Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about Hitlah.
Who’s Hitlah? Who’s Hitlah?
They’re saying I quoted Hitlah,
I know nothing about Hitlah. Nothing.

And just so you undertand,
Just so you understand,
What I said is very different.
It's Very different from from what Hitlah said.

It’s totally different,
It’s totally different from what Hitlah said.

Theyah ruining our country,
Theyah trying to ruin it.

This attention seeker still finds himself funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

Interesting that conservative donors haven’t had control of the national election cycle for a while now. Their guys don’t get picked or can’t win. They’ve really lost control of the base.
The court is different. That’s where they really get their money’s worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about Hitlah.
Who’s Hitlah? Who’s Hitlah?
They’re saying I quoted Hitlah,
I know nothing about Hitlah. Nothing.

And just so you undertand,
Just so you understand,
What I said is very different.
It's Very different from from what Hitlah said.

It’s totally different,
It’s totally different from what Hitlah said.

Theyah ruining our country,
Theyah trying to ruin it.

This attention seeker still finds himself funny.

+1

[Anonymous]

SCOTUS should throw Trump to the wolves. Sure, most of them are Federalist Society hacks, but what good is Trump to them now? He’s way more trouble than it’s worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

The Koch's and Federalists Society have lined up with Haley. That may not giver the the nomination, but it certainly gives her the resources to mount a credible national campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a minor difference between the definitions for “insurrection” and “sedition.” Does anyone know if there is a legal distinction?

I'm not aware of sedition being in the Constitution. Sedition is defined by act of congress (and the sedition act is very problematic).

Does the 4th amendment require a separate law in order to be invoked in a proceeding? Does it require someone be convicted of a 4th Amendment violation? No. The proceeding itself it about something else but the 4th amendment can be used to support or dismiss the proceeding when relevant.

For the purposes of criminal prosecution for insurrection (I don't know offhand what laws were passed by congress to define it) would be defined in a statute. The 14th does not require a criminal statute to even exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

Question? It's totally partisan and they will. Supreme Court will rightfully overturn it but the state of CO will draaaaaagggg it out, hoping they can beat the clock.

Why do you think it’s partisan? If Trump planned the 1/6 events, how is it not violence against the government?

There is no evidence at ALL that Trump planned the 1/6 events. In fact, evidence shows he offered the National Guard when chatter suggested there might be violent parties there.

The judge is highly partisan.

Only if he thought those parties might not be his supporters. When he was told people at the speeches had guns, he said it was fine since they were his friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is plainly unconstitutional to remove Trump from the ballot, and his voters will be more galvanized than ever. Mark it down, this will not turn out well for Dems.

The constitution literally calls for it. Clearly.

His voters may be more galvanized, but the rest of us on planet earth will be more than happy to move on from him.

It's NOT what you think it is.

There are people who like to pick out a few sentences in a lengthy opinion to claim it is an intended self-destruct mechanism, as if this was the kind of frivolity courts engage in. Kind of like how Trump insisted the disclaimer in his financial statements was a self-destruct mechanism. There are many situations in which a court issues a stay of its own ruling pending appeal. Likelihood of success of appeal is (obviously) hard to measure. Irreparable harm or harm to other parties--none, because the campaign continues and ballots do not have to be printed yet. Public interest is the major reason for issuing its own stay and saves time and resources that would be spent on motions.

[Anonymous]

Trump could not be convicted by the senate because he was out of office by the time Mitch got around to holding the trial.

Trump cannot be tried or convicted criminally because the senate didn’t convict him.

Trump cannot be barred under the 14th Amendment because he hasn’t been criminally convicted.

It’s a perfect circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

Big money’s problem was lining up behind Trump in the first place. History is littered with examples of oligarchs overestimating their ability to control a populist dictator. If Trump manages to win this time after they’ve betrayed him, he owes them nothing. Not court appointments, not tax cuts, nothing. He might as well paint a target on their backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump could not be convicted by the senate because he was out of office by the time Mitch got around to holding the trial.

Trump cannot be tried or convicted criminally because the senate didn’t convict him.

Trump cannot be barred under the 14th Amendment because he hasn’t been criminally convicted.

It’s a perfect circle.

The 14th amendment makes no mention of criminal conviction. The people who wrote it could have easily penciled that part in and yet they didn’t. It’s almost as if they lived through a Civil War and knew what insurrection looked like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

Trump will not go away. If he should lose in primaries then he will rum as a write in candidate and his base will vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

Trump will not go away. If he should lose in primaries then he will rum as a write in candidate and his base will vote for him.

This is the best case scenario to counter "no labels" and Joe Manchin (because we all know Manchin is going to happen)