Donald Trump: Classic or Dud?

It's not a matter of "better." Of course he's going to be on the ballot.

Then what is the point?

The point is to show that the law applies. The point is to show that liberal majorities whether in a court or in a legislature work. The point is to say fuck you.

It’s going to fun when Texas courts start kicking people who protested a war off the ballot for giving aid and comfort to the enemy

GOP legislatures and conservative courts have already been doing extralegal things to take away power from democratic officials, and in Tennessee, expelled two members of their legislature for merely protesting. they don't need provocation to do shit like this - they're already doing it

Thank you

xpost and, once again, the law prohibits someone who engaged in insurrection from running, and it does not stipulate that he has to have been 'found guilty in a court of law'. the courts ruling that he engaged in insurrection *is* sufficient - or should be at least. I don't have, like, any faith that SCOTUS is actually going to back this ruling, but even if he IS found guilty, SCOTUS would be equally as likely to find some mechanism to say 'this doesn't actually apply' and undo the lower court's ruling.

moving goalposts is how conservatives work.

"well, ok, so he was found guilty, but it was by a biased court with a biased liberal judge! He voted for a Democrat once"

Of course, a system of political parties taking turns throwing legal hail marys doesn't bode well, but this is the world we live in, and these are the hands we're given.

the courts ruling that he engaged in insurrection *is* sufficient - or should be at least.

Very much disagree with this.

I mean look the Republican house has already opened up an impeachment inquiry into Biden despite the fact that they have zero actual evidence of wrongdoing, and even say as much to the media when asked. they're gonna find whatever ways they can to kick Dems off the ballot regardless of how successful this is. the GOP recognized long ago that politics in this country is a form of Prisoner's Dilemma and if they're willing to cheat and do underhanded shit and the Dems aren't, then they're gonna wind up with all the power. I'm not sure how the Dems can really counteract that without screwing over everyone but I'm pretty sure appeasing the fascists ain't gonna do it, it never does

xpost why? this is one of the many untested parts of the Constitution. it's a Civil War provision that has fallen into relative obscurity and has zero precedent regarding the President. it makes zero mention of a criminal trial conviction being required, most likely because they didn't want a former Confederate to be able to hold office by either having crony sympathetic prosecutors refusing to bring criminal charges, or using a savvy legal team that can delay the trial long enough not to be disqualified.

this isn't as if the Colorado Supreme Court ignored decades or centuries of precedent and came up with a weird ruling - it's a hotly debated topic but while legal scholars are split on whether this applies to the Presidency, this isn't a case of them all saying "ok this is a reach".

the only way this shit gets settled is when a Court rules on it. otherwise it stays theoretical forever.

lol "settled"

I've been sort of skeptical of this lawsuit and I remain skeptical that SCOTUS will agree with the Colorado court. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been pursued, it's an important legal question. And as with all the Jan. 6 investigations and prosecutions up to and including Trump, I think that it also has some long-term impact in just trying to defend the integrity of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. The more any of this causes any future candidate or would-be insurrectionist to think for a second about whether they want to go to jail, the better!

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.