B-Man Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Colorado Lawyer Flails As Clarence Thomas Calmly Destroys His Trump Disqualification Argument by Shawn Fleetwood By merely asking for examples, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas calmly destroyed respondents’ argument for disqualifying former President Donald Trump from Colorado’s 2024 presidential primary ballot. The moment came on Thursday morning, during oral arguments on Trump’s appeal to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s Dec. 19 decision to keep him off the Centennial State’s 2024 primary ballot. Colorado’s highest court claimed in its ruling that the former president can be “disqualified” from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/08/colorado-lawyer-flails-as-clarence-thomas-calmly-destroys-his-trump-disqualification-argument/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 On 8/30/2023 at 12:30 PM, ChiGoose said: The Constitution is an imperfect document. It was written over 200 years ago in a very different world. It didn't anticipate the modern world and it certainly didn't anticipate Donald Trump (though the Founders were quite worried about someone like him arising). So things like the 14th Amendment's disbarment clause are not super clear and lead to differing opinions. Is it self-executing? Does it require a finding of insurrection? If so, by whom and how? You can test it, have some body with standing move to disbar Trump. But that could have been done two years ago. Nothing relevant has changed in that time. So it feels a bit HashtagResistance-y and the latest in a line of "one weird tricks." Organize. Donate (especially monthly recurring donations). Volunteer. Vote. GOTV. That's the only way. Section 3 is pretty clear on scope. Naming specific roles and titles covered by the section. The President is not specifically named and a logical explanation can be made that this was intentional. Because the Senate has jurisdiction over trials involving the President. And J6 occured still on Trump's watch. How can a President still in office lead a rebellion or insurrection against himself? That said, the indiscretion could fall under some other act. The other concept you avoid is due process. A foundation of our legal system. Self executing? Is that even a thing in our legal system? Even a guy getting a parking ticket can request a hearing before a judge. But for high crimes it's a short cut from accusation to punishment bypassing the legal process inbetween. I expect SCOTUS will avoid any blanket ruling and will more or less say the State of Colorado has no standing to bar Trump from the ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 17 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Section 3 is pretty clear on scope. Naming specific roles and titles covered by the section. The President is not specifically named and a logical explanation can be made that this was intentional. Because the Senate has jurisdiction over trials involving the President. And J6 occured still on Trump's watch. How can a President still in office lead a rebellion or insurrection against himself? That said, the indiscretion could fall under some other act. The other concept you avoid is due process. A foundation of our legal system. Self executing? Is that even a thing in our legal system? Even a guy getting a parking ticket can request a hearing before a judge. But for high crimes it's a short cut from accusation to punishment bypassing the legal process inbetween. I expect SCOTUS will avoid any blanket ruling and will more or less say the State of Colorado has no standing to bar Trump from the ballot. Section 3 is not clear on scope. That's why a good amount of the SCOTUS hearing was about its scope and whether or not the President is an officer. It doesn't seem to make sense that the drafters wanted to ban basically anyone who held an office and committed an insurrection *except* the president. Self-coups are a thing and seems like they should apply here. The applicable level of due process for this is also unclear. In this case, there was a lawsuit in a Colorado district court in which Trump had an opportunity to present his case. The case then went to the Colorado Supreme Court where again Trump presented his case. Finally, the case went to SCOTUS, where Trump was also able to present his case. While I don't think it's super clear on what the standard for due process should be here, it's not like Trump was denied opportunity to present his case. Self-executing is a pretty common thing in the legal system. It's simply that no further actions are required for something to go into effect. In this context, the debate is whether the 14th Amendment requires Congress to establish a procedure for preventing an insurrectionist from holding office or if the text of the Amendment itself is sufficient. On the whole, it seems like it's self-executing but the language being unclear in certain areas makes applying it difficult. I expect SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor but I'm curious as to what the actual holding will be. If a state (which establishes its own rules on ballot qualification) cannot enforce 14§3, then who can? Requiring Congress to act effectively would make the provision non-existent due to the political nature of the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Section 3 is not clear on scope. That's why a good amount of the SCOTUS hearing was about its scope and whether or not the President is an officer. It doesn't seem to make sense that the drafters wanted to ban basically anyone who held an office and committed an insurrection *except* the president. Self-coups are a thing and seems like they should apply here. The applicable level of due process for this is also unclear. In this case, there was a lawsuit in a Colorado district court in which Trump had an opportunity to present his case. The case then went to the Colorado Supreme Court where again Trump presented his case. Finally, the case went to SCOTUS, where Trump was also able to present his case. While I don't think it's super clear on what the standard for due process should be here, it's not like Trump was denied opportunity to present his case. Self-executing is a pretty common thing in the legal system. It's simply that no further actions are required for something to go into effect. In this context, the debate is whether the 14th Amendment requires Congress to establish a procedure for preventing an insurrectionist from holding office or if the text of the Amendment itself is sufficient. On the whole, it seems like it's self-executing but the language being unclear in certain areas makes applying it difficult. I expect SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor but I'm curious as to what the actual holding will be. If a state (which establishes its own rules on ballot qualification) cannot enforce 14§3, then who can? Requiring Congress to act effectively would make the provision non-existent due to the political nature of the body. I hear what you're saying but even in the event of a self-executing section of the Constitution there still appears to be prerequisites missing. And that is the establishment of insurrection and the guilt of a specific party, in this case Trump, in that act. To date I'm not aware of either. As this was established as the result of the Civil War its pretty clear how it applies in that case. Articles of succession, military conflict, war, etc., and those that participating in those events How it applies to J6 is less clear. Some might say there's no such thing as a coincidence and in this case my curiosity is peaked by the constant references to J6 as "the biggest threat to our democracy since the Civil War" from day one. Its almost like there was a "plan" immediately in place to use an interpretation of A14.S3 that could and would be applied years later in legal/political actions against J6ers and Trump. Personally, making a review of history I think Pearl Harbor and WW2 were the biggest threats to our democracy since the Civil War, maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis next. Edited February 9 by All_Pro_Bills 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) 49 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I hear what you're saying but even in the event of a self-executing section of the Constitution there still appears to be prerequisites missing. And that is the establishment of insurrection and the guilt of a specific party, in this case Trump, in that act. To date I'm not aware of either. As this was established as the result of the Civil War its pretty clear how it applies in that case. Articles of succession, military conflict, war, etc., and those that participating in those events How it applies to J6 is less clear. Some might say there's no such thing as a coincidence and in this case my curiosity is peaked by the constant references to J6 as "the biggest threat to our democracy since the Civil War" from day one. Its almost like there was a "plan" immediately in place to use an interpretation of A14.S3 that could and would be applied years later in legal/political actions against J6ers and Trump. Personally, making a review of history I think Pearl Harbor and WW2 were the biggest threats to our democracy since the Civil War, maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis next. It doesn't appear that the amendment requires a criminal conviction of insurrection, just that the person in question was involved in one. Ideally, they would have spelled out how that determination is made, but they didn't; so instead we have courts making that determination. So far, courts have found that he meets that qualification of engaging in insurrection. Different courts have different opinions on the other requirements, but I think basically all of them reached the same conclusion on engaging in insurrection. I don't buy the coincidence theory here. What the media says doesn't have much bearing on the courts (and the media very often gets things wrong). If there was some grand plan to disqualify Trump or otherwise prevent him from taking office, it would have happened immediately after he left office, not several years later. From where things stand, it seems fairly likely that none of the cases about Trump's indictments will be resolved before the election. They may not even begin before then. If Trump was eligible to be disbarred by the 14th Amendment, he was eligible at noon on January 20th, 2021, yet this action was brought within the last few months. If there is some secret group coordinating to stop him through legal means then they really suck at it. Edited February 9 by ChiGoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: If there is some secret group coordinating to stop him through legal means then they really suck at it. I just think the Democratic leadership are much smarter and proficient at planning and thinking ahead than the Republican leadership (if such a group exists). Based on that edge I believe they have the competentency, will, and the way, plus the need and motivation to coordinate the various court cases and the State ballot actions to remove Trump. I might be giving them too much credit but I'm sticking with the idea for now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I just think the Democratic leadership are much smarter and proficient at planning and thinking ahead than the Republican leadership (if such a group exists). Based on that edge I believe they have the competentency, will, and the way, plus the need and motivation to coordinate the various court cases and the State ballot actions to remove Trump. I might be giving them too much credit but I'm sticking with the idea for now. I think you’re giving them too much credit. If you know anyone involved in Dem politics I’d suggest asking them how competent and smart Dem leadership is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I think you’re giving them too much credit. If you know anyone involved in Dem politics I’d suggest asking them how competent and smart Dem leadership is. The bar couldn’t be any lower for GOP leadership. They are simply not intelligent. Now the electorate (R&D) - that’s an entirely different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 We know Colorado (and every other state trying it) will lose. The only question is whether this will be unanimous or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffarukus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 13 minutes ago, BillStime said: The bar couldn’t be any lower for GOP leadership. They are simply not intelligent. Now the electorate (R&D) - that’s an entirely different story. And yet they have to resort to such desperate tactics to beat this "low bar" and are losing in the polls? It should tell you somthing But it wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 Just now, Buffarukus said: And yet they have to resort to such desperate tactics to beat this "low bar" and are losing in the polls? It should tell you somthing But it wont. Which tactic? And polls? RED WAVE will never stop haunting you… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffarukus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 4 minutes ago, BillStime said: Which tactic? And polls? RED WAVE will never stop haunting you… Removing the leading canidate from the ballot? Nicki haley still lost the primary to "noone" Having a clearly biased jan 6th trial on national tv that did nothing to change anyones mind. Changing NY statute of limitations. Waiting until election season to file charges that were obviously held back because everyone knows they are interested in a media smear campaign for the headlines, not justice. Win or lose...this is the most pathetic way to beat a political opponent. A "low bar" one as you put it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 Just now, Buffarukus said: Removing the leading canidate from the ballot? Nicki haley still lost the primary to "noone" Having a clearly biased jan 6th trial on national tv that did nothing to change anyones mind. Changing NY statute of limitations. Waiting until election season to file charges that were obviously held back because everyone knows they are interested in a media smear campaign for the headlines, not justice. Win or lose...this is the most pathetic way to beat a political opponent. A "low bar" one as you put it. Wait - you think the United States should sweep what happened on January 6 under the rug? What happened on January 6th was TRUMP’S TACTIC. JFC there are so many idiots here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 Meanwhile - you want to see a fkn tactic? The Trump family received $2 BILLION dollars and you freaks gotta pathetic Biden Corruption thread for $20 fkn million? pathetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffarukus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 3 minutes ago, BillStime said: Wait - you think the United States should sweep what happened on January 6 under the rug? What happened on January 6th was TRUMP’S TACTIC. JFC there are so many idiots here. Lol. Hundreds tracked down and arrested. Impeachment proceeded against the man. Which lost A full "hearing" showing it all on prime time television. Years go by not a charge brought. just cnn and your threads crying about it nonstop. Which part of this 4 years were "swept under the rug"? Where were the formal charges all this time? Right. Proceed with your manufactured outrage over it. Everyone else sees it for what it was. 4 minutes ago, BillStime said: Meanwhile - you want to see a fkn tactic? The Trump family received $2 BILLION dollars and you freaks gotta pathetic Biden Corruption thread for $20 fkn million? pathetic Not under any dillusion the people in politics are corrupt. Look at ALL their stock portfolios alone. Its clear. What of it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 2 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: Lol. Hundreds tracked down and arrested. Impeachment proceeded against the man. Which lost A full "hearing" showing it all on prime time television. Years go by not a charge brought. just cnn and your threads crying about it nonstop. Which part of this 4 years were "swept under the rug"? Where were the formal charges all this time? Right. Proceed with your manufactured outrage over it. Everyone else sees it for what it was. You are forgetting about all the events and moves Trump made leading up to and after Jan 6. Trump doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House. And last: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 20 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: Lol. Hundreds tracked down and arrested. Impeachment proceeded against the man. Which lost A full "hearing" showing it all on prime time television. Years go by not a charge brought. just cnn and your threads crying about it nonstop. Which part of this 4 years were "swept under the rug"? Where were the formal charges all this time? Right. Proceed with your manufactured outrage over it. Everyone else sees it for what it was. Not under any dillusion the people in politics are corrupt. Look at ALL their stock portfolios alone. Its clear. What of it? They're just whining and crying because no State will be allowed to keep Trump off the ballot after SCOTUS rules shortly in his favor, probably unanimously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffarukus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, BillStime said: You are forgetting about all the events and moves Trump made leading up to and after Jan 6. Trump doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House. And last: its a bit unsettling to know a terrorist who plots and executes a plan to "destroy democracy and this country" can just walk around freely for 4 years. im sure the russians and iranians are very pleased. Try to destroy america and they will only be judged by left wing media pundits for years. Just dont run in the general election. Lol. Edited February 10 by Buffarukus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffarukus Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 14 minutes ago, Doc said: They're just whining and crying because no State will be allowed to keep Trump off the ballot after SCOTUS rules shortly in his favor, probably unanimously. This month they are mad that republicans wont let them build a wall and they cant remove the top political rival from voters choice. Not a single thought that this all is a non issue with good policy from a competent administration. Not one. instead flail around on pure desperation tactics and hope for the best. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Doc said: They're just whining and crying because no State will be allowed to keep Trump off the ballot 1 hour ago, Buffarukus said: its a bit unsettling to know a terrorist who plots and executes a plan to "destroy democracy and this country" can just walk around freely for 4 years. im sure the russians and iranians are very pleased. Try to destroy america and they will only be judged by left wing media pundits for years. Just dont run in the general election. Lol. Thanks for highlighting the two tiered justice system that you cult freaks cry about. 1 hour ago, Buffarukus said: im sure the russians and iranians are very pleased. Best investment Putin ever made - paid off beyond his wildest wet dreams 39 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: Not a single thought that this all is a non issue with good policy from a competent administration. Not one. instead flail around on pure desperation tactics and hope for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 I think 10 hours ago, Buffarukus said: This month they are mad that republicans wont let them build a wall and they cant remove the top political rival from voters choice. Not a single thought that this all is a non issue with good policy from a competent administration. Not one. instead flail around on pure desperation tactics and hope for the best. I think Biden's on the ropes here. It's got Democratic leadership crapping their knickers. His open border is a complete disaster. Foriegn policy is a mess, military readiness is questionable, crime is out of control, the glowing economy is an illusion most aren't buying. The assault on Trump is failing to impact polls, Joe can't remember the names of various heads of state, what country they represent, or if they'll dead or alive. His administration is fixated on Ukraine and migrants but doesn't give a damn about American citizens. Throw in what I expect will be market and economic crashes coming this year partly because the fake economic numbers inhibit fact based policy needs and we'll be facing a complete disaster unrivaled in history. But don't worry. We've got great American President Joe Biden. God help us. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 52 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I think I think Biden's on the ropes here. It's got Democratic leadership crapping their knickers. His open border is a complete disaster. Foriegn policy is a mess, military readiness is questionable, crime is out of control, the glowing economy is an illusion most aren't buying. The assault on Trump is failing to impact polls, Joe can't remember the names of various heads of state, what country they represent, or if they'll dead or alive. His administration is fixated on Ukraine and migrants but doesn't give a damn about American citizens. Throw in what I expect will be market and economic crashes coming this year partly because the fake economic numbers inhibit fact based policy needs and we'll be facing a complete disaster unrivaled in history. But don't worry. We've got great American President Joe Biden. God help us. If your predictions come true 2024 could be a summer of violence. I pray to GOD that doesn’t happen. But when you let in millions of of illegal aliens into your country and give them free housing, car, money, while at the same time kicking Americans out of schools, hotels and totally ignore the homeless. You’re creating an environment that is a powder keg! And you on the left know this!!!! All the lefties on PPP are sheep in wolves clothing. Pure evil!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I think I think Biden's on the ropes here. It's got Democratic leadership crapping their knickers. His open border is a complete disaster. Foriegn policy is a mess, military readiness is questionable, crime is out of control, the glowing economy is an illusion most aren't buying. The assault on Trump is failing to impact polls, Joe can't remember the names of various heads of state, what country they represent, or if they'll dead or alive. His administration is fixated on Ukraine and migrants but doesn't give a damn about American citizens. Throw in what I expect will be market and economic crashes coming this year partly because the fake economic numbers inhibit fact based policy needs and we'll be facing a complete disaster unrivaled in history. But don't worry. We've got great American President Joe Biden. God help us. Notice the word abortion was missing in this wild take full of projection? Also missing are the 91 indictments against Conald Trump. BTW - you and @Precision keep telling us the economy is going to crash but the numbers keep upstaging you freaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I think Biden's on the ropes here. It's got Democratic leadership crapping their knickers. His open border is a complete disaster. Foriegn policy is a mess, military readiness is questionable, crime is out of control, the glowing economy is an illusion most aren't buying. The assault on Trump is failing to impact polls, Joe can't remember the names of various heads of state, what country they represent, or if they'll dead or alive. His administration is fixated on Ukraine and migrants but doesn't give a damn about American citizens. Throw in what I expect will be market and economic crashes coming this year partly because the fake economic numbers inhibit fact based policy needs and we'll be facing a complete disaster unrivaled in history. But don't worry. We've got great American President Joe Biden. God help us. Think? He is done. The Dems have vainly tried to claim "he's fine!" and then Hur comes out and says he can't be tried in court because he's senile. Hell Paul Begala, a huge partisan hack, said he slept like a baby after reading the report: only for 2 hours at a time and wetting his bed. Edited February 10 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Hmmmmmm. Finger to the wind by James Piereson On the Trump cases & Chief Justice Roberts The Supreme Court appears inclined to rule against Colorado and in favor of Donald Trump in the state’s attempt to bar him from the presidential ballot. That, in any case, is the conclusion many have drawn from the questions raised by the justices during this week’s oral arguments on the case. Some suggest that the vote will be nine to zero in Trump’s favor, since the court can see—like everyone else with common sense—the chaos that will ensue if individual states are given the right to disqualify candidates from presidential ballots. From that standpoint this does not look to be a difficult call for the court. The New York Times is out today with an interesting take on this case and the immunity claims Trump has made in connection to criminal charges brought against him by Jack Smith. The Times suggests, citing legal experts, that Chief Justice John Roberts is in the process of crafting a “grand bargain” designed to restore the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of Democrats and liberals: he will engineer a unanimous verdict for Trump in the Colorado case, then turn around to craft a verdict against the former president’s immunity claims in the criminal case. Such a bargain, the Times argues, would restore the court’s image as a nonpartisan arbiter of political disputes. The Times quotes Richard Hasen, a law professor at ucla, in support of this thesis: The Supreme Court unanimously, or nearly so, holds that Colorado does not have the power to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, but in a separate case it rejects his immunity argument and makes Trump go on trial this spring or summer on federal election subversion charges. Professor Hasen’s hypothesis may prove true as the criminal case against Trump develops. It would be in keeping with the way Chief Justice Roberts has tried to maneuver the court in a string of recent cases. At the same time, readers are likely to view the Times article as another installment in the paper’s long-running campaign to “work” the court so it will rule in a liberal and anti-Trump direction. After all, the Times claims that if the court hopes to keep its legitimacy, then it must make sure that Trump does not win the election. https://newcriterion.com/blogs/dispatch/finger-to-the-wind https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/us/trump-supreme-court-immunity-colorado.html . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 20 minutes ago, B-Man said: Hmmmmmm. Finger to the wind by James Piereson On the Trump cases & Chief Justice Roberts The Supreme Court appears inclined to rule against Colorado and in favor of Donald Trump in the state’s attempt to bar him from the presidential ballot. That, in any case, is the conclusion many have drawn from the questions raised by the justices during this week’s oral arguments on the case. Some suggest that the vote will be nine to zero in Trump’s favor, since the court can see—like everyone else with common sense—the chaos that will ensue if individual states are given the right to disqualify candidates from presidential ballots. From that standpoint this does not look to be a difficult call for the court. The New York Times is out today with an interesting take on this case and the immunity claims Trump has made in connection to criminal charges brought against him by Jack Smith. The Times suggests, citing legal experts, that Chief Justice John Roberts is in the process of crafting a “grand bargain” designed to restore the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of Democrats and liberals: he will engineer a unanimous verdict for Trump in the Colorado case, then turn around to craft a verdict against the former president’s immunity claims in the criminal case. Such a bargain, the Times argues, would restore the court’s image as a nonpartisan arbiter of political disputes. The Times quotes Richard Hasen, a law professor at ucla, in support of this thesis: The Supreme Court unanimously, or nearly so, holds that Colorado does not have the power to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, but in a separate case it rejects his immunity argument and makes Trump go on trial this spring or summer on federal election subversion charges. Professor Hasen’s hypothesis may prove true as the criminal case against Trump develops. It would be in keeping with the way Chief Justice Roberts has tried to maneuver the court in a string of recent cases. At the same time, readers are likely to view the Times article as another installment in the paper’s long-running campaign to “work” the court so it will rule in a liberal and anti-Trump direction. After all, the Times claims that if the court hopes to keep its legitimacy, then it must make sure that Trump does not win the election. https://newcriterion.com/blogs/dispatch/finger-to-the-wind https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/us/trump-supreme-court-immunity-colorado.html Is the immunity case being heard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 15 Author Share Posted February 15 On 2/8/2024 at 8:48 AM, Tommy Callahan said: WHO funds the PAC that is trying to get trump off the ballot? What's the name of the PAC? Nope, PACS trying to influence or sway, and election is the problem. Any of them suing to keep DEMS off the ballot anywhere? Notice which PACs Chris doesn't address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 DEMOCRAT DENIALISTS In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office. The Atlantic did the original reporting, behind a paywall. Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. … In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress. “That would be a colossal disaster,” Representative Adam Schiff of California told me. “We already had one horrendous January 6. We don’t need another.” The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not. This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection! In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/democrat-denialists.php 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 9 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: 👆 20 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: It's like asking a heroin addict to quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phypon Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 minute ago, BillStime said: 👆 Look who just woke up to bump his own threads. Morning, sunshine. Trump!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, phypon said: Look who just woke up to bump his own threads. Morning, sunshine. Trump!! Morning pooper! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phypon Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Just now, BillStime said: Morning pooper! That was actually funny. I'll give you that! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Lowered standards... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 36 minutes ago, Doc said: Lowered standards... Democrats are anxiously awaiting the next primary disqualification ruling from Judge Steve Harvey. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 29 minutes ago, B-Man said: Hoax No one is above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 minute ago, BillStime said: Hoax No one is above the law. Some that are chummy with the rule enforcers just get the rules bent in their favor. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts