The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Trump incited and engaged in insurrection. No amount of false claims or twisted reasoning is going to change that.
If so, two courts of law and one Secretary of State to date are similarly deluded. The differences is, their beliefs matter because they have the power to disqualify Trump from the ballot in their states.
You can continue to post "peacefully and patriotically" all you want. You do seem to enjoy that. But nothing about those words or the setting in which Trump said them will reverse the Colorado and Maine ballot rulings.
US Supreme Court Watch
The Colorado Republican Party has has appealed to the US Supreme Court the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump is disqualified from serving as president of the US. Trump says he will also appeal but he has not yet done so.
Regardless of when Trump acts, the SCOTUS justices can instantly take up this case if they want to. They can rule to put a near-instant end to this ballot disqualification nonsense, as many put it, and clear the way for Trump to campaign unhindered.
While they only just received the Colorado GOP appeal, every day that goes by will raise the question, what are they waiting for? If this pro-Trump court intends to rescue him from the growing number of ballot disqualifications, why do they not act to do that very thing?
The Colorado Republican Party has has appealed to the US Supreme Court the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump is disqualified from serving as president of the US. Trump says he will also appeal but he has not yet done so.
Regardless of when Trump acts, the SCOTUS justices can instantly take up this case if they want to. They can rule to put a near-instant end to this ballot disqualification nonsense, as many put it, and clear the way for Trump to campaign unhindered.
While they only just received the Colorado GOP appeal, every day that goes by will raise the question, what are they waiting for? If this pro-Trump court intends to rescue him from the growing number of ballot disqualifications, why do they not act to do that very thing?
Trump doesn't have immunity from Jan. 6 civil suit brought by U.S. Capitol Police officers, appeals court says
Trump doesn't have immunity from Jan. 6 civil suit brought by U.S. Capitol Police officers, appeals court says
The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was brought by seven U.S. Capitol Police officers against former President Donald Trump and more than a dozen others.
www.cbsnews.com
Did the Dems omit the part about "peacefully"or not? It's well documented they did.
Why is Bard lying? Trump clearly said the word "peacefully" in his speech. He also used the words "peaceful" twice and "peace" three times that day at least.
Stay tuned. The SCOTUS will eventually rule on this. All in good time.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Presidents. Trump was also acquitted in the Senate anyway.
In case after case, Trump presses his immunity claim. And in case after case, he loses.Trump doesn't have immunity from Jan. 6 civil suit brought by U.S. Capitol Police officers, appeals court says
Trump doesn't have immunity from Jan. 6 civil suit brought by U.S. Capitol Police officers, appeals court says
The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was brought by seven U.S. Capitol Police officers against former President Donald Trump and more than a dozen others.
That hasn't been proven. Neither Trump nor anyone else has been indicted for incitement or engagement in insurrection. Regardless of what a low-level CO judge may have arbitrarily ruled, it has not been definitively established that there even was an insurrection. SCOTUS will have to decide that. The Democrats' pretense of redefining "insurrection" remains meaningless.
A "group" of three voters challenged Trump's eligibility and of course Bellows had to follow the required "process" which would allow her to disenfranchise over 300K ME Republican citizens from voting for the candidate of their choice. Bellows isn't an elected official - she's appointed by a group of state Democrat party leaders. Considering Maine is a strong Blue state, she could've left Trump on the ballot and let the voters decide. Instead she used three Democrat allies to aid the process that facilitated this nakedly partisan decision.
And that's exactly what's going to happen in both CO and ME; Trump will remain on both ballots pending appeal. CO ballots go to the printer on Jan 5th, so SCOTUS needs to rule before then. Ain't gonna happen.
"Trump remains on the ballot in both states for next year’s GOP presidential primary, since both paused implementation of their decision to allow time for higher courts to intervene."
What comes next for Trump in the Maine ballot dispute
Maine courts have less than a month to decide whether Trump should be on the state's ballot, but experts say it will ultimately be up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
www.nbcnews.com
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It seems there is a difference of opinion about that.
Correct.
And Al Capone wasn't convicted of murder ... even though he most likely ordered them if not personally committing them.
They got him on tax evasion.
Which was good enough ... good enough to remove him from society and keep him from doing further damage.
I would argue that it has in fact been established.
Others might disagree ... but I personally think they're "whistling past the graveyard" ... as the old saying goes.
Unlikely that SCOTUS will decide "whether or not there was an insurrection".
Whether or not there was an insurrection would be a finding of fact.
In the United States Judicial System trial courts are considered to be the triers of facts ... and appeals courts - of which SCOTUS is the highest - generally limit themselves to matters of errors in the application of the law ... as applied by lower courts.
Appellate courts generally defer to trial courts and grant them great deference on fact finding ... particularly when a jury is the finder of fact.
For an appeals court to overturn a lower court's findings of fact, the findings of the lower court would most likely have to be "clearly erroneous":
Which is actually a specific legal standard (United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948), partial holdings quoted below) ... resulting from precedent cases at SCOTUS where that standard was defined.
SCOTUS may well find on the law as regards Trump's eligibility to hold office, but I seriously doubt you'll being seeing any rulings from them saying that there wasn't an insurrection.
Both the Colorado courts didn't need to redefine "insurrection" ... the Supreme Court of Colorado particularly, just used the plain meaning/definition of the term, even going so far as to go back and consult old dictionaries from hundreds of years ago.
To understand the understandings at the time ... from an originalist and textualist point of view ...
Something that itself is pretty ironic ... and therefore hilarious ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
A candidate being unqualified to appear on a ballot isn't disenfranchising anyone.
Any voter otherwise qualified, is still permitted to vote for any candidate ... who is qualified to be on the ballot.
The premise you're putting forward is silly on its face.
It's like saying voters who can't vote for a 18 year old or a foreign born person for POTUS are being "disenfranchised".
Nope.
Actually she is - she ran for the Secretary of State office in an election and was elected over Republican Eric Brakey.
In the State of Maine, that election is not a general election where the general public votes on candidates for the office.
Rather it is held in a joint session of the Maine Legislature, where members of both houses (Maine House of Representatives and the Maine Senate) vote for the candidates who are running.
Ain't representative government great ?
Wrong:
Shenna Bellows becomes first woman elected as Maine secretary of state
She was elected ... by the people's representatives !
Ahem ... now, what was I saying ? ... oh yeah:
Ain't representative government great ?
If she had, she would have failed to uphold her oath of office:
... rendering her unfit to serve and hold office.
Nope.
Not really.
Doesn't really matter whether he appears on the ballot.
If the SCOTUS upholds the decision finding him to be unqualified (and ineligible to even appear on the ballot), he wouldn't be able to hold office.
Pretty wild to imagine that a couple of state lawsuits could have the net effect of disqualifying the potential nominee of a major party from national office ... indeed the highest office in the land.
But that is what could happen ... depending on how they rule.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yup.
That was a decision of a political matter ... by a political body.
A fact some folks seem to miss ... along with:
Courts are triers of facts and apply the law.