Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If they had already made their decision then today was just a sham
How does this boost the court's credibility? It doesn't.

Sometimes they've already decided before the oral argument, sometimes not. It's not a sham, either way.

Of course it's a sha. Most of us were interested in today's proceeding because we believed this was an honest hearing. To already have decided is a sham on the American people. My God, the United States of America is no better than as Third World Banana Republic.

Of course we all the were interested. So were the Justices. Y'all are getting outraged over something that you have dreamed up in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If they had already made their decision then today was just a sham
How does this boost the court's credibility? It doesn't.

Sometimes they've already decided before the oral argument, sometimes not. It's not a sham, either way.

Of course it's a sha. Most of us were interested in today's proceeding because we believed this was an honest hearing. To already have decided is a sham on the American people. My God, the United States of America is no better than as Third World Banana Republic.

Why are you this hysterical just because someone on DCUM posted something about SCOTUS, as if they know? Get a grip, PP. No one posting on DCUM knows what's going on at the supreme court.

[Anonymous]

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.

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

Did you listen to the arguments?
The three "liberals" asked tough questions of CO's counsel and were very skeptical of the responses. They are not "selling their vote."

Thats because they’ve already made a deal to vote with the republicans on this one in exchange for denying the stay on immunity.

That is not how they operate.
You people are just nuts.

I’m friends with a number of former clerks. The justices make deals and trade votes all the time. There are books written about the deals made on historical cases. It is absolutely how they operate.

[Anonymous]

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.

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

That was one of the hypotheticals proposed during the oral arguments. One of the justices (Roberts?) said that if this happens that Republican states would rush to disqualify Democrats from the ballot.

[Anonymous]

They realize Kamala Harris will be Vice President on Jan 3, 2025, right?

[twiiter]https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1755785769455620164[/twitter]

[Anonymous]

They realize Kamala Harris will be Vice President on Jan 3, 2025, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All three levels of the Colorado judiciary determined after a weeks long civil proceeding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

So you are saying that a red state could kick Biden off the ballot if the courts in that state just decided that his actions, for example, with respect to Iran (or maybe his actions to have DOJ prosecute his political opponent) constitutes an insurrection? And every state gets to decide whether Trump or Biden can be on their ballot? Quite the can of worms.

Bingo.

But that's ridiculous. The reason Trump was removed from the CO ballot is because he fomented an insurrection against the US government and thus is ineligible to run for POTUS. The 14th A is very clear about what disqualifies someone to run for elected office in the US.

[Anonymous]

Ya, well, the SCOTUS will justify not following the plain text of the Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ya, well, the SCOTUS will justify not following the plain text of the Amendment.

+1 As a number of us said on the Colorado thread, the only suspense is how they will do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

Might as well just crack open that case in the National Archives and set the Constitution on fire, since the words CLEARLY written on it apparently now mean absolutely nothing to SCOTUS.

It’s actually quite the opposite but nice try.

Opposite? You're confused. The Constitution LITERALLY refers to the Presidency as an OFFICE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All three levels of the Colorado judiciary determined after a weeks long civil proceeding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

So you are saying that a red state could kick Biden off the ballot if the courts in that state just decided that his actions, for example, with respect to Iran (or maybe his actions to have DOJ prosecute his political opponent) constitutes an insurrection? And every state gets to decide whether Trump or Biden can be on their ballot? Quite the can of worms.

Bingo.

But that's ridiculous. The reason Trump was removed from the CO ballot is because he fomented an insurrection against the US government and thus is ineligible to run for POTUS. The 14th A is very clear about what disqualifies someone to run for elected office in the US.

And Trump himself has admitted it was an insurrection. But then tries to absurdly deflect the blame to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All three levels of the Colorado judiciary determined after a weeks long civil proceeding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

So you are saying that a red state could kick Biden off the ballot if the courts in that state just decided that his actions, for example, with respect to Iran (or maybe his actions to have DOJ prosecute his political opponent) constitutes an insurrection? And every state gets to decide whether Trump or Biden can be on their ballot? Quite the can of worms.

Bingo.

But that's ridiculous. The reason Trump was removed from the CO ballot is because he fomented an insurrection against the US government and thus is ineligible to run for POTUS. The 14th A is very clear about what disqualifies someone to run for elected office in the US.

No, that's not right, unfortunately. He is not ineligible to run. He's not even automatically ineligible to be president. For some crazy reason the amendment says two thirds of congress can override the 14th amendment itself. Why in the world did they put that in there????

[Anonymous]

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.

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

That was one of the hypotheticals proposed during the oral arguments. One of the justices (Roberts?) said that if this happens that Republican states would rush to disqualify Democrats from the ballot.

If a Democrat has incited an insurrection, yes. But, to date, no Democrat has done this! How stupid is Roberts!

[Anonymous]

Trump's lawyer said that the 24th amendment did not say he could not run for President. So he can run but, if elected, he cannot serve. That's fine with me.