Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You seem to have an odd understanding of due process. Due process refers to, this section of the 5th Amendment:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

How does declaring him ineligible to serve as POTUS based on a later Constitutional Amendment (the 14th) deprive him of life, liberty or property?

And as another PP pointed out, even if you somehow managed to believe that this somehow applies, he was given "due process of law" with the 5 day trial in Colorado where his lawyers participated and concurred with the evidence submitted. They did not deny any of the evidence as presented. And then, Trump, himself, was invited to testify, but chose not to. So, how was he not accorded due process of law?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of all the election lawsuits in 2020. They were so sure Trump and the Kraken would be victorious in court. It wasn’t based in law, just whatever disinformation they could get repeated on Twitter.

You think they’d learn.

I wish people realized that much of this was funded by billionaires whose only objective is to sow chaos.

I want Trump to run. He’s a criminal and will lose again by larger margins.

Uh, who are the billionaires who funded this lawsuit? Please show the receipts.

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of all the election lawsuits in 2020. They were so sure Trump and the Kraken would be victorious in court. It wasn’t based in law, just whatever disinformation they could get repeated on Twitter.

You think they’d learn.

I wish people realized that much of this was funded by billionaires whose only objective is to sow chaos.

I want Trump to run. He’s a criminal and will lose again by larger margins.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone think it's ironic that Trump tried to do this to Obama with his birth certificate?...... Are we saying if he would have proved Obama was from Kenya that we would have been like? Okay cool, we'll just throw out the constitution and nominate him anyway

No, but the GOP would have. That is the point. They don't care about rules and laws.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone think it's ironic that Trump tried to do this to Obama with his birth certificate?...... Are we saying if he would have proved Obama was from Kenya that we would have been like? Okay cool, we'll just throw out the constitution and nominate him anyway

But only if he was criminally convicted of being from Kenya! Because criminal convictions are required to disqualify an unqualified person from the ballot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Of course we all know that SCOTUS will reverse. The court is bought and paid for by the GOP.

I disagree that it is a foregone conclusion that SC will reverse. Seven of the nine justices want to be thought of as people with ethics and will not want to be lap dogs for Trump. It's already too late for Thomas and Alito but Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett don't want to be pariahias for the next 20-30 years.

Has Trump ever won a case at the SC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.

No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.

Of course we all know that SCOTUS will reverse. The court is bought and paid for by the GOP.

I disagree that it is a foregone conclusion that SC will reverse. Seven of the nine justices want to be thought of as people with ethics and will not want to be lap dogs for Trump. It's already too late for Thomas and Alito but Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett don't want to be pariahias for the next 20-30 years.

Anyone think it's ironic that Trump tried to do this to Obama with his birth certificate?...... Are we saying if he would have proved Obama was from Kenya that we would have been like? Okay cool, we'll just throw out the constitution and nominate him anyway

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On what basis did Trump commit insurrection?

Planning, inciting, and attempting to use violence in order to take control of the government.

How? What’s the proof? Is Biden or Obama responsible for the years of blm rioting?

Keep playing (probably not playing?) dumb. Trump’s clearly your guy. Maybe one day you realize you’re defending a really selfish, bad guy. Maybe not. At least all this MAGA stuff is close to being over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On what basis did Trump commit insurrection?

Planning, inciting, and attempting to use violence in order to take control of the government.

How? What’s the proof? Is Biden or Obama responsible for the years of blm rioting?

The proof was presented in court. The Judge ruled that he engaged in insurrection. The state Supreme Court agreed with that and ruled that it disqualified him. That’s how these questions are decided. In court through due process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

and Lincoln sent in federal troops to Annapolis to prevent a secession vote. Totally unconstitutional yet might makes right

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

and Lincoln sent in federal troops to Annapolis to prevent a secession vote. Totally unconstitutional yet might makes right

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

My guess is some bullshit spin on ripeness or standing that they conjure up which will invalidate the decision without grappling with the merits.

Or, conceivably, SCOTUS might just decline to hear it at all. That would surprise me a little, but I can see where only Thomas and Alito might be in love with the guy; and Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett don't want the Supreme Court to die along with everything else Trump touches.

This would actually be their best off-ramp. Leave it to the states would be the consistent message from the majority of this court.

Also, the Federalist Society is done with Trump, turning its attention to Nikki Haley, who benefits the most of Trump is removed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Yes it’s totally desperate and anti-democratic to suggest that someone should be thrown off of a ballot.

He also said that Hillary Clinton should be disqualified because she received work emails on a personal server and that Barack Obama should be disqualified because Trump and other idiots didn’t believe he was born in Hawaii.