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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.

But Congress CAN remove it. It's part of the 14th amendment. That's the argument being made -- because Congress can override the disqualification to hold office by an insurrectionist, they are saying he can be on the ballet and removed from office if elected -- or not if Congress votes by two thirds to let him stay.

This could be the easiest way for the Court to decide as it avoids the issues of whether Trump engaged in insurrection and whether this applies to the office of President.

Colorado's argument is that as of January 6, Trump is an insurrectionist and therefore disqualified, and as such, he is not on their ballot.

Trump's lawyer argues, among other things, that even if Trump is currently disqualified from holding office as an insurrectionist, that he has until election day to get that disability removed. The relevant period is the time he takes office, not the time he is put on the ballot. They draw the analogy to a 34 year old who will be 35 at inauguration, arguing that what Colorado is doing is again to having a rule that you must be 35 by election day.

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.

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.

So what you are saying is I can just say Joe Biden is an insurrectionist? Or do will have some other steps.

You can say the sky is green. That doesn't make it so.

Normal people know that what happened on January 6 was an insurrection. Not a big insurrection, just a little one. With a little bit of rioting and a little bit of violence and injury. The Constitution doesn't say it has to be a big insurrection, a little one is disqualifying too.

At least seven people died as a result of Jan 6 and only thanks to bravery of police officers were numbers not higher …

This is all perfectly set up for a deal between the republicans and democrats on the court. Trump's request for a stay of the immunity decision is going to be filed on Monday. I predict that by the end of February, there is a 9-0 decision that Trump can stay on the ballot, and his stay is denied. Then the court can look like it is non-partisan and even-handed.

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.

Why would this prevent a democrats who haven’t engaged in insurrection or are under felony indictments from being in the ballot?

The argument is that if Trump is disqualified, then republicans will engage in bad faith efforts to disqualify democrats. It's the same argument they used when Trump was impeached, and when he was indicted. Their own bad faith means that Trump can never face any consequences for his actions.

I was afraid of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.

But Congress CAN remove it. It's part of the 14th amendment. That's the argument being made -- because Congress can override the disqualification to hold office by an insurrectionist, they are saying he can be on the ballet and removed from office if elected -- or not if Congress votes by two thirds to let him stay.

How would he be removed after he was elected?

If he is disqualified, then he will not be seated. Or if he is already seated, then he will be unseated.

By who? Presidents aren't "seated."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.

But Congress CAN remove it. It's part of the 14th amendment. That's the argument being made -- because Congress can override the disqualification to hold office by an insurrectionist, they are saying he can be on the ballet and removed from office if elected -- or not if Congress votes by two thirds to let him stay.

How would he be removed after he was elected?

Arrested and dragged from the white house? One can dream.

I mean, obviously not. I don't get this argument at all (and didn't understand anyone in the oral argument to be making any such argument). Is it that Congress will have some vote after the election, and if Trump gets 2/3's he will be allowed to be president, and if he gets less than 2/3 he won't?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.

But Congress CAN remove it. It's part of the 14th amendment. That's the argument being made -- because Congress can override the disqualification to hold office by an insurrectionist, they are saying he can be on the ballet and removed from office if elected -- or not if Congress votes by two thirds to let him stay.

How would he be removed after he was elected?

If he is disqualified, then he will not be seated. Or if he is already seated, then he will be unseated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.

But Congress CAN remove it. It's part of the 14th amendment. That's the argument being made -- because Congress can override the disqualification to hold office by an insurrectionist, they are saying he can be on the ballet and removed from office if elected -- or not if Congress votes by two thirds to let him stay.

How would he be removed after he was elected?

Arrested and dragged from the white house? One can dream.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.

But Congress CAN remove it. It's part of the 14th amendment. That's the argument being made -- because Congress can override the disqualification to hold office by an insurrectionist, they are saying he can be on the ballet and removed from office if elected -- or not if Congress votes by two thirds to let him stay.

How would he be removed after he was elected?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the state produced evidence of a birth certificate that shows that he was indeed born outside the US, this would be fine. Now in Obama's case this could never possibly happen, as he was born in Hawaii. But that doesn't mean that just because this does not in any way apply to Obama, that it would be wrong for a state to make this ruling if there was actual evidence that the candidate was born abroad.

Exactly. Secretaries of state and state courts adjudicate eligibility for political offices and ballot access all the time. Obviously they have to provide due process, base their decisions on evidence, etc. How else would the qualification requirements in the constitution be enforced?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.

But Congress CAN remove it. It's part of the 14th amendment. That's the argument being made -- because Congress can override the disqualification to hold office by an insurrectionist, they are saying he can be on the ballet and removed from office if elected -- or not if Congress votes by two thirds to let him stay.

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.

If the state produced evidence of a birth certificate that shows that he was indeed born outside the US, this would be fine. Now in Obama's case this could never possibly happen, as he was born in Hawaii. But that doesn't mean that just because this does not in any way apply to Obama, that it would be wrong for a state to make this ruling if there was actual evidence that the candidate was born abroad.

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

What does that have to do with anything? Congress didn't remove Trump's disability.