Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point it does not seem like there is a constitution anymore. SCOTUS is a kabuki theater of right wing judges parsing language from the constitution together in such a way to make the constitution meaningless.

It shows the total corruption of the court.

J.D. Vance suggested that Trump should ignore "illegitimate" U.S. Supreme Court rulings. This court is so corrupt then States should
Aldo ignore illegitimate SC rulings and keep Trump off ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point it does not seem like there is a constitution anymore. SCOTUS is a kabuki theater of right wing judges parsing language from the constitution together in such a way to make the constitution meaningless.

It shows the total corruption of the court.

Please. This 14th amendment nonsense seems like such a desperate grasping at straws. And I’m a Never Trumper.

Nor do you grasp what it means to be a nation of laws.

Or are you in favor of going back to having slavery? If we're going to ignore the Fourteenth Amendment as nonsense?

DP.
I think pp was saying that CO's interpretation and decision regarding the 14th Amendment in this case is nonsense.
I agree.

You really think the Fourteenth is is nonsense? All of it? Or just the one section?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point it does not seem like there is a constitution anymore. SCOTUS is a kabuki theater of right wing judges parsing language from the constitution together in such a way to make the constitution meaningless.

It shows the total corruption of the court.

Please. This 14th amendment nonsense seems like such a desperate grasping at straws. And I’m a Never Trumper.

Nor do you grasp what it means to be a nation of laws.

Or are you in favor of going back to having slavery? If we're going to ignore the Fourteenth Amendment as nonsense?

DP.
I think pp was saying that CO's interpretation and decision regarding the 14th Amendment in this case is nonsense.
I agree.

You really think the Fourteenth is is nonsense? All of it? Or just the one section?

I think the CO case that has invoked the 14th is nonsense.
It is.

[Anonymous]

It was over when Justice Kagan said, “why does Colorado get to decide.”

It was downhill from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was over when Justice Kagan said, “why does Colorado get to decide.”

It was downhill from there.

The CO counsel really messed up his answers to this line of questioning. The answer is pretty obvious- the constitution specifically says that states get to set the process for choosing presidential electors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was over when Justice Kagan said, “why does Colorado get to decide.”

It was downhill from there.

And it was a stupid question from her. I can’t believe how stupid. Colorado doesn’t get to decide. It just gets to present the question. There is no clear case law precedent to follow so everyone understood that the US Supreme Court would be the one to decide how to interpret the 14th Amendment but SCOTUS couldn’t do that without a case originating somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point it does not seem like there is a constitution anymore. SCOTUS is a kabuki theater of right wing judges parsing language from the constitution together in such a way to make the constitution meaningless.

It shows the total corruption of the court.

Please. This 14th amendment nonsense seems like such a desperate grasping at straws. And I’m a Never Trumper.

Nor do you grasp what it means to be a nation of laws.

Or are you in favor of going back to having slavery? If we're going to ignore the Fourteenth Amendment as nonsense?

DP.
I think pp was saying that CO's interpretation and decision regarding the 14th Amendment in this case is nonsense.
I agree.

You really think the Fourteenth is is nonsense? All of it? Or just the one section?

I think the CO case that has invoked the 14th is nonsense.
It is.

The Constitution applies in Colorado. Colorado followed the same process as any other question of a candidate’s eligibility for office. It was by the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point it does not seem like there is a constitution anymore. SCOTUS is a kabuki theater of right wing judges parsing language from the constitution together in such a way to make the constitution meaningless.

It shows the total corruption of the court.

Please. This 14th amendment nonsense seems like such a desperate grasping at straws. And I’m a Never Trumper.

It’s the Constitution. It bans someone who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then committed insurrection against the it from holding office again. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with it. It’s in the Constitution so it’s the law of the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Sure, if a Dem participated in an insurrection, they should be dq'd. I don't think any Dem is disagreeing with that.

Republicans are arguing that they, the Republicans, will make bad faith accusations against Democrats.

And that there would be no limiting factor to prevent them.

Well, let's inject common sense here. They won't impeach Biden and they won't impeach Mayorkas. No one is going to slap an insurrection disability on a random candidate who clearly has not engaged in insurrection. Most people on both sides of the aisle do live in the same reality and understand they need evidence in court.

So no, I don't think red states can just push out any Democrat they want.

Our country was so very lucky to have Washington as our first president, who set the precedent for a U.S. president to peacefully transition after his term. That good faith gesture happened until Trump. The GOP has been pushing limits of these established presidents (not voting on a Supreme Court justice). If Trump is not punished for his actions leading to and on 1/6, by either of the other two branches, he and the GOP will only be emboldened because there are no checks left. This is what we're voting for this November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was over when Justice Kagan said, “why does Colorado get to decide.”

It was downhill from there.

It just shows how stupid Kagan is. Colorado is just deciding its ballot. Texas is worst outlawing abortion ans hunting down those who have an abortion in another state?

[Anonymous]

It is time to ignore SCOTUS to stop their radical agenda.

[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.

That would be appealed and overturned in an instant. That’s why Courts of Appeals and SCOTUS exist, to overturn dipshit lower court and state judges who make dipshit rulings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t take it anymore. Trump is winning. The bully is winning

Nah. Look, the Supreme Court will vote to ignore the 14th Amendment. Believe that. It's just too politically inconvenient for them to abide by its text and original intent. So, he'll "win" this particular case I guess.

But we're talking about insurrection again. We're talking about how he violently tried to overthrow the government. So that chips away at some portion of voters who think they can vote for him and still think of themselves as a good citizen. That has value. Bringing this case has value. Keep fighting, and his house of cards will fall.

That makes no sense. Voters will see this as a victory of absolution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t take it anymore. Trump is winning. The bully is winning

Nah. Look, the Supreme Court will vote to ignore the 14th Amendment. Believe that. It's just too politically inconvenient for them to abide by its text and original intent. So, he'll "win" this particular case I guess.

But we're talking about insurrection again. We're talking about how he violently tried to overthrow the government. So that chips away at some portion of voters who think they can vote for him and still think of themselves as a good citizen. That has value. Bringing this case has value. Keep fighting, and his house of cards will fall.

That makes no sense. Voters will see this as a victory of absolution.

That’s very how Trump will frame it and the right wing propaganda machine will repeat it ad naseum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

So?

Here is the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (it doesn't say anything about being charged or convicted):

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Literally clear as day. The SC is a puppet.