of the 14th, but because his team failed to file the paperwork.
Click to expand...
True but misleading.


The reason Nevadans will not be able to vote for Trump — or several of the other Republican candidates — in their state's primary is because they chose to participate in the state GOP-sanctioned caucus instead, which will take place two days later

"This has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or disqualification of any candidate," said David Becker, CBS News election law expert and political contributor. "Trump, like several other candidates, chose to stand with the state GOP and compete only in the caucus, where delegates will be chosen."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top