eric76 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

Luttig's opinion is dumbass. Trump has not been, nor even charged, with insurrection. Just because lefty jimmies are more rustled than hooking up with a tceh STD, doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Anyone in the future, convicted of insurrection by the Federal gov't, can still be excluded.

TDS is terminal.

---

What are the odds that anyone would be tried fast enough to make much difference?

This decision basically means that nobody will be declared ineligible to run because of the 14th amendment.

---

No it doesn't. You're TDS is simply letting you believe farcical things.

---

Those believing farcial things are members of the cult.

---

They said it's a power reserved to Congress

Congress has to decide to invoke the 14th (DoA)

I know you crave a world where a stacked leftist SCOTUS gets to just declare all republicans to be seditionists who are ineligible to be on any ballot but stop living in your Very Concerned fantasies and take the loss like a man

---

In the 14th amendment, if the Congress has the sole power to rule a candidate ineligiible for office as a result of section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article", then why is "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" even necessary? How could it ever be applied? After all, with that argument, they could do the same with a majority vote by section 5l.

It is far more rational that section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" is about general legislation on the issue, not specific legislation for any particular candidate and that the "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability" allows them to overrule any removal of eligibility by other sources at their discretion.

If section 5 required Congress to find them ineligible, then there would be no need for them to be mentioned in section 3 since they could be made eligible by a majority vote under section 5.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

So, the guy that championed using the 14th Amendment to get rid of Trump disagrees with the SCOTUS when his view got *****slapped 9-0?

---

When did I use the 14th Amendment as a way to get rid of Trump. While it would make me happy to have a rational Republican on the ballot, I never thought that this would affect much of anything,. Those states that would ban Trump for the ballots are states that he would be unlikely to win.

But keep making crap up. Maybe one day you'll get something correct.

---

I didn't say that YOU said that.

I was referring to Judge Luttig, who came up with the idea to use the 14th Amendment...you know, they guy you cited in your post to support your position.

And...your last sentence is quite amusing...perhaps you could issue a mea culpa.

---

eric76 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

One thing that is clear is that Robert Heinlein was entirely correct: "Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal."

The Supreme Court clearly determined the result they wanted and fashioned their argument in such a way as to arrive at that result.

As Judge Luttig said about it from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Quote:

---

"In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter," Luttig continued.

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he said.

Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

---

And just what have we gained by the Supreme Court's opinion? Does anyone really believe that Trump will carry Colorado or any other state that would have removed him from the ballot?

---

So, the guy that championed using the 14th Amendment to get rid of Trump disagrees with the SCOTUS when his view got *****slapped 9-0?

---

When did I use the 14th Amendment as a way to get rid of Trump. While it would make me happy to have a rational Republican on the ballot, I never thought that this would affect much of anything,. Those states that would ban Trump for the ballots are states that he would be unlikely to win.

But keep making crap up. Maybe one day you'll get something correct.

---

I didn't say that YOU said that.

I was referring to Judge Luttig, who came up with the idea to use the 14th Amendment...you know, they guy you cited in your post to support your position.

And...your last sentence is quite amusing...perhaps you could issue a mea culpa.

---

I stand corrected.

That said, was it Luttig who thought of the 14th amenmdment here? Or was it Tribe or someone else?

---

Quote:

---

An influential conservative legal figure, Luttig gained broader prominence after the presidency of Donald Trump, characterizing him as "a clear and present danger to American democracy," and advocated invoking the Fourteenth Amendment to render Trump ineligible to serve a second term as president.

---

eric76 said:

---

"Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal." -- Robert Heinlein.

---