ADVERTISEMENT

SCOTUS Colorado

I didn't expect them to keep trump off ballot even though I think it was a legit removal.

I also don't think felons should be allowed on any ballots. They can't vote but they can run. Not logical.

How SCOTUS phrased the immunity decision doesn't make me think it will go against Trump. From what I saw, they're answering the question of whether or not a president's official duties should be immune from prosecution. I could see them confirming that.

But that only leads to the debate on whether or not Trump's actions in both cases (election and documents) qualify as official duty. That will be the next fight and next delay.
All I can say is I'd hate to be on trial with some of you on the jury if you knew I was a conservative. There would be no need to have a trial... you'd convict me just because my politics weren't the same as yours.

I dislike Trump about as much as anyone but I don't think he's been convicted.
 
All I can say is I'd hate to be on trial with some of you on the jury if you knew I was a conservative. There would be no need to have a trial... you'd convict me just because my politics weren't the same as yours.

I dislike Trump about as much as anyone but I don't think he's been convicted.
That's not true at all. I even have conservative friends. I know shocking.

Never said he was convicted.

You sure do make loads of assumptions.

From my perspective, you and your fellow conservatives don't seem to think a liberal judge can be fair. Anything they do must be based on politics. Projecting or just following Trump's lead in pretending to be a victim?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ulrey and DANC
I didn't expect them to keep trump off ballot even though I think it was a legit removal.

I also don't think felons should be allowed on any ballots. They can't vote but they can run. Not logical.

How SCOTUS phrased the immunity decision doesn't make me think it will go against Trump. From what I saw, they're answering the question of whether or not a president's official duties should be immune from prosecution. I could see them confirming that.

But that only leads to the debate on whether or not Trump's actions in both cases (election and documents) qualify as official duty. That will be the next fight and next delay.
You stumbled and bunbled onto the right standard....presidents should be/are immune from criminal prosecution for acts "within" their official duties. Were it not so, we could have several Presidents in the dock for murder for offing foreign residents, including in Obama's case, US nationals, with no declaration of war, due process et al. Hell, Nixon carried on a secret war with no legal consequences. Meanwhile Trump gets impeached for a phone call and charged criminally for questioning election results.
 
You stumbled and bunbled onto the right standard....presidents should be/are immune from criminal prosecution for acts "within" their official duties. Were it not so, we could have several Presidents in the dock for murder for offing foreign residents, including in Obama's case, US nationals, with no declaration of war, due process et al. Hell, Nixon carried on a secret war with no legal consequences. Meanwhile Trump gets impeached for a phone call and charged criminally for questioning election results.
I didn't stumble or bumble.

Sure, they should have immunity for official acts. The fact that SCOTUS seems to think that is the question seems to negate them answering the real question - which is immunity for everything...official or not. Are the answering the wrong question as a delay tactic?

If all they do is confirm immunity for official acts, then there is obviously the follow up question (the real one) of what counts as official.

Trump and his lawyers seem to think murder should fall under immunity.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Here is a question - since Congress gave themselves the power to "remove" the "disability" of being unable to serve, who/which of the Secesh did they have in mind? Were they wanting Lee to run? Good ol' GOP Longstreet? Pickett?

Which of them damn Rebels were they gonna let back into any federal henhouse?

Plus, this power has never been used, right? So where the 14th Amendors trying to lay down the law for future citizens and governments - even though the Founders did not try to tie future hands?

WTF? Get Olbermann back in here.
 
IANAL, but...

it seems the weakness in the case has always been an individual state deciding that a candidate is guilty of leading an insurrection at the Federal level. A state could improperly wield that authority to eliminate an opponent that they simply don't like. During reconstruction, for example, southern states could have eliminated Northern candidates, and vice versa. Bottom line is that Trump should have been charged by the Feds, just like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were, if they were ever going to make this stick.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
That's not true at all. I even have conservative friends. I know shocking.

Never said he was convicted.

You sure do make loads of assumptions.

From my perspective, you and your fellow conservatives don't seem to think a liberal judge can be fair. Anything they do must be based on politics. Projecting or just following Trump's lead in pretending to be a victim?
Well you're talking like Trump is a felon already.

I think both conservative and liberal judges have their biases BUT some (like the CO Supreme Court) make their biases so obvious that anyone can see them. The FL Supreme Court made all their decisions based on politics in the 2000 election.... not based on the law. There are judges on both sides like that. Obviously some of the CO judges thought they were going overboard and didn't go along with the decision and I'd bet most of them despise Trump but wouldn't vote to keep him off the ballot.

I think (and hope) that Trump loses the immunity case.
 
Well you're talking like Trump is a felon already.

I think both conservative and liberal judges have their biases BUT some (like the CO Supreme Court) make their biases so obvious that anyone can see them. The FL Supreme Court made all their decisions based on politics in the 2000 election.... not based on the law. There are judges on both sides like that. Obviously some of the CO judges thought they were going overboard and didn't go along with the decision and I'd bet most of them despise Trump but wouldn't vote to keep him off the ballot.

And which post did I call trump a felon? All I said was felons shouldn't be able to run for office. Do you disagree with the post that was actually made?

All you did was make an assumption so you could pretend I would be an unfair judge.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
Here is a question - since Congress gave themselves the power to "remove" the "disability" of being unable to serve, who/which of the Secesh did they have in mind? Were they wanting Lee to run? Good ol' GOP Longstreet? Pickett?

Which of them damn Rebels were they gonna let back into any federal henhouse?

Plus, this power has never been used, right? So where the 14th Amendors trying to lay down the law for future citizens and governments - even though the Founders did not try to tie future hands?

WTF? Get Olbermann back in here.
Shit, the VP of the Confederacy served in Congress AFTER the Civil War.

Alexander Hamilton Stephens[a] (February 11, 1812 – March 4, 1883) was an American politician who served as the first and only vice president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865, and later as the 50th governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883. A member of the Democratic Party, he represented the state of Georgia in the United States House of Representatives before and after the Civil War.

 
Right on cue. You're going to hear this from a lot of people on the Left, because they've been led to believe this was an easy slam dunk.

This is NOT a good development. It goes beyond mere crying over losing.
It’s so easy now for people to get lost in a feedback loop. Take myself, I always assume everyone knows about Bitcoin, but reality is 99% of people don’t think about it at all. I’m not sure what the answer is to the constant stream of information we get now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
The court ruled as they had to. I get why we don't want states making this decision. But I am not a huge "federalism above all" person. One board member likes to say we have no national elections. Since most of us agree states have no right to determine if someone can be removed, haven't we nationalized the election of President? If I were a big believer in state's rights, maybe the ruling would bother me. How do state's rights people square this circle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
The impeachment trial? I don't think they limited it to just that.
No. The insurrection statute.

Check out the thread you originally started on the Co decision. I previewed the reasoning for this decision in January. I don’t know if the parties briefed that issue but I think Kavavnaugh touched won it in the oral argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312
Check out the thread you originally started on the Co decision. I previewed the reasoning for this decision in January. I don’t know if the parties briefed that issue but I think Kavavnaugh touched won it in the oral argument.

I've slept since then. Phukat.
 
Many didn’t. They saw this as an opportunity to make the court look partisan and illegitimate.

No one with any sense thought Trump would lose the ballot question. The only questions I saw raised were what rationale would be used. They took the quickest, simplest out they could. The "insurrection" question was never addressed.
 
Many didn’t. They saw this as an opportunity to make the court look partisan and illegitimate.
Also, not to belabor the point, but the people trying to accuse SCOTUS of lacking legitimacy are really banking on the theory that the path to legitimacy would be for a small group of appointed elites to ban voters from choosing the candidate they want? Good grief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
The court ruled as they had to. I get why we don't want states making this decision. But I am not a huge "federalism above all" person. One board member likes to say we have no national elections. Since most of us agree states have no right to determine if someone can be removed, haven't we nationalized the election of President? If I were a big believer in state's rights, maybe the ruling would bother me. How do state's rights people square this circle?
The 14th Amendment specifically says it shall be enforced by Congress:

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
I didn't stumble or bumble.

Sure, they should have immunity for official acts. The fact that SCOTUS seems to think that is the question seems to negate them answering the real question - which is immunity for everything...official or not. Are the answering the wrong question as a delay tactic?

If all they do is confirm immunity for official acts, then there is obviously the follow up question (the real one) of what counts as official.

Trump and his lawyers seem to think murder should fall under immunity.
Come down Fani..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT