Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This means Obama can ran again and become president?

No the constitution only applies to Democratic folks. The GOP has do f**k ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means Obama can ran again and become president?

It sure seems like they are going to say that constitutional qualifications for president cannot be enforced by states. And since there's no federal statute allowing for such challenges, they are effectively unenforceable. So yes, even though Obama is ineligible, he can run and win again.

He wouldn't run even if he could but he sure would have no problem beating Trump and Biden

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans can't win without legal challenges, cheating, and suppressing vote. Started to be visible with Bush v. Gore and has gone downhill since then. . .

Oh please. Here it’s simply that they want their nominee on the state ballot so the people can decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roberts pointing out that insurrection is a broad term which can be misused in the future if they admit today the Colorado decision. Roberts says the SC will have to develop rules about what is insurrection. He doesn't want to.

a lawyer saying words have no meaning. murder is broadly used. theft is broadly used. a guess law is impossible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans can't win without legal challenges, cheating, and suppressing vote. Started to be visible with Bush v. Gore and has gone downhill since then. . .

Oh please. Here it’s simply that they want their nominee on the state ballot so the people can decide.

Too bad he disqualified himself by engaging in insurrection. Tsk tsk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

How can the president, and the commander-in-chief, not be an officer? When he was sworn in as president, and swore to defend the constitution, what was he doing then? If not being an officer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans can't win without legal challenges, cheating, and suppressing vote. Started to be visible with Bush v. Gore and has gone downhill since then. . .

Oh please. Here it’s simply that they want their nominee on the state ballot so the people can decide.

The nominee is not allowed to be president per the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

How can the president, and the commander-in-chief, not be an officer? When he was sworn in as president, and swore to defend the constitution, what was he doing then? If not being an officer?

Roberts has already explained in previous rulings that you don’t vote for officers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans can't win without legal challenges, cheating, and suppressing vote. Started to be visible with Bush v. Gore and has gone downhill since then. . .

Oh please. Here it’s simply that they want their nominee on the state ballot so the people can decide.

The Constitution limits how people can decide in all sorts of ways. If the people decided Hillary would have won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

The President is an officer. It's even titled "The Executive Office of the White House"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

Yes just like the constitution does not say Obama can not be president again. It refers to person not Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans can't win without legal challenges, cheating, and suppressing vote. Started to be visible with Bush v. Gore and has gone downhill since then. . .

Oh please. Here it’s simply that they want their nominee on the state ballot so the people can decide.

The Constitution limits how people can decide in all sorts of ways. If the people decided Hillary would have won.

That has nothing to do with the quote I was responding to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

Yes just like the constitution does not say Obama can not be president again. It refers to person not Obama.

This argument is like saying a court in a single state can decide for itself that Obama wasn’t born in the US and strike him from the ballot and Congress couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t think the court will allow states to determine the qualifications for presidency, only congress can. Let’s see how they rule - I have no doubt Colorado will lose, but curious what the rationale they decide upon will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

Yes just like the constitution does not say Obama can not be president again. It refers to person not Obama.

This argument is like saying a court in a single state can decide for itself that Obama wasn’t born in the US and strike him from the ballot and Congress couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t think the court will allow states to determine the qualifications for presidency, only congress can. Let’s see how they rule - I have no doubt Colorado will lose, but curious what the rationale they decide upon will be.

CO wasn't determining the qualifications for presidency -- that's already written in the Constitution. They were simply following what was written in the 14th amendment. Trump's team didn't even ask SCOTUS to determine if CO's reasoning that he was involved in an insurrection was right or wrong!