Elections Will Trump be on the primary and/or general ballot? (SCOTUS says Trump will remain 9-0)

[ShadowRun]

California, Illinois, Washington and Oregon will be doing this next is my guess .

 

[syct23]

I don't see the attraction either, but can you see the attraction for Biden, a borderline senile man who's creepy around children? Let's face it. We're not talking about 2 stellar candidates here.

The next election is going to be like the precedent one. Most people won't vote for a candidate. They'll vote against one.

And at both of their ages, the VP is a heartbeat away from becoming the next President..

especially paying attention to the VP candidate this time around.

 

[Darkgsp]

https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1737311953901744576?s=20
RFK Jr-
"Every American should be troubled by the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove President Trump from the ballot."

 

[LangfordBarrow]

They all do it.

Not for their Capos the way Trump did. GW wouldn't pardon Scooter on principle but Trump went ahead and pardoned him too...

 

[emefer]

When was he found guilty of this ?

In the trial that spawned this ruling.

Colorado Court Rules Trump Engaged in Insurrection, but Cannot Be Disqualified Under Section Three Because the President is not an "Officer of the United States"

The court ruled against Trump on his strongest arguments, but accepted a weak one.

reason.com

 

[Whippy McGee]

Not for their Capos the way Trump did. GW wouldn't pardon Scooter on principle but Trump went ahead and pardoned him too...

Scooter Libby should have never been charged that was insane and a clear abuse of power, as well as, entrapment. The DOJ knew from the start that the leaker was their guy, yet pushed forward just to interrogate. That was a crazy event that did not get the critical press it deserved. Clinton did his cronies, Obama had some baddies, they all do it.

 

[LMP]

Bruh... (1) Trump was never even charged with insurrection and clearly never convicted of it. So, if you accuse him of it... it is so? (2) Due Process (14th Amendment) would mean Trump has the absolute right to provide evidence to the contrary, that never happened.

This is all a farce and you should be worried that 4 judges selected by Democrats came to that political decision. At least 3 judges selected by Democrats wanted no part of this decision, so there is that. We will get to see for the first time if the modern court has unconstitutional hacks on it or not. I have a bad feeling about Sotamayor, but she may opt to honor the U.S. Constitution and slap the Colorado court off their partisan perch.

He had his due process over taking part in an insurrection when this case started. The court has already ruled that he did in fact take part in an insurrection.

Section 3. Does not state that you have to be convicted in the court for this to apply.

This decision is over whether "or hold any office" included the President. Obviously it does, for fucks sake.

 

[panamaican]

No SCOTUS is going to allow a State Court to make a decision to stop a leading candidate from Federal Elected position to be disqualified in this manner. Otherwise, we will have Blue Courts and Red Courts going crazy making decisions to disqualify the opposition candidates as a course of election business moving forward. Letting a whack job decision like this stand means the destruction of our election process moving forward. Quit playing checkers and think at least one move ahead. There is no 5 day trial at a state level for Insurrection that qualifies for the 14th Amendment. That insurrection outlined in the U.S. Constitution is at a Federal level and the Feds won't even dare levy that charge.

I'm going to assume you haven't bothered reading any of the links I provided. I included the state trial court, the state Supreme Court and a legal analysis.

And I'm assuming you didn't read the analogy I provided to help you understand what's going on? These are state elections, qualification is determined by state rules, not federal rules.

More importantly, you're applying a very self-serving interpretation of the problem. SCOTUS has to also evaluate if they're going to prevent state's from controlling their own elections, just because someone is popular. That's a complete undermining of the separation between states and the fed. Additionally, they have to evaluate if they're going to allow a President to engage in behavior that undermines the Constitution and to what extent any President can be held accountable for his/her actions in the future.

"Popular" or "leading candidate" is not something that they're the slightest bit concerned about. That's the shit partisan hacks worry about because they don't really understand the legal issues that are in play.

You also don't understand those legal issues. Insurrection isn't a "crime" in the way that murder is a crime, it's not handled that way. Insurrection is a violation of a public officer's duties under his/her office. It's handled by an individual suing the government, not a District Attorney or prosecutor bringing a criminal trial against said individual.

Seriously, it's an important issue. The least you can do is read the quality information that I provided rather than peddling what's obviously not a well researched position.

This issue has been litigated in other states in Trump's favor. You don't have to make shit up, you can cite legitimate sources if you really wanted.

 

[BFoe]

@BFoe just thinking a bit more about this, the dissent says the absence of an “insurrection related conviction”. Could Boatright mean any conviction that confirms what took place was in fact an “insurrection”? Not necessarily that the official in question was convicted of something.
Without that legal definition of what happened, we can’t say Trump took part in one, right? Although, there might already be something to that effect amongst all of the j6 convictions, I am not sure.

I would assume he means no conviction for Trump specifically, not just anyone.

We have Enrique Tarrio of the Oath Keepers convicted on seditious conspiracy, so I’d say that definitely makes it a rebellion or insurrection. We all watched Trump tell them to stand back and stand by, as I recall.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I’m asking if we’re taking “the insurrection” as a factual event based on some legal decision. I mean, if there wasn’t really an insurrection (many say it was just some tourists), then no official can have taken part in one.

The people saying it was tourists are the same ones that want his indictments stayed until after the election. People have even been convicted of Seditious Conspiracy so it's just a matter of how much evidence there is linking Trump.

 

[panamaican]

When was he found guilty of this ?

People need to understand this isn't a criminal matter, like murder or burglary.

It's a government misbehavior action. It's litigated by a citizen suing their government to enforce its own rules.

Brief history lesson for people who care. There are no federal "crimes" in the Constitution. All federal crimes were made up by Congress by prohibiting certain actions and then creating punishments for those actions. Insurrection is in the Constitution as a something prohibited by officers of the government from engaging in. It doesn't go through criminal courts.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Scooter Libby should have never been charged that was insane and a clear abuse of power, as well as, entrapment. The DOJ knew from the start that the leaker was their guy, yet pushed forward just to interrogate. That was a crazy event that did not get the critical press it deserved. Clinton did his cronies, Obama had some baddies, they all do it.

Again, not to the extent of a full complement of Capos... Stone, Flynn, Bannon, Manafort, Papadopoulos... and guys like Blagojevich and D'Souza.

 

[panamaican]

I would assume he means no conviction for Trump specifically, not just anyone.

We have Enrique Tarrio of the Oath Keepers convicted on seditious conspiracy, so I’d say that definitely makes it a rebellion or insurrection. We all watched Trump tell them to stand back and stand by, as I recall.

Right. The legal foothold Trump has isn't if there was an attempt to interfere with the government changing power, we have trials and convictions enough to establish that people were engaged in criminal behavior. Trump's legal foothold is that he, individually, didn't do enough to be considered part of that attempt and, to a lesser extent, that POTUS is covered by the Constitution's definition of "officer".

Colorado felt he did enough to considered part of that insurrection attempt and that he was included in the Constitution's definition.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

The USSC will shoot this down the minute it enters the court. In the meantime shertards will have wet dreams over this.

Only if they ignore the constitution

Which of course they may

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

The people saying it was tourists are the same ones that want his indictments stayed until after the election. People have even been convicted of Seditious Conspiracy so it's just a matter of how much evidence there is linking Trump.

Why were some people escorted in while others were fighting with cops to get in?

Something isn't right here.

 

[CatchnShoot]

I literally have no idea what will happen next apart from a monumental amount of arguements.
How soon do think it would take to see what the supreme court think about this ?

First Trump needs to file an appeal...and although they have already stated that they WILL appeal, the Trump team says a lot of shit that they don't follow through on.

It might be prudent to let the CO decision stand rather than take the chance that Scotus will uphold the decision.

The reason being is that IF Scotus upholds the CO decision (and there is a very good chance that they will) you will see a deluge of cases across the entire country, and that will be checkmate. NOT appealing would freeze the ball so to speak and in a state Trump was not going to carry anyway. Take the L an live to stall for another day.

 

[Whippy McGee]

I'm going to assume you haven't bothered reading any of the links I provided. I included the state trial court, the state Supreme Court and a legal analysis.

And I'm assuming you didn't read the analogy I provided to help you understand what's going on? These are state elections, qualification is determined by state rules, not federal rules.

More importantly, you're applying a very self-serving interpretation of the problem. SCOTUS has to also evaluate if they're going to prevent state's from controlling their own elections, just because someone is popular. That's a complete undermining of the separation between states and the fed. Additionally, they have to evaluate if they're going to allow a President to engage in behavior that undermines the Constitution and to what extent any President can be held accountable for his/her actions in the future.

"Popular" or "leading candidate" is not something that they're the slightest bit concerned about. That's the shit partisan hacks worry about because they don't really understand the legal issues that are in play.

You also don't understand those legal issues. Insurrection isn't a "crime" in the way that murder is a crime, it's not handled that way. Insurrection is a violation of a public officer's duties under his/her office. It's handled by an individual suing the government, not a District Attorney or prosecutor bringing a criminal trial against said individual.

Seriously, it's an important issue. The least you can do is read the quality information that I provided rather than peddling what's obviously not a well researched position.

This issue has been litigated in other states in Trump's favor. You don't have to make shit up, you can cite legitimate sources if you really wanted.

What's the bet? Because, you're going to be wrong if you think this could possibly stand. It would be the gateway for every Red or Blue state to disqualify the opposition candidate. No SCOTUS in their right mind allows it.

The 14th Amendment was misapplied and abused by Colorado on multiple court levels, including their Supreme Court. The ridiculous "Insurrection" trial is so fraught with abuse alone that this makes these judges look like political assholes for not following the U.S. Constitution, yet invoking it.

 

[sickc0d3r]

We are taking as a factual event.

Colorado Court Rules Trump Engaged in Insurrection, but Cannot Be Disqualified Under Section Three Because the President is not an "Officer of the United States"

The court ruled against Trump on his strongest arguments, but accepted a weak one.

reason.com

Colorado federal court found him guilty of insurrection but ruled that he couldn't be punished. It was at the appeal to the Colorado SCOTUS that federal court said he can be punished.

In that case how does Boatright’s dissent make sense?

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

I would assume he means no conviction for Trump specifically, not just anyone.

We have Enrique Tarrio of the Oath Keepers convicted on seditious conspiracy, so I’d say that definitely makes it a rebellion or insurrection. We all watched Trump tell them to stand back and stand by, as I recall.

He said that because they were the ones who were fighting against ANTIFA.

 

[HARRISON_3]

Actions have consequences.

Donald Trump screwed Donald Trump