Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

Watching lib friends on social media wring their hands to a bloody pulp over this is more infuriating than usual. They're okay with punching back so long as we don't actually throw a punch.

Two days ago a young woman who graduated from my uni last week got arrested for 1/6 crimes. Almost three years later actions still have consequences.

I disagree with "settled," though. We're about to find out!

SCOTUS will vote to keep Trump on the ballot, and that will be the correct choice. No one has proven that Trump engaged in insurrection in a court, which is why it is a matter of opinion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/section-3-14th-amendment-us-constitution-trump-2024-ballot/

decent discussion here - even conservative legal scholars have written a legal brief supporting this interpretation of the Constitution.

that doesn't mean it's going to stick, it probably won't, but "don't return fire against the enemy that is bombing us, they might drop more bombs" is not a strategy I endorse.

That's not my argument btw. I just disagree with this as constitutional law.

xpost the irony of handwringing about what a look this is for Democrats when the initial lawsuit itself was filed by CREW on behalf of six voters, they were all Republican or unaffiliated.

and....once again...nowhere in the provision does it state a requirement that a criminal trial has to occur. In this interpretation, it is a self-executing provision. a lawsuit was filed on behalf of these voters, the case has been heard by a District judge and the state's Supreme Court. they have seen the evidence and issued their own rulings based on this evidence.

much like impeachment and the 25th amendment, our ancestors did a shit job of actually fleshing out the actual process, because at the time they felt it was self-evidence - you're a Confederate, you're out! which is why centuries later, we have such disagreements.

*self-evident

Now it's "You're a Confederate? You're in!"

No one has proven that Trump engaged in insurrection in a court, which is why it is a matter of opinion.

When my ten-year-old son tries to run for President, the state election board doesn't need him to be convicted by a court of being ten to disqualify him from appearing on the ballot. 14th Amendment says nowhere that a conviction for insurrection is required. You can like that or not like that for any number of reasons that appeal to conservatives and liberals variously, but that is what it says, it is the Constitution, and that is what the Colorado court used as the basis for their ruling here, including their determination that what Trump did on January 6th was insurrection.

The judiciary routinely draws up standards out of thin air for the application of laws. Many of them are famous! This is why you get a Miranda warning when being arrested, why free speech can be restricted if it provokes imminent lawless action, why art is obscene if taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The legislature didn't come up with those things. Here the Colorado court hasn't outlined a test for insurrectionary behavior, but they have by their ruling asserted that the court can determine according to their own standards what constitutes insurrection for the purposes of applying the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Their opinion, since they are judges, has the force of a ruling. Again, this happens all the time.

The Supreme Court will now weigh in. Who knows what they will do? Maybe say that a federal conviction for insurrection is the standard for 14th Amendment disqualification, which will then be the test that is applied in these cases. Maybe refuse to make that kind of ruling and say it is a matter for the states to decide, as they have often recently done for cases relating to elections. I doubt they'll mess with saying that Section 3 does not apply to the office of the President, the Colorado court dealt with that nonsense assertion very thoroughly.

If the 14th amendment says all of this stuff, just imagine what's in the rest of the Constitution!

we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom

That's amendment #2, iirc.

The court requests NOT to hear what they will have to pry out of your cold, dead hands in the bathroom.

It doesn't say a conviction is required but an actual conviction is what gets you past the "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" part being deemed debatable until then.

I hear you can mint a trillion dollar coin

The Bulwark sums up the attitude I'm seeing in lots of places, including this thread, pretty well:

"Donald Trump must be allowed every possible legal maneuver in his quest to subvert American democracy. But the law must never apply to Trump, because doing so might make him stronger."

My wanting to inflict maximum pain on Trump by having ~$81M voters tell him to go fuck himself before he is ruled ineligible to serve again and then thrown in jail for the rest of his life for one of any number of crimes he committed is not appeasing fascists or withholding fire or whatever other dumb things people are saying.

Both things can happen people.

The Bulwark sums up the attitude I'm seeing in lots of places, is run by war criminals

When my ten-year-old son tries to run for President, the state election board doesn't need him to be convicted by a court of being ten to disqualify him from appearing on the ballot.

I imagine there's some kind of certificate that notes that date of his birth.

But those probably aren't mentioned in the Constitution

xxxxxpost actually, it doesn't! one or more appellate courts could overturn his criminal trial conviction. or a state Supreme Court that skews conservative acknowledging his conviction but finding bullshit rationale to suggest this conviction doesn't rise to insurrection as defined in the 14th amendment?

none of this is cut and dried

anyway, as I said earlier, this is largely moot in terms of "this is bad for Dems" because the voters who filed this lawsuit were largely Republican.

It at least strengthens the argument!

if Trump is disqualified from the Arizona primary and some other states follow suit, wouldn't that increase the odds of Nikki Haley taking up the running? She seems fairly wretched and I heard a MNCBC pundit (fwiw) saying some polling has suggested she'd do better against Biden than Trump would.

I personally think the Colorado decision is both justified and hilarious, and I'm happy for it to be thrown to SCOTUS to make those fuckers squirm. Fuck you is right. And no there's no universe in which any of this is "better" for Trump. All of the bad things are bad for Trump! That they don't seem to hurt him with his lunatic base just makes them seem more loony. And yes I still want him to lose again in the actual election, but I'll also be perfectly happy for SCOTUS to yeet him from the ballot if they so choose.

The Bulwark sums up the attitude I'm seeing in lots of places, is run by war criminals

has this been proven in a court of law?

Sadly, Bill Kristol could probably run for President

I can endorse that view, tipsy.

I just want to vote against this fucker one more time.

xxp

Don't blame me, I voted for f. hazel's 10-year old son.

I heard a MNCBC pundit (fwiw) saying some polling has suggested she'd do better against Biden than Trump would.

nah. Trump is a brand and has a stanbase, that's the shit you don't wanna go up against; his base does not give a shit what he does or did, they're #teamtrump forever. normal politicians you can beat with a good ground game, he's bulletproof with a giant percentage of the american electorate. any other candidate is to be preferred both tactically and practically.

PBKR, it isn’t clear that Trump will be defeated by Biden. Not a single person I know outside of ILX plans on voting for Biden or Trump. Biden truly has lost many people on the left.

the "left"

all this drama and fight only makes the martyr more beloved

if Trump is disqualified from the Arizona primary and some other states follow suit, wouldn't that increase the odds of Nikki Haley taking up the running? She seems fairly wretched and I heard a MNCBC pundit (fwiw) saying some polling has suggested she'd do better against Biden than Trump would.

― vodkaitamin effrtvescent (calzino), Wednesday, 20 December 2023 16:23 (six minutes ago) link

I'm going pretty much totally on feels here, but I do kinda generally wonder if removing Trump from the ballot wouldn't ultimately help the GOP. Trump has a fervent base but, with the number of Republicans likely to abstain from voting and the number of people voting for Biden simply to keep Trump out of office, I'm not convinced that his base is enough to get him re-elected (by legitimate means). Whereas it seems like pretty much any other GOP presidential candidate would get overwhelming support from the party-at-large (maybe less so from the most frothy Trumpites) plus plenty of independent votes, and the turnout for Biden would likely be much lower without the looming threat of Trump Mk. 2.

Colorado's primary (Super Tuesday) is March 5th, 2024. Trump's trial in DC for election interference activities begins March 4th. There is absolutely no way to have that case resolved by then.

to get to trial, the case required a lengthy House Committee hearing due to the sheer volume of witnesses to question and obstruction and obfuscation from Republican Congress, Trump and his lawyers. A special counsel investigation then had to follow that, before the Grand Jury decided to indict.

all this is to say that prosecuting a former President for crimes, which is unprecedented, is the type of thing that takes YEARS to even get to trial, not to mention the length of the trial itself. If you demand a guilty verdict in criminal court as a precursor for his expulsion from a primary ballot, then the President can basically participate in insurrection all he wants, because the clock will ALWAYS run out. What if he was to participate in an insurrection attempt one month before the actual election?

Not to mention, he's not on trial for 'insurrection' in these cases, he's charged with attempting to defraud American and its citizens through election interference and as such even with a conviction, his lawyers will try to argue that this does not rise to 'insurrection' as defined in the Constitution. they're already trying to argue this is a First Amendment matter (lol).

I still want him to lose again in the actual election, but I'll also be perfectly happy for SCOTUS to yeet him from the ballot if they so choose.

dream big, like me: he could die before the election.

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, JCLC. Maybe you love watching Palestinian children get pulled from rubble as much as Joe Biden does, but most people I know will not vote for Genocide Joe

xxpost Another way to say this is that Trump is not even being prosecuted for "insurrection" because it's not obvious and not easy to prove.

Wow, tables, maybe stop with the completely needless and gross ad hominem bullshit.

Trump actually IS being prosecuted for insurrection, that's the election interference case.

Anyway I'm glad the CO court made this decision because it will force the SC to come up with a standard for something that hasn't really come up since the Reconstruction era.

xpost Not really.

The fact that people are running away from Biden in droves is part of what makes me so uneasy about this. It feels like liberals are celebrating some deus ex machina silver bullet because they're so demoralized and don't believe they can win for real. JiC's term "legal Hail Mary" was very much on point.

Wow, tables, maybe stop with the completely needless and gross ad hominem bullshit.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d415a40c908c11417ac607a95c3a4c840967a508/206_0_3783_2270/master/3783.jpg

If Trump's off the ballot then Biden might not even run

There was something noticeably absent when the special counsel, Jack Smith, unsealed an indictment this week charging former President Donald J. Trump with multiple conspiracies to overturn the 2020 election: any count that directly accused Mr. Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Sure, but that's still what the whole case is built around — his attempts to overturn the election. You can call it whatever you want, but if he's convicted on those counts it would definitely bolster the "insurrection" legal argument.