Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

You have trouble reading. So I’ll say it again.

If he’s convicted, yes, please take him off the ballot. Until then, there’s not much of a case here. You can’t take someone off based on feeling. This is the United States, we have due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, I DESPISE Trump. But going about it this way will not end well and only will not only have SCOTUS overturn this, but will also have people who are on the fence, will support Trump.

This isn’t difficult to understand. The people cheering for this will have a rude awakening. This isn’t the way to go about this. Convict him first, then do it this way.

Cites for your legal theory that the 14th Amendment requires a conviction in a criminal case?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe DUE PROCESS?

Maybe that Trump was ACQUITTED at impeachment of insurrection and no one in the capitol on Jan 6th has been charged with insurrection?

You really believe 4 judges are going to decide this election for the country? I'm just not seeing it. But you do you.

SCOTUS is going to shoot this ruling down. Take that like it's coming from the burning bush.

He got due process.
Four judges are not deciding the election. They decided that a candidate is constitutionally disqualified. The voters don't have the ability or authority to vote on whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That is not something we vote on.

https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/levin-the-democrat-partys-fetish-for-the-14th-amendment-is-a-vile-attack-on-our-elections-directed-at-one-man-donald-trump

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

He has not been convicted of what you're accusing him of. Is this super complicated for you?

The question isn't about criminal conviction. Its about a constitutional question under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is not a criminal code. The only crime defined therein is treason.

A court of law, after due notice to Trump, who had an opportunity to respond, and who was represented by counsel, has unanimously found that he engaged in insurrection and so is barred from being on the ballot. He hasn't been sentenced to prison, just disqualified under the 14th Amendment, which is not a criminal code.

"has unanimously found that he engaged in insurrection"

Wut?

It was a 4 to 3 decision. Read the ruling. Even they doubt themselves.

The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

You have trouble reading. So I’ll say it again.

If he’s convicted, yes, please take him off the ballot. Until then, there’s not much of a case here. You can’t take someone off based on feeling. This is the United States, we have due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, I DESPISE Trump. But going about it this way will not end well and only will not only have SCOTUS overturn this, but will also have people who are on the fence, will support Trump.

This isn’t difficult to understand. The people cheering for this will have a rude awakening. This isn’t the way to go about this. Convict him first, then do it this way.

Cites for your legal theory that the 14th Amendment requires a conviction in a criminal case?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe DUE PROCESS?

Maybe that Trump was ACQUITTED at impeachment of insurrection and no one in the capitol on Jan 6th has been charged with insurrection?

You really believe 4 judges are going to decide this election for the country? I'm just not seeing it. But you do you.

SCOTUS is going to shoot this ruling down. Take that like it's coming from the burning bush.

He got due process.
Four judges are not deciding the election. They decided that a candidate is constitutionally disqualified. The voters don't have the ability or authority to vote on whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That is not something we vote on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

You have trouble reading. So I’ll say it again.

If he’s convicted, yes, please take him off the ballot. Until then, there’s not much of a case here. You can’t take someone off based on feeling. This is the United States, we have due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, I DESPISE Trump. But going about it this way will not end well and only will not only have SCOTUS overturn this, but will also have people who are on the fence, will support Trump.

This isn’t difficult to understand. The people cheering for this will have a rude awakening. This isn’t the way to go about this. Convict him first, then do it this way.

Cites for your legal theory that the 14th Amendment requires a conviction in a criminal case?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe DUE PROCESS?

Maybe that Trump was ACQUITTED at impeachment of insurrection and no one in the capitol on Jan 6th has been charged with insurrection?

You really believe 4 judges are going to decide this election for the country? I'm just not seeing it. But you do you.

SCOTUS is going to shoot this ruling down. Take that like it's coming from the burning bush.

Sigh. He had due process. Due process =/= a criminal proceeding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

He has not been convicted of what you're accusing him of. Is this super complicated for you?

The question isn't about criminal conviction. Its about a constitutional question under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is not a criminal code. The only crime defined therein is treason.

A court of law, after due notice to Trump, who had an opportunity to respond, and who was represented by counsel, has unanimously found that he engaged in insurrection and so is barred from being on the ballot. He hasn't been sentenced to prison, just disqualified under the 14th Amendment, which is not a criminal code.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

You have trouble reading. So I’ll say it again.

If he’s convicted, yes, please take him off the ballot. Until then, there’s not much of a case here. You can’t take someone off based on feeling. This is the United States, we have due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, I DESPISE Trump. But going about it this way will not end well and only will not only have SCOTUS overturn this, but will also have people who are on the fence, will support Trump.

This isn’t difficult to understand. The people cheering for this will have a rude awakening. This isn’t the way to go about this. Convict him first, then do it this way.

Cites for your legal theory that the 14th Amendment requires a conviction in a criminal case?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe DUE PROCESS?

Maybe that Trump was ACQUITTED at impeachment of insurrection and no one in the capitol on Jan 6th has been charged with insurrection?

You really believe 4 judges are going to decide this election for the country? I'm just not seeing it. But you do you.

SCOTUS is going to shoot this ruling down. Take that like it's coming from the burning bush.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

You have trouble reading. So I’ll say it again.

If he’s convicted, yes, please take him off the ballot. Until then, there’s not much of a case here. You can’t take someone off based on feeling. This is the United States, we have due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, I DESPISE Trump. But going about it this way will not end well and only will not only have SCOTUS overturn this, but will also have people who are on the fence, will support Trump.

This isn’t difficult to understand. The people cheering for this will have a rude awakening. This isn’t the way to go about this. Convict him first, then do it this way.

Cites for your legal theory that the 14th Amendment requires a conviction in a criminal case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people believe civil proceedings don’t count, or that only criminal convictions count?

Because they don't understand and really hope it's true. (It isn't true).

No, it's because there's a huge number of people who believe if you don't get caught or can't be convicted, you don't get punished no matter what you did wrong. The same people who commit road rage incidents and hit and run and leave scenes of crimes because they feel if they aren't caught or are not caught at the scene, they can deny and get off Scott free.

So, to them, only proof positive that a court can convict you on, is sufficient to impede their imagined rights.

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many people believe civil proceedings don’t count, or that only criminal convictions count?

Because they don't understand and really hope it's true. (It isn't true).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: SCOTUS agrees with Colorado. (Remember this case was brought by Republicans using a legal theory advanced by conservative jurists). Trump loses one or more criminal cases. Trump tries to summon the same Jan 6 mob but they don’t show en masse, having seen their compatriots get criminal convictions, jail time, and big legal bills from Jan 6th (Trump’s been using J6 fundraising for his lifestyle, not to pay the legal defense costs of his supporters). Nikki Haley becomes nominee by offering to pardon Trump. Haley can and does beat Biden. Trump convicted in GA but pardoned by Republican governor. Trump pursued by civil litigants until his ultimate demise.

Governors can’t pardon people in Georgia. 😀

Governors can pardon for state crimes. Presidents cannot.
Presidents can pardon for Federal crimes, governors cannot.

Regardless of this general rule, Georgia is one of nine states where the governor does not hold the power of clemency and that power is held by a state appointed board. Only the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles can grant clemency. The governor appoints officers to the board, but once (s)he does so, they serve a 7-year term that no single official, including the governor, can cancel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

You have trouble reading. So I’ll say it again.

If he’s convicted, yes, please take him off the ballot. Until then, there’s not much of a case here. You can’t take someone off based on feeling. This is the United States, we have due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, I DESPISE Trump. But going about it this way will not end well and only will not only have SCOTUS overturn this, but will also have people who are on the fence, will support Trump.

This isn’t difficult to understand. The people cheering for this will have a rude awakening. This isn’t the way to go about this. Convict him first, then do it this way.

'
Despite having stacked the court, it is not a guarantee that SCOTUS will overturn this. First they cited then-appellate court judge, Neil Gorsuch, who essentially said that it was within states rights to determine who was on their ballots. His earlier ruling specifically said that this should be left up to the states to decide how to set their ballots and how to proceed with their elections. Also in previous cases, this SCOTUS has reaffirmed states rights even insofar as to overturn RvW with Dobbs and send those decisions back to the states. To flip-flop and decide that the states do not have the right to decide how to decide their elections and how to decide upon electors to attend the electoral college count would be completely counter to the philosophies with which they have been decidng since Roberts first took the Chief Justice position.

I think it is likely to be anywhere from 5-4 to 7-2 in favor of Colorado (Thomas and Alito do not care if they are considered hypocritical, they are bought and sold partisan jurists).

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it will work. It will infuriate his base. The root issues need to be resolved

There is nothing that will convince his base. His base is the mouth-frothing MAGAs and they steadfastly refuse to recognize anything that goes against their deep programming to support Trump no matter what he does. You aren't going to appease them, so the best is to just ignore them and try to work around them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: SCOTUS agrees with Colorado. (Remember this case was brought by Republicans using a legal theory advanced by conservative jurists). Trump loses one or more criminal cases. Trump tries to summon the same Jan 6 mob but they don’t show en masse, having seen their compatriots get criminal convictions, jail time, and big legal bills from Jan 6th (Trump’s been using J6 fundraising for his lifestyle, not to pay the legal defense costs of his supporters). Nikki Haley becomes nominee by offering to pardon Trump. Haley can and does beat Biden. Trump convicted in GA but pardoned by Republican governor. Trump pursued by civil litigants until his ultimate demise.

Governors can’t pardon people in Georgia. 😀

Governors can pardon for state crimes. Presidents cannot.
Presidents can pardon for Federal crimes, governors cannot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prediction: SCOTUS agrees with Colorado. (Remember this case was brought by Republicans using a legal theory advanced by conservative jurists). Trump loses one or more criminal cases. Trump tries to summon the same Jan 6 mob but they don’t show en masse, having seen their compatriots get criminal convictions, jail time, and big legal bills from Jan 6th (Trump’s been using J6 fundraising for his lifestyle, not to pay the legal defense costs of his supporters). Nikki Haley becomes nominee by offering to pardon Trump. Haley can and does beat Biden. Trump convicted in GA but pardoned by Republican governor. Trump pursued by civil litigants until his ultimate demise.

If Trump is not the nominee, neither will Biden. He will step back and the Dem superdelegates will pick the slate for 2024.

I also do not think the GA Governor will pardon Trump.

I expect that if Trump is barred from being the candidate (that is the only way he will not be the candidate, is if he is legally barred, because in his Hubris, he cannot imagine anyone else being candidate and even if the entire GOP leadership were against it, he would still run and probably win the nomination from the convention), AND Nikki Haley is the candidate that not only will Biden step down, but it will become a race between Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer. I personally think that Andy Beshear is the best option out there at this time, but he just won reelection and has repeated declined to be considered for any office outside of Kentucky so far. My second choice is Michelle Lujan-Grisham of NM, but I don't think she has enough name recognition to make it yet. So, I think it will Harris vs Whitmer to take on Haley if Trump were barred from running.

I don’t think it will work. It will infuriate his base. The root issues need to be resolved