Colorado SC just disqualified Trump from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the Constitution

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Charmonium

Charmonium

Lifer
May 15, 2015
10,516
3,519
136
All of the talking heads are saying that SCOTUS either won't take the case, take it and not decide it or rule in favor of Trump.

The problem is that there's no doubt of any kind regarding Trump's various attempts to stay in office. So . . . if the court doesn't bar him from office what they're basically saying is that the insurrection clause is moribund and no longer has any effect.

So the court in charge of interpreting the constitution is essentially saying that the constitution is irrelevant.
 
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,366
16,635
146
Charmonium said:
All of the talking heads are saying that SCOTUS either won't take the case, take it and not decide it or rule in favor of Trump.

The problem is that there's no doubt of any kind regarding Trump's various attempts to stay in office. So . . . if the court doesn't bar him from office what they're basically saying is that the insurrection clause is moribund and no longer has any effect.

So the court in charge of interpreting the constitution is essentially saying that the constitution is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Then that should clear the way for Biden to simply say that he's staying in power, and Republicans can drum up a few generals if they feel like overthrowing him and replacing him with Trump. There's no consequences right? So for the good of the country... Kamala can make a different decision when he keels over if she feels like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pens1566, iRONic, Dave_5k and 3 others
woolfe9998

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,243
136
I quoted 14As3 several times here, and it didn't get much attention. Yet it seems pretty cut and dry to me. If SCOTUS is going to let him off on this one, then they better explain. Does it first require a guilty finding in a criminal case? If so, why? There was a factual finding by the lower court in this case, that Trump engaged in insurrection or, actually, all the underlying facts plus the conclusion that it was insurrection. They are stuck with the lower court's factual findings. They are going to have to screw around with the definition of "insurrection," even though Trump's conduct seems to fit any reasonable definition of that word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pens1566, iRONic, Vic and 1 other person
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
woolfe9998 said:
I quoted 14As3 several times here, and it didn't get much attention. Yet it seems pretty cut and dry to me. If SCOTUS is going to let him off on this one, then they better explain. Does it first require a guilty finding in a criminal case? If so, why? There was a factual finding by the lower court in this case, that Trump engaged in insurrection or, actually, all the underlying facts plus the conclusion that it was insurrection. They are stuck with the lower court's factual findings. They are going to have to screw around with the definition of "insurrection," even though Trump's conduct seems to fit any reasonable definition of that word.
Click to expand...
Yes, I will be interested to see their reasoning why attempting to illegally stay in control of the government after losing the election is not the sort of conduct 14-3 was intended to punish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris, iRONic, Fenixgoon and 2 others
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,731
6,755
126
Anything but an
fskimospy said:
Yes.

Not a novel application at all, it's entirely straightforward. 1) The Constitution bars officials who engage in insurrection from office. 2) Trump engaged in an insurrection. 1 -> 2.

Although it is true it's never been applied to a presidential candidate/former president before. This is of course because no other one engaged in an insurrection! Similarly, the Espionage Act had never been applied to a former president before...because no others violated the Espionage Act.

This is a political argument, not a legal one.

This disagreement is facially ridiculous. The idea that the people who wrote the 14th amendment thought any federal official engaging in insurrection should be barred from office except for the most powerful one is laughable.

Can anyone explain with a straight face why the framers of the 14th amendment would write it to say say 'insurrection is barred unless you're the president, in that case insurrect all you want.'?

That doesn't make the case weak.

This I agree with - but corruption in the federal judiciary doesn't make the case weak, it makes the judiciary corrupt.
Click to expand...
For these reasons plus the need for no appearance of a conflict of interest, an 8,0 decision is the only one that can represent an Supreme Court following the law and the Constitution. This is simply crystal clear. A decision other than that will indicate who is corrupt and who is not. So what makes corruption possible. The problem, of course, is that no matter the number of layers of protection against corruption we can think of to put in place all of them, where human beings are involved, are subject to human ego. For unenlightened humans every ego-involved moral question comes down to whose ox gets gored.

And that is because self hate creates fear. Our egos become attached to isms out in the world as a ego identification that provides a source of phony pride. In the Supreme Court today we see that as a commitment to God over the Constitution. Good depends on Him and not man made law and where the Constitution does not match the religious belief it will get shoe horned in via legal fictions and rationalizations. This is all because as children the religious are taught that their souls are at risk of eternal damnation if they do not behave. You will get no justice from them that derives solely from secular wisdom.

What can be done? How can there ever be an answer to this that does not depend on a person's inner character. Only the ego free can resist this. Only those who willing to sacrifice their own personal ambitions and truth for the sake of others can offer any hope. Meanwhile, some help can come from changes in the law that determine who sits on the court and how many justices there are, length of terms etc. Another would be, in my opinion, that lawyers arguing for justice against the political bias they perceive in the court should make their suspicions known and directly challenge the justices in arguments as to where their bias is coming from and why they have it. Thirdly, we need to find some way to reinvigorate the determination among the population of our nation to prefer truth above all else, to develop better citizens and inner character.

It would also be nice if millions of people would take to the streets around the Supreme Court. Why should justices willing to put their own political philosophies above the interests of democracy get to live their lives in peace. Why shouldn't a call for justice hammer in their ears. We know that decisions by the unenlightened are made on the basis of self interest and self interests change with the environment. A new fear can cancel override another. Other people have interests too.
 
nOOky

nOOky

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2004
3,258
2,343
136
Doncha just know if this goes before the SC there's no doubt that like the abortion issue, it should be left up to the states, as the Constitution says.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111 and iRONic
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
nOOky said:
Doncha just know if this goes before the SC there's no doubt that like the abortion issue, it should be left up to the states, as the Constitution says.
Click to expand...
I’m looking forward to them squaring it with their prior gerrymandering decisions.

Gerrymandering: ‘the states must be allowed to run elections for federal offices how they see fit.’

Trump: ‘no, not like that’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie, Pens1566, cytg111 and 3 others
G

gothuevos

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2010
3,439
2,397
136
Is it worth a large chunk of the country becoming ungovernable if something like this goes through? What is the endgame here? This quickly becomes a zero sum game of trying to consolidate power, or even worse, one of retribution.

And as many of you said, if the tables are turned on the Democrats one day, unlikely that this SCOTUS comes in to save the day.
 
nakedfrog

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,727
18,889
136
gothuevos said:
Is it worth a large chunk of the country becoming ungovernable if something like this goes through? What is the endgame here? This quickly becomes a zero sum game of trying to consolidate power, or even worse, one of retribution.

And as many of you said, if the tables are turned on the Democrats one day, unlikely that this SCOTUS comes in to save the day.
Click to expand...
I think the endgame is "keep insurrectionists off the ballot". Is that unreasonable?
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: DarthKyrie, sandorski, iRONic and 5 others
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
gothuevos said:
Is it worth a large chunk of the country becoming ungovernable if something like this goes through? What is the endgame here? This quickly becomes a zero sum game of trying to consolidate power, or even worse, one of retribution.

And as many of you said, if the tables are turned on the Democrats one day, unlikely that this SCOTUS comes in to save the day.
Click to expand...
It’s funny how you think Republican domination and descent into despotism is inevitable and are simultaneously shitting your pants about people pushing back.

I know you’re only happy when you’re miserable but you should probably try to square those two ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie, kage69 and iRONic
G

gothuevos

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2010
3,439
2,397
136
fskimospy said:
It’s funny how you think Republican domination and descent into despotism is inevitable and are simultaneously shitting your pants about people pushing back.

I know you’re only happy when you’re miserable but you should probably try to square those two ideas.
Click to expand...

Like I said in a different thread,

"People should know when they're conquered."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,934
55,287
136
gothuevos said:
Like I said in a different thread,

"People should know when they're conquered."
Click to expand...
You have been saying this for years and then when it turns out your dooming is wrong you do not reconsider, you just predict it again. You are the Peter Schiff of political prognostication. A clown.

All your stupidity aside if that’s the case you should be happy with Democrats playing hardball and trying to avert your conquest. Why aren’t you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie, kage69 and iRONic
trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,776
8,350
136
Don't you all know that doing this kind of thing to Trump pisses off his cult mob to newer and higher levels of angst and revenge lust? Can't have that. His feelings are hurt so of course he's going to take it out on pile of Big Macs, fries and gallons of Coke which isn't good for his looks and his fans must truly be very concerned about that, right? So that's going to piss off his disciples even worse and we surely can't be that naughty, eh? /s

All Trump is doing at the moment is further turning the party faithful into religiously biased nationalist separatist racists of whom Trump would have them believe he is being illegally persecuted by the establishment Biden cabal. He's doing a really good job of it too because preaching to a choir of useful losers like himself is about the only thing he's good at. They and he really do see eye to eye in this way.

The deeper and deeper into the legal morass he gets himself into, the more he is going to raise the ire of his base of fools and there is no ceiling to hit because there is no limit to what his followers will believe that comes out of that narcissist hole in his face.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,731
6,755
126
fskimospy said:
I’m looking forward to them squaring it with their prior gerrymandering decisions.

Gerrymandering: ‘the states must be allowed to run elections for federal offices how they see fit.’

Trump: ‘no, not like that’.
Click to expand...
It’s going to be fun in many ways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom