When The Supreme Court Rules Today, Remember This

[gab13by13]

Yeah I'm mainly talking to the legal beagles here. When the court rules if Trump should be removed from the Colorado ballot, or not, that doesn't mean that it interpreted the law correctly.

The Supreme Court's job is to call balls and strikes, with no partiality to the pitcher or to the opposing team. This court has shown that it is not impartial, this court has shown that it leans one way in favor of Benedict Donald.

So when the court does its thing today and rules that Trump is allowed on the ballot, my response will be, So what? We all knew that is how it would rule.

I only go to a handful of sources for my news and in this case, I go to a renowned judge, judge Luttig. Judge Luttig laid out the reasons why the Supreme Court should not allow Benedict Donald on any ballot, and I believe and trust in him, he would have made a fantastic justice.

The key point to watch for in this decision is the reasoning for allowing Benedict Donald on the ballot. The tell that the court was not impartial will be its flimsy reasoning. The only cure is to add more justices and I don't see that happening.

[Sympthsical]

1. And if it's a 9-0 or 8-1 ruling?

Will it still be a staggeringly corrupt ruling when the liberal justices are involved?

"I only go to a handful of sources for my news"

Yeah, this isn't a flex.

[gab13by13]

4. Why are they taking the extra step and releasing its decision today?

Rather odd that the court came out to release today, want to know why? Tomorrow is Super Tuesday and the court wants voters to know that it allows an insurrectionist on the ballot. So yeah, if the court rules 9-0 I'm still with judge Luttig, he has given the best legal argument so far. Running with the herd isn't a legal argument. We shall see what argument the Roberts court comes up with.

[bluestarone]

38. THIS, is the very best reason

To release the decision TODAY! Another way they help TFG forge ahead to destroy our country.

[Sympthsical]

62. Voters need to know if their votes will count

Pretty basic in a democracy, no? Also something I assumed we are for.

Anyway. Thing easily known last month continues to be known. The Court - liberals included - were having none of it.

[Best_man23]

2. I'm not counting on a favorable ruling

As much as I would love to see them rule that Inmate P01135809 is ineligible under the 14th Amendment, I think they're going to say if Colorado is allowed to do this, then it will lead to Red states taking a Democratic candidate off the ballet for whatever insane reason ginned up by the state or local government.

We have to beat them all RESOUNDINGLY at the ballot box.

[gab13by13]

5. You aren't rebutting my post with a legal argument, sorry.

One corrupt umpire leading to a 2nd corrupt umpire isn't the answer.

[jaxexpat]

52. Beat them soundly at the ballot box and rule ruthlessly in Washington.

Undo everything they've done which goes against the will and welfare of the people. In other words, reduce their voices to muted acceptance of their proper place.
Oh, and put Fox News on trial for conspiracy to defraud and promote insurrection onto the public using the public airwaves.

[kelly1mm]

63. Fox news is not on the public airwaves .... just saying. nt

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. I have no illusions regarding the 14th Amendment case.

Even with the evidence of the Jan 6th Committee, the Supreme Court will rule that he can be on the Ballot in the states, and that the states cannot remove him.

It will be the Immunity case TSF really wants to go in his favor. THAT will not happen. Democrats will pounce on that and the Immunity ruling regardless.

[gab13by13]

6. I agree that this court will improperly rule

that Benedict Donald, an insurrectionist, can remain on the ballot, but you also have given no legal reason why?

Just because we know that this court is maybe the worst court in our nation's history, just because we can predict its decisions, doesn't make them right.

[Meadowoak]

7. Leave Trump on the ballot in all 50 states, so Biden

Can beat him fair and square, AGAIN.

[gab13by13]

9. Once again, not a legal reason.

[sop]

8. SCOTUS: Trump has not been adjudicated an insurrectionist yet...because we delayed his insurrection trial.

[gab13by13]

10. The Colorado Supreme Court,

did, in fact, Adjudicate Benedict Donald, to be an insurrectionist. It went through all of the steps.

[sop]

17. That's the real issue, isn't it?

Colorado's SC said Trump did engage in insurrection, as did the Maine Secretary of State, a Cook County judge in Illinois, the January 6 Commission and the House impeachment inquiry. Will the Supreme Court reject all those conclusions and absolve Trump of insurrection? I don't think they will.

The Supreme Court will probably rule for Trump on technicalities and remain silent on the lower court's findings. Delaying Jack Smith's prosecution might be their way of avoiding ruling on Trump's guilt; they can say he hasn't been found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers.

[Zeitghost]

65. The Federal case brought by Smith

Doesn't involve charges of insurrection, so it's outcome won't change anything regarding his eligibility under the 14th ammendment.

[sop]

72. You're correct, Smith did not charge Trump with "insurrection."

Smith did charge Trump with four counts:

- Conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election;
- Conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding;
- A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have that vote counted;
- Obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct and impede, the certification of the electoral vote.

From an analysis titled: "Why Jack Smith didn’t charge Trump with inciting an insurrection"

"When the Jan. 6 House committee formally referred Trump for criminal charges last year, insurrection was one of the counts included. It would allege that Trump was directly involved in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. But including that charge would’ve complicated the case and been harder to prove than the broader conspiracy charges."

"The charge of 'conspiracy against rights,' a civil rights law that prohibits trying to deprive someone of their right to vote, can serve as a more straightforward stand-in for an insurrection charge, which is rarely brought in court. The conspiracy charge, on the other hand, has been successfully tested...There was outsized attention on a possible insurrection charge in part because the Constitution’s 14th Amendment bars anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office. In theory, a conviction would disqualify Trump from serving a second term in the White House."

https://www.semafor.com/article/08/02/2023/donald-trump-indictment-jack-smith-insurrection-charge

[Polybius]

64. It wasn't up to them to decide who is an who isn't an insurrectionist

They overstepped their boundaries.

[William Seger]

29. Not convicted after an indictment, but the Colorado SC adjucatated he was an insurrectionist

... after several days of examining evidence and hearing arguments.

[sop]

36. I don't believe Colorado's 4-3 decision is sufficient "adjudication" to keep him off the ballot.

Trump probably has to be tried and convicted for insurrection before being removed from the ballot.

[gab13by13]

47. That is not what the Constitution says.

[sop]

53. Since when has the Supreme Court paid attention to that?

[NoMoreRepugs]

11. Wild guess is SCOTUS will posit their support of TFG being on the ballot

despite his clear violations of the Constitution because what the framers “really” meant was the will of the “people” should supersede all else or some such BULLSHIT.

The “people” of course meaning themselves.

[Scrivener7]

13. And this will give a glimpse of where they stand which will give a glimpse of how they will rule on immunity.

There are undoubtedly many "but there's a silver lining to this nuclear holocaust!" and "there will be a Disney ending!" people who are about to tell me one legal issue has nothing to do with the other, and one decision tells us nothing about how they will rule in the other.

To them I say: How cute you are.

[rubbersole]

21. Cutest little well regulated militia money can buy.

🤑

[gab13by13]

22. I cringe when I hear people say

but this court rejected over 60 Trump appeals regarding election fraud. My answer to them is: Go back to the umpire calling balls and strikes. When the homer umpire is behind the plate and the pitcher throws the ball over the batter's head, it's pretty damn hard for that umpire to call the pitch a strike. It's the closer pitches that get called strikes, and they don't even have to be that close.

[gab13by13]

14. Yes, you are getting closer to my opinion,

The tell will be the reasoning of the courts decision. The "well it should be left to the voters" is not a legal argument.

Good post.

[2naSalit]

12. Alternate cure...

Vote in a majority in Congress, both houses, and demand impeachments. Might go quicker than putting more justices on the bench.

[gab13by13]

15. But are the votes there for impeachment?

I will have to Google it, I am just assuming it takes more votes to impeach than to add members.

Simple majority in the House to impeach, 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict. That options is out.

[2naSalit]

19. Just like impeaching a president...

We have an election this year. Should we manage to win enough seats, anything is possible including removal of rogue judges at all levels of the judiciary.

I'm not willing to write off that possibility at this point.

[ITAL]

37. Well

Even if the Democrats won literally every Senate seat that is up this cycle (which is never going to happen), the majority still wouldn't be two thirds, which is the required figure to convict/remove in a Senate trial.

[2naSalit]

45. Still...

With a strong majority, some Rs might go along as some have even in the face of magat threats.

I have to have something to hope for, okay?

[ITAL]

51. Not enough

Even in this pie in the sky scenario where every Senate election (including the impossible ones) went the Democrats' way, you'd still need five more to get a two thirds majority for a conviction in the Senate. It's just not gonna happen. The best we got was seven during Trump's second trial and that was with a literal insurrection carried on live TV.

Throw in the fact that Democrats are not going to win every Senate election and will be hard pressed to keep even a slim majority, much less get 60+ votes, you're just setting your hopes way too high here.

[2naSalit]

57. So...

You do you and kindly keep your negativity to yourself, thank you very much.

[ITAL]

58. Not negativity

Realism

[mopinko]

44. hopefully a house impeachment leads clearance thomas to step down.

and avoid a senate trial. he might brazen it out, but maybe he’s tired of the whole damn show.
wd b nice if we cleaned house at doj after the election. that’s the 1 thing i fault this administration on. clean house at doj, fbi, cia. fire the moles.

[2naSalit]

46. That's also...

Possible.

I wish he'd take up John Oliver's offer. That would be very helpful.

[bluestarone]

40. THIS is our only cure, BUT

It will NEVER happen.

[LeftInTX]

16. Will they even rule today? I'm betting they won't.

This is my opinion only:
They will wait until after the primary.
They are under no obligation to rule today.

After the primary: "The people voted for him, we can't remove him. He's already on the ballot"
The deadline to remove him from the ballot was January 4th.
The SC did not issue an emergency order before Colorado's deadline.

I'm willing to bet a dunce cap on my DU avatar for a few days if I'm wrong.

[gab13by13]

18. Don't be silly,

You give a valid opinion. There have been discussions out there in the MSM about why the court will rule today, to help Benedict Donald prior to Super Tuesday. Maybe the court won't want to seem obvious?

[LeftInTX]

23. They want to avoid the 14th amendment issue

They will use a procedural issue to keep him on the ballot.

If the 14th were involved in today's decision, they would meet in court.

The easiest way to keep him on the ballot is not to issue a decision today.

[LeftInTX]

50. You won! They ruled. Don't even know the ruling, but I changed my Avatar to a flying pig cuz I couldn't find a dunce

[Scrivener7]

20. Oh, boy. Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth? So yeah. With these guys? Maybe.

[spanone]

24. K&R

[Emile]

25. Thomas should be removed.

[getagrip_already]

26. Well, 6 of the justices are transactional....

Meaning they determine the outcome they want first politically, then look to justify it legally.

If some of the 3 liberal justices agree with them, it is entirely coincidental.

[cachukis]

27. They will rule on the impact of his removal,

not the justification element in the 14th.

[gab13by13]

30. They didn't care about the impact

when they overturned Roe. That decision left a patchwork set of laws across the country.
They even selected the president in Bush v Gore instead of allowing the people to decide.

It seems to me that the court only uses the "impact" reasoning when it impacts Republicans.

[cachukis]

31. Exactly. They are legislating from the bench

for their idealogues.

[TexasDem69]

28. There's zero evidence the Supreme Court favors Trump

And as others have pointed out it’s going to be a 9-0 ruling so that completely invalidates your theory.

[gab13by13]

33. One person suggested

it could be a 9-0 decision. This is a debate forum, I am interested in your legal opinion about why Trump should remain on the Colorado ballot. What is your opinion?

Even a 9-0 opinion doesn't make it a correct legal decision.

[BonnieJW]

32. When Biden wins,

I think he will expand the court.

[William Seger]

35. We'll need both houses of Congress, too

... and it might require killing the filibuster in the Senate, since we're not likely to have a super majority.

[William Seger]

34. I'll say again, if they rule that Colorado can't remove him from the primary ballot...

... then they damn well better explain how the 14th Amendment can be enforced, because finding a reason to just ignore it is unacceptable.

[Hotler]

39. I have no hope. nt

[Botany]

41. The 14th amendment and article # 3 make it abundantly clear that Trump should not be on the ballot.

End of story.

14th Amendment and Article #3 say that if you:

Violated your oath to protect and defend the Constitution you are off the ballot.

Participated in trying to overthrow our elected Constitutional Democracy you are off the ballot.

[gab13by13]

54. Absolutely spot on,

Listening to judge Luttig explain it makes the reasoning perfectly clear.

[Scrivener7]

55. Nope. Apparently not end of story.

[magicarpet]

42. So if someone conspires with others to,...

... assemble a Coup d'etat and over throw a legally elected government we just stand aside. Then allowing them to place their name on the next ballot for a presidential election.

It is just hideous to allow an insurrectionist to place his name on the ballot to get elected to run a government that not too long ago he tried diligently to overthrow.

The US Constitution specifically has a clause that blocks insurrectionists from office. Yet this Fascist Trump who has designs to be dictator for life is allowed to proceed toward holding presidential office again

What is the result if we let this chaos slide ? Violent insurrection will become standard fare to winning elections. Sanctions are in place to dissuade the insurrection conspirators from overthrowing the government. But if we fail to take meaningful actions against these insurrectionists and marshal all available resources against them - insurrection will then become a viable election strategy should the polls indicate your opponent will easily win the election.

So Donald Trump made insurrection to overthrow a democratically elected government A-okay.

What is the next ploy up Trump's sleeve to destabilize American Democracy - declaring a military junta and appoint himself dictator for life. Where the dictaror/despot offers free helicopter rides to everyone he dislikes. Giving them rides to an elevation of 1,000ft over a barren area while being pushed out an open door - absent any parachute.

Donald Trump will go deeper and deeper into Fascism if we are foolish enough not to permanently stop him.

You get the government to deserve, sitting back and going - oh well what can I do - is simply not an option.

Other younger Fascists in the Republican Party are watching how much we are allowing Trump to get away with. His current game plan running his presidential election is a blueprint other younger Fascists who have higher political aspirations will follow in future coming local, state, and national elections as they seek higher office.

Up ending the social and civic order to insure that American Democracy is set up for dysfunction and failure is their goal.

[Ford_Prefect]

43. So far the dubious legal reasoning runs thusly: If one state can block a presidential candidate then that means he'd

be blocked in all of them.

I find that a curious convolution of logic at best.

The Constitution and Congress granted the states power to operate their own elections according to their own versions of who and how it may be done. In part this is to allow the states to properly represent their citizen's choices. Each state determines who qualifies as a candidate to be on the ballots which that state publishes and counts.

As it happens the Colorado state constitution empowers how this is done in such a way that the Colorado Supreme Court decided DJT was an insurrectionist and therefore may not be a candidate. The Colorado state constitution.

In Maine, and it seems in Michigan, the secretary of state is to determine if a candidate presented by each party is properly qualified. That is according to state law reflecting the state's responsibility to see that the party candidates are indeed qualified and worthy of receiving votes from citizens of those states.

This is not an insignificant responsibility. Among other things it costs state tax payers a portion of their taxes to prosecute all the stages of an election in their state. It is an investment of state resources specifically to benefit the citizens of that individual state, as well as to contribute on their behalf to the National election process. It is a process of collecting and apportioning electors to represent the voters in each state. Based on the money spent by the political parties it has a material value of millions of dollars at least. All of these suggest that the qualifications of the candidates should be under quite close and particular scrutiny for very good reasons, including that the outcome is the property of the citizens of that state, not of the political parties supplying candidates.

The court would be well advised to consider that in this case the rights of each state to protect their voters is the paramount issue. Rather than that the obligation to harvest those votes to support the federal totals should supersede.

[gab13by13]

56. Excellent post

[malaise]

48. Well they ruled

and fuck them

[Polybius]

66. But it was 9-0

Hard to get mad at that.

[malaise]

67. I've calmed down

It was not a great decision for Smelvis

[Polybius]

69. ...

[alfredo]

49. They ruled against Colorado 9-0

[Silent Type]

59. Sounds like Judge Luttig didn't even convince the liberal judges.

[Polybius]

68. Sounds like Luttig was completely unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice

Which makes person sense, because George W Bush considered him a finalist in 2005.

[sop]

60. Apparently, a state cannot remove a presidential candidate from their ballot after ruling the candidate

committed insurrection. That's not enough.

So, what would be necessary for a candidate to be declared ineligible? A federal trial and a conviction? Does Congress have to decide (an impeachment and Senate conviction)?

[Zeitghost]

70. You determine that someone engaged in insurrection

The same way you determine if someone engaged in murder, rape, arson, robbery or any other specific crime. Through a criminal trial.

If the 14th amendment barred murderers from office, OJ SImpson would be free to run.

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. Did you expect it to be unanimous? I did.

Because the question before the court was not

“Is Trump an insurrectionist who is disqualified under the 14th amendment?”

It was

“Shall any individual state have the power to disqualify someone for federal office?”

I agree with their answer to that question.