Quote: BREAKING: Judge rules Trudeau broke the highest law in the land with the Emergencies Act.

He caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom.

Sign here to fire Trudeau and unite for freedom pic.twitter.com/k7d9VxozCK

— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) January 23, 2024

Massachusetts Supreme Court Strikes Down Petition to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot]

Quote:Supreme Judicial Court Justice Frank Gaziano denied a petition asking the court to either declare Trump ineligible for the primary ballot, or order the State Ballot Law Commission to revisit the issue after it previously decided it lacked jurisdiction.

Gaziano wrote in his decision that the legal challenges have "come too soon."

"If there is any question whether the commission has the authority or jurisdiction to consider the petitioners' objections regarding Trump's eligibility to appear on the general election ballot, that question will not become ripe until, and if, he is selected as his party's nominee for President," he said.

...don't worry, the Marxists will just wait and "install" Big Mike as their latest puppet at the D convention...

The Supreme Court Could Soon Fix The 40-Year Chevron Mistake — But If It Doesn’t, Freedom Will Take A Hit

Summary of yesterday's oral argument in Trump v. Anderson:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supre...do-ballot/

why the SC will likely rule that Trump has immunity

Wondering what you lawdogs think of this opinion piece.

(02-09-2024 10:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Summary of yesterday's oral argument in Trump v. Anderson:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supre...do-ballot/

The only question is whether the vote to overrule the Co. Supreme Court is 6, 7, or 8 in favor of overruling.

The problem lies in that no one, and I mean no one, knows exactly how to 'off ramp' the question without pragmatically giving 14-3 a pocket veto and consigning it into 'surplusage words'.

(02-09-2024 10:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Summary of yesterday's oral argument in Trump v. Anderson:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supre...do-ballot/

Here is what I have never understood about the Colo case or any of the similar charges... and perhaps you can help me...

In order for the statute being mentioned to apply, it appears to me that one must be found (in some version of a court of law) guilty of insurrection, no? Or at least, a de facto finding as in you were part of/a leader of an army that waged 'official' war as in Confederates during the Civil war.

Best I know, this was never found... and of course... states (it seems to me) wouldn't have standing to declare someone guilty of doing something 'against the Federal government'.... only the federal government.

So how can you disqualify someone for running for office based on a legal finding that has not been adjudicated?? That seems like all it would then take is an accusation to disqualify someone... and that seems highly specious to me

I obviously may be missing something.

(02-09-2024 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2024 10:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Summary of yesterday's oral argument in Trump v. Anderson:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supre...do-ballot/

Here is what I have never understood about the Colo case or any of the similar charges... and perhaps you can help me...

In order for the statute being mentioned to apply, it appears to me that one must be found (in some version of a court of law) guilty of insurrection, no? Or at least, a de facto finding as in you were part of/a leader of an army that waged 'official' war as in Confederates during the Civil war.

Best I know, this was never found... and of course... states (it seems to me) wouldn't have standing to declare someone guilty of doing something 'against the Federal government'.... only the federal government.

So how can you disqualify someone for running for office based on a legal finding that has not been adjudicated?? That seems like all it would then take is an accusation to disqualify someone... and that seems highly specious to me

I obviously may be missing something.

There was an adjudication of the issue under the words of the Constitution (not a statute), just not as a criminal case.

The Colorado district case made a finding of fact after full briefing and full trial with witnesses subject to cross examination that the events of J6 were in fact an 'insurrection', and that Trump aided the event of J6.

The Co. District Court found under the law that Trump was not an 'officer' of the United States subject to 14-3.

The Co. Sup. Ct. accepted the findings of fact made by the district court (as an appellate court in most circumstances must, subject to an incredibly high standard that says, in effect, facts cannot be re-litigated at the appellate level), but found Trump *was* an officer of the United States and subject to 14-3.

There are a host of settings that a state can have standing for such issues that affect a 'Federal issue'. States have standing to deny ballot access for state ballots for President because one is not 45, or one is not a natural born citizen -- both predicates for being President. No one has ever denied that a state ahs standing to do the above.

The Co. voters' case is predicated on the 'engaged in or supported an insurrection' against the Constitution of the United States as such a self-executing issue as a requirement to vote for a President (like the above), or a whole raft of other state, local, or Federal offices.

In the Maine case, the Maine Constitution delegated the decision of ballot access to the Sec of State of Maine. And in that issue, the SOS performed a full hearing with representation, ability to call witnesses, and right to cross examine per the procedure spelled out in the Maine statutes. And informed the parties after the ruling that the end result was appealable to the Maine District Court in the end paragraph to the ruling -- as that avenue of appeal is specified in the Maine state law.

Both the Colorado and Maine processes had adjudication. They did not fall out of the woodwork with zero process behind them.

Finally, the issue isnt 'waging war' like the Confederate states, or seceding. The issue is whether one engages in or gives aid to an insurrection against the Constitution. Both the Colo courts and the Maine SoS proceeding had it pointed out in them that the transfer of power via a certification of the votes of electors was a *core* constitutional process -- one that literally affected the base function of the election of the President. They both distinguished the event of J6 as one aimed at a disruption or a change to that core process, and not some ancillary act that was otherwise unconstitutional (i.e. the Obama Dreamer's Initiative).

Thank you, Tanq, for that nice summary. Even when one tries to follow those cases closely, it’s easy to get lost in the details of exactly how they made it to the SC. And, in my case, when i try to decipher some of the legalese in the court filings I think I’m not really understanding the real arguments.

I certainly have an opinion about the Maine and Colorado cases. And I’ll be really disappointed if the decision is not unanimous against those states.
Assuming it does go against Colorado and Maine, I’m wondering if the Court will give any specific guidance as to how 14-3 should be interpreted in the “modern” era. That is, without the background of the Civil War.

(02-09-2024 04:21 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I certainly have an opinion about the Maine and Colorado cases. And I’ll be really disappointed if the decision is not unanimous against those states.

There will be a vote, maybe two to uphold the Colo. case. I find it strange that those votes will probably come from traditional 'centralist' power votes, why typically do not support the issues at a state power-centric view, but more of a 'centralist nexus' POV.

And the Justices that will vote to overturn the Colo argument that they are the master of *their* state ballot will be those who traditionally vote *for* state-centric issues (think Dobbs, and the upcoming case that will address the Chevron deference doctrine, or the two cases last year that limited other executive power centric issues like Chevron).

On fact my guess is that Gorsuch will vote against Colo -- even though it is his 10th Cir. opinion that the plaintiffs have used in which he broadly proclaims that a state has the power to police its own ballot, interestingly enough specifically in a case with regards to Colo.

I think there will be a number of concurrences.

Quote:Assuming it does go against Colorado and Maine, I’m wondering if the Court will give any specific guidance as to how 14-3 should be interpreted in the “modern” era. That is, without the background of the Civil War.

They will have to. And honestly, the second steps that will come out of this will be as bad as the this case has been.

I mean, there has to be *some* method to enforce it. If the SCOTUS is going to do a complete abdication, which will be the cleanest exit for them -- they will have to say that the provision is not self-enacting, and that Congress has to pass enacting legislation to implement it for a Presidential race. That is really the only clean exit that I see them having.

The other alternative is that Congress can self-police the issue with re: to the Presidency as they count the votes -- that is Congress has the sole power to determine on a case by case basis the efficacy of the claim at the time that they seat the President - i.e. Jan 6. There are two cases of this happening with Senate races prior to 1873 -- the body simply refused to sit the electees at the time they opened.

The problem is...... this is exactly the mudpie scenario of things having to occur at the counting or certification that started this horrific path.

I really dont see a good way out of this issue.

(02-09-2024 01:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  States have standing to deny ballot access for state ballots for President because one is not 45, or one is not a natural born citizen -- both predicates for being President.

I believe the correct age for President is ten years younger, meaning 35, not 45 years old.

STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff
v.
MERRICK GARLAND, in his official
capacity as Attorney General, et al.,
Defendants


Judge Hendrix’s 120-page opinion meticulously dismantled the Justice Department’s defense of the spending bill, addressing the arguments one by one. In particular, he dismissed the notion that federal courts lack jurisdiction to scrutinize the legislative process, citing Supreme Court precedent that requires resolving any challenges to a quorum rule before applying the enrolled bill doctrine.

Quote:For over 235 years, Congress understood the Constitution’s Quorum Clause to require a majority of members of the House or Senate to be physically present to constitute the necessary quorum to pass legislation. This rule prevents a minority of members from passing legislation that affects the entire nation. But despite the Constitution’s text and centuries of consistent practice, the House in 2020 created a rule that permitted non-present members to be included in the quorum count and vote by proxy. Pursuant to that novel rule, the House passed a new law included within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, and that particular provision affects Texas. Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law.…

And because the House only had a quorum due to this unconstitutional provision of its proxy rule, the House violated the Quorum Clause when it passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Finally, the Court finds that Texas has carried its burden to show its entitlement to a permanent injunction of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In light of these conclusions, the Court enjoins the defendants from enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against the State of Texas.

“Congress acted egregiously by passing the largest spending bill in U.S. history with fewer than half the members of the House bothering to do their jobs, show up, and vote in person,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

“Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi abused proxy voting under the pretext of COVID-19 to pass this law, then Biden signed it, knowing they violated the Constitution. This was a stunning violation of the rule of law. I am relieved the Court upheld the Constitution.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation served as co-counsel. “This meticulous, 120-page opinion was written after a full trial on the merits,” said TPPF senior attorney Matt Miller. “The Court correctly concluded that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution because a majority of House members was not physically present when the $1.7 trillion spending bill was passed. Proxy voting is unconstitutional.”

Texas Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) issued the following statement in response to Judge James Hendrix’s ruling:

Quote: Article I of the Constitution has always made it clear that House and Senate members be physically present when conducting certain legislative business. For our constitutional system to work, it must be followed.

During passage of Pelosi’s $1.7 trillion lame duck FY 2023 omnibus in December 2022, I noted a physical quorum was not present. Indeed, a majority of Members – 226 – elected to vote by proxy on the bill’s final passage.

While this ruling’s reach will not be immediate, it is a critically important first step in forming judicial precedent against unconstitutional proxy voting. Thank you to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the Texas Public Policy Foundation for leading this effort in court. And thank you to the Mountain States Legal Foundation for their work on the amicus brief we led in the case. I also want to thank former Speaker Kevin McCarthy for working with me to challenge the constitutionality of proxy voting which the Supreme Court did not take up, but represented the right legal and philosophical position — a position underscored by yesterday’s judgment.

The Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Anderson was released just minutes ago. The only thing I know about it is that it was unanimous.

From https://www.scotusblog.com

"The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he participated in insurrection. 'Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse'."

Link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23...9_19m2.pdf

Based only on the SCOTUSblog summary, this seems like a classic case of a Supreme Court decision coming down not to the ultimate substantive question ("Is Trump eligible to be President?"), but to the jurisdictional question of who can make that call and and one what basis -- just as in the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion.

Sadly, I think we can safely predict that, also as in Dobbs v. Jackson, this essential understanding of the role of a judiciary will be lost on the commentariat, especially on the most gleeful and most angry segments of it.

(03-04-2024 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Anderson was released just minutes ago. The only thing I know about it is that it was unanimous.

From https://www.scotusblog.com

"The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he participated in insurrection. 'Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse'."

Link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23...9_19m2.pdf

Based only on the SCOTUSblog summary, this seems like a classic case of a Supreme Court decision coming down not to the ultimate substantive question ("Is Trump eligible to be President?"), but to the jurisdictional question of who can make that call and and one what basis -- just as in the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion.

Sadly, I think we can safely predict that, also as in Dobbs v. Jackson, this essential understanding of the role of a judiciary will be lost on the commentariat, especially on the most gleeful and most angry segments of it.

What this also does is kick the can down the path a bit more.

I will assume that if Trump is elected, and the Ds control Congress --- there will be once again another furball.

And SCOTUS took the only path available that allowed it to ignore the findings of fact in the lower proceedings.

(03-04-2024 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Anderson was released just minutes ago. The only thing I know about it is that it was unanimous.

From https://www.scotusblog.com

"The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he participated in insurrection. 'Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse'."

Link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23...9_19m2.pdf

Based only on the SCOTUSblog summary, this seems like a classic case of a Supreme Court decision coming down not to the ultimate substantive question ("Is Trump eligible to be President?"), but to the jurisdictional question of who can make that call and and one what basis -- just as in the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion.

Sadly, I think we can safely predict that, also as in Dobbs v. Jackson, this essential understanding of the role of a judiciary will be lost on the commentariat, especially on the most gleeful and most angry segments of it.

What this also does is kick the can down the path a bit more.

I will assume that if Trump is elected, and the Ds control Congress --- there will be once again another furball.

And SCOTUS took the only path available that allowed it to ignore the findings of fact in the lower proceedings.

??? This was always a jurisdictional question. Why would they do anything other than address that? The States do NOT have jurisdiction to remove Federal candidates from the ballot. No matter the alleged 'reason'. That's it. 9-0. Even the brain-dead Leftists on the Court saw that this was jurisdictionally incorrect.

Edit: here's the relevant quote:

Quote:“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

Quote:Appeals court reverses order blocking Texas immigration law, setting up Supreme Court showdown

If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t intervene in the coming days, the law making illegal entry a state crime could go into effect this weekend.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Saturday reversed a lower court’s ruling that halted a new state law allowing Texas police to arrest people suspected of crossing the Texas-Mexico border illegally.

The New Orleans-based appeals court immediately paused its order for seven days to give the federal government time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the higher court doesn’t intervene, the new law could go into effect on Saturday as the legal battle continues.

The appeals court also said that it will schedule oral arguments on its next available date. As of Monday, that date hasn’t been announced.

The 5th Circuit ruling came a day after U.S. District Judge David Ezra in Austin blocked Senate Bill 4 from going into effect, saying the law “threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”

Quote: BREAKING HUGE NEWS

Federal appeals court allows Texas immigration law to take effect.

Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest & jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border. https://t.co/TW6MkLUXT7

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) March 4, 2024

(02-09-2024 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and of course... states (it seems to me) wouldn't have standing to declare someone guilty of doing something 'against the Federal government'.... only the federal government.

(03-04-2024 01:24 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Anderson was released just minutes ago. The only thing I know about it is that it was unanimous.

From https://www.scotusblog.com

"The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he participated in insurrection. 'Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse'."

Link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23...9_19m2.pdf

Based only on the SCOTUSblog summary, this seems like a classic case of a Supreme Court decision coming down not to the ultimate substantive question ("Is Trump eligible to be President?"), but to the jurisdictional question of who can make that call and and one what basis -- just as in the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion.

Sadly, I think we can safely predict that, also as in Dobbs v. Jackson, this essential understanding of the role of a judiciary will be lost on the commentariat, especially on the most gleeful and most angry segments of it.

What this also does is kick the can down the path a bit more.

I will assume that if Trump is elected, and the Ds control Congress --- there will be once again another furball.

And SCOTUS took the only path available that allowed it to ignore the findings of fact in the lower proceedings.

??? This was always a jurisdictional question. Why would they do anything other than address that? The States do NOT have jurisdiction to remove Federal candidates from the ballot. No matter the alleged 'reason'. That's it. 9-0.

Edit: here's the relevant quote:

Quote:“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

I've edited the above to speak to my assumption going in.... which seems to be in the ball park based on the quote here from the decision..... and though I understand that there was a trial of fact in Colorado which I was not aware of and appreciate the information... 'that' never seemed to me to be appropriate.... and apparently it wasn't.... even for the liberal justices.

So while it may have been the 'only path'... it also seems to have been the CORRECT path, since it was 9-0.

That said, I agree 100% that this doesn't end this for Democrats. I'm not even sure Democrats winning in 2024 would end it for them. They (especially Biden) have vilified a large swath of American voters...

No, I don't think a large swath of voters values Trump's brashness and arrogance... in fact I'd say most of them don't care for it at all.... but they absolutely value his positions... and much like it seems many Democrats... they are willing to overlook a whole lot of technical violations... particularly ones that relate to his personal business and not his public one... in order to get the public issues 'right'.

Russia was a hoax. The documents are valid, but it seems many have violated THAT law without repercussion. They absolutely could get him on obstruction there, but even that may be a technical argument and/or given the constant litigation of the political left, I think many of his supporters are actually on his side for giving a partisan investigator the finger. Almost everything else they've thrown at him is unrelated to him being President... and the lives of voters. Certainly the NY thing is unrelated, since nobody was in any way negatively impacted. The 'insurrection' case is troubling on its face... but there are a lot of conflicting positions.... It's not OBVIOUS to me that he tried to 'steal' an election.... and I don't know enough about the technicalities to render much of an opinion... but as I don't really see that our nation was actually at risk, I think even this issue is not something that is high on the priority lists of many people. The whole argument that he's going to somehow install himself as dictator is just lunacy.... and yet that is often the argument.

Dave Chappel nailed it when he spoke about what made Trump a star... It was when he stood up on the debate stage with Hillary and she accused him of cheating on his taxes... and he essentially said... 'I didn't write the rules... I just play by them... and so do her donors. If she really wanted to stop me, she would change the rules... she was a Senator (like Biden) but she doesn't because she doesn't want to harm her donors'.... and that is/seems absolutely 100% true.... Perhaps more true of even Biden than Hillary.

Now in fairness, Trump could have pressured congress to close those loopholes as well... and he really didn't.... but most Republicans and certainly most of his supporters care more about things like energy independence and not spending money we don't have to solve the worlds problems while cutting back on domestic solutions than they do about 'getting' tax cheats.... and they especially don't trust the government to decide who is cheating and who isn't.... and history really supports that.

(03-04-2024 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2024 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and of course... states (it seems to me) wouldn't have standing to declare someone guilty of doing something 'against the Federal government'.... only the federal government.

(03-04-2024 01:24 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Anderson was released just minutes ago. The only thing I know about it is that it was unanimous.

From https://www.scotusblog.com

"The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he participated in insurrection. 'Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse'."

Link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23...9_19m2.pdf

Based only on the SCOTUSblog summary, this seems like a classic case of a Supreme Court decision coming down not to the ultimate substantive question ("Is Trump eligible to be President?"), but to the jurisdictional question of who can make that call and and one what basis -- just as in the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion.

Sadly, I think we can safely predict that, also as in Dobbs v. Jackson, this essential understanding of the role of a judiciary will be lost on the commentariat, especially on the most gleeful and most angry segments of it.

What this also does is kick the can down the path a bit more.

I will assume that if Trump is elected, and the Ds control Congress --- there will be once again another furball.

And SCOTUS took the only path available that allowed it to ignore the findings of fact in the lower proceedings.

??? This was always a jurisdictional question. Why would they do anything other than address that? The States do NOT have jurisdiction to remove Federal candidates from the ballot. No matter the alleged 'reason'. That's it. 9-0.

Edit: here's the relevant quote:

Quote:“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

I've edited the above to speak to my assumption going in.... which seems to be in the ball park based on the quote here from the decision..... and though I understand that there was a trial of fact in Colorado which I was not aware of and appreciate the information... 'that' never seemed to me to be appropriate.... and apparently it wasn't.... even for the liberal justices.

So while it may have been the 'only path'... it also seems to have been the CORRECT path, since it was 9-0.

That said, I agree 100% that this doesn't end this for Democrats. I'm not even sure Democrats winning in 2024 would end it for them. They (especially Biden) have vilified a large swath of American voters...

No, I don't think a large swath of voters values Trump's brashness and arrogance... in fact I'd say most of them don't care for it at all.... but they absolutely value his positions... and much like it seems many Democrats... they are willing to overlook a whole lot of technical violations... particularly ones that relate to his personal business and not his public one... in order to get the public issues 'right'.

Russia was a hoax. The documents are valid, but it seems many have violated THAT law without repercussion. They absolutely could get him on obstruction there, but even that may be a technical argument and/or given the constant litigation of the political left, I think many of his supporters are actually on his side for giving a partisan investigator the finger. Almost everything else they've thrown at him is unrelated to him being President... and the lives of voters. Certainly the NY thing is unrelated, since nobody was in any way negatively impacted. The 'insurrection' case is troubling on its face... but there are a lot of conflicting positions.... It's not OBVIOUS to me that he tried to 'steal' an election.... and I don't know enough about the technicalities to render much of an opinion... but as I don't really see that our nation was actually at risk, I think even this issue is not something that is high on the priority lists of many people. The whole argument that he's going to somehow install himself as dictator is just lunacy.... and yet that is often the argument.

Dave Chappel nailed it when he spoke about what made Trump a star... It was when he stood up on the debate stage with Hillary and she accused him of cheating on his taxes... and he essentially said... 'I didn't write the rules... I just play by them... and so do her donors. If she really wanted to stop me, she would change the rules... she was a Senator (like Biden) but she doesn't because she doesn't want to harm her donors'.... and that is/seems absolutely 100% true.... Perhaps more true of even Biden than Hillary.

Now in fairness, Trump could have pressured congress to close those loopholes as well... and he really didn't.... but most Republicans and certainly most of his supporters care more about things like energy independence and not spending money we don't have to solve the worlds problems while cutting back on domestic solutions than they do about 'getting' tax cheats.... and they especially don't trust the government to decide who is cheating and who isn't.... and history really supports that.

What does one call it when you tell your Vice President to simply ignore the electoral votes of 7 states with no legal basis?

The argument *isnt* that he tried to install himself as dictator as your rhetoric notes.

The issue is he tried to shitcan the electoral votes of 7 states, and the votes from those 7 states to install himself as President. While it isnt 'installing oneself as dictator', the concept of imply trying to flush the votes of 20 million or so voters down the toilet with *zero* legal basis to do so seems at least untoward. Maybe not to many on one side of the aisle, but to many it was a fing disgusting act.

(03-04-2024 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2024 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and of course... states (it seems to me) wouldn't have standing to declare someone guilty of doing something 'against the Federal government'.... only the federal government.

(03-04-2024 01:24 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Anderson was released just minutes ago. The only thing I know about it is that it was unanimous.

From https://www.scotusblog.com

"The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he participated in insurrection. 'Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse'."

Link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23...9_19m2.pdf

Based only on the SCOTUSblog summary, this seems like a classic case of a Supreme Court decision coming down not to the ultimate substantive question ("Is Trump eligible to be President?"), but to the jurisdictional question of who can make that call and and one what basis -- just as in the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion.

Sadly, I think we can safely predict that, also as in Dobbs v. Jackson, this essential understanding of the role of a judiciary will be lost on the commentariat, especially on the most gleeful and most angry segments of it.

What this also does is kick the can down the path a bit more.

I will assume that if Trump is elected, and the Ds control Congress --- there will be once again another furball.

And SCOTUS took the only path available that allowed it to ignore the findings of fact in the lower proceedings.

??? This was always a jurisdictional question. Why would they do anything other than address that? The States do NOT have jurisdiction to remove Federal candidates from the ballot. No matter the alleged 'reason'. That's it. 9-0.

Edit: here's the relevant quote:

Quote:“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

I've edited the above to speak to my assumption going in.... which seems to be in the ball park based on the quote here from the decision..... and though I understand that there was a trial of fact in Colorado which I was not aware of and appreciate the information... 'that' never seemed to me to be appropriate.... and apparently it wasn't.... even for the liberal justices.

So while it may have been the 'only path'... it also seems to have been the CORRECT path, since it was 9-0.

That said, I agree 100% that this doesn't end this for Democrats. I'm not even sure Democrats winning in 2024 would end it for them. They (especially Biden) have vilified a large swath of American voters...

No, I don't think a large swath of voters values Trump's brashness and arrogance... in fact I'd say most of them don't care for it at all.... but they absolutely value his positions... and much like it seems many Democrats... they are willing to overlook a whole lot of technical violations... particularly ones that relate to his personal business and not his public one... in order to get the public issues 'right'.

Russia was a hoax. The documents are valid, but it seems many have violated THAT law without repercussion. They absolutely could get him on obstruction there, but even that may be a technical argument and/or given the constant litigation of the political left, I think many of his supporters are actually on his side for giving a partisan investigator the finger. Almost everything else they've thrown at him is unrelated to him being President... and the lives of voters. Certainly the NY thing is unrelated, since nobody was in any way negatively impacted. The 'insurrection' case is troubling on its face... but there are a lot of conflicting positions.... It's not OBVIOUS to me that he tried to 'steal' an election.... and I don't know enough about the technicalities to render much of an opinion... but as I don't really see that our nation was actually at risk, I think even this issue is not something that is high on the priority lists of many people. The whole argument that he's going to somehow install himself as dictator is just lunacy.... and yet that is often the argument.

Dave Chappel nailed it when he spoke about what made Trump a star... It was when he stood up on the debate stage with Hillary and she accused him of cheating on his taxes... and he essentially said... 'I didn't write the rules... I just play by them... and so do her donors. If she really wanted to stop me, she would change the rules... she was a Senator (like Biden) but she doesn't because she doesn't want to harm her donors'.... and that is/seems absolutely 100% true.... Perhaps more true of even Biden than Hillary.

Now in fairness, Trump could have pressured congress to close those loopholes as well... and he really didn't.... but most Republicans and certainly most of his supporters care more about things like energy independence and not spending money we don't have to solve the worlds problems while cutting back on domestic solutions than they do about 'getting' tax cheats.... and they especially don't trust the government to decide who is cheating and who isn't.... and history really supports that.

Oh, my, Ham...you ARE quite the Com'spiracee Theolist here....and, seeing as you have such a high Reputation score here...that is proof you MUS' be a rascisss Supremeciss also, correct?...

(03-04-2024 04:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What does one call it when you tell your Vice President to simply ignore the electoral votes of 7 states with no legal basis?

Same thing you call it when a state rules on a case that the Supreme Court decides is Unconstitutional.

A failed legal theory/effort.

Quote:The argument *isnt* that he tried to install himself as dictator as your rhetoric notes.

That may not be YOUR argument, but it IS an argument that I hear a lot from leftist zealots... of which I would not consider you one.

Quote:The issue is he tried to shitcan the electoral votes of 7 states, and the votes from those 7 states to install himself as President. While it isnt 'installing oneself as dictator', the concept of imply trying to flush the votes of 20 million or so voters down the toilet with *zero* legal basis to do so seems at least untoward. Maybe not to many on one side of the aisle, but to many it was a fing disgusting act.

How is that any different from what Colorado just did (and others) sought to do?.... flushing the votes of millions of voters across numerous states down the toilet by not even allowing write-in votes to be counted....... and the Supreme court (as opposed to the Parliament) told them that they too had *zero* legal basis to do so.

Talk about fing disgusting.... that's our GOVERNMENT doing that. I'm VASTLY more disgusted by that than by anything Trump has EVER done, including this.