• 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

Pretty sure this is 9-0 or 8-1 (Sotomayor dissenting), with a narrow holding that Colorado (or any other state) can’t, by itself, disqualify a candidate for the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
 
Yeah they're just torching that poor Colorado guy. Brutal. I feel like at any moment Gorscuch might give the Billy Madison speech and walk out.
 
DrG41 said:
Maybe he can run but not hold office?
Click to expand...
That seemed like an off ramp that was contemplated during the initial questioning of Mitchell, but there’s no way the Court wants to punt on this now and then have to deal with the shit storm to come if Trump wins. Especially since there are plenty of other ways to rule where they don’t have to.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if they take the off ramp KBJ suggested and say that because the language of the amendment doesn't expressly name the role of president while naming a multitude of others, it doesn't apply in this context.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Pretty sure this is 9-0 or 8-1 (Sotomayor dissenting), with a narrow holding that Colorado (or any other state) can’t, by itself, disqualify a candidate for the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
So how and when would sec 3 get implemented and enforced?
 
birdman said:
So how and when would sec 3 get implemented and enforced?
Click to expand...
Through some sort of enactment by Congress implementing Section 3, or following a criminal conviction for insurrection (even if we assume it applies to the president at all)
 
But criminal convictions weren’t required back when this was crafted and applied…right?
 
I'm all for Trump not being our next president but I can't imagine the mess we'd have if the court ruled in favor of Colorado.
 
Barca nailed it. This Court is so fuckin politicized. Having spent 45 years now as a lawyer, it pains me to say that. And Thomas is just shameless.
I had a young lawyer ask me to come to a local Federalist Society meeting. He took umbrage when I told him that Federalist Society members jack off to their Scalia posters.
 
I think it is really messed up that if you commit a federal crime you can’t vote, but you can run for office.
 
Thomas is shameless…getting all of these “perks”, houses, tuition, trips, etc. and then saying he needs a raise.

Fuck him!
 
Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, sedition or treason in a court of law. Despite the evidence, it hasn't happened yet. That remains the reason the SCOTUS will rule against Colorado. I'm glad Colorado gave it a try. It will force the SCOTUS to provide an opinion, which could reveal other factors in play.
 
BlackjackMc said:
Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, sedition or treason in a court of law. Despite the evidence, it hasn't happened yet. That remains the reason the SCOTUS will rule against Colorado. I'm glad Colorado gave it a try. It will force the SCOTUS to provide an opinion, which could reveal other factors in play.
Click to expand...
There were majority votes in both houses of Congress saying Trump did engage in insurrection. The vote in the Senate (57) was not large enough to bar him from office, as that required 67 votes.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Is that a court of law?
Click to expand...
Probably not relevant. If it’s not self-executing, then it requires an act of Congress, which Blue is claiming would apply with impeachment.

Lawyers, correct me if I’m off-base.
 
BlackjackMc said:
Trump has never been convicted of insurrection, sedition or treason in a court of law. Despite the evidence, it hasn't happened yet. That remains the reason the SCOTUS will rule against Colorado. I'm glad Colorado gave it a try. It will force the SCOTUS to provide an opinion, which could reveal other factors in play.
Click to expand...

Not able to follow too closely, but I wonder if the sc will merely rule that a single state can’t bar Trump for insurrection…that a state’s judgment in such a case is inadequate for such proscription. And they (sc) won’t rule on the question of whether Trump’s guilty of insurrection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top