If you listened to the full hearing in front of the Supreme Court, they talked about when somebody can be removed or not put into office. For example, it's very possible that Trump gets elected and in between the time he gets elected and January 6 Congress rules that he's not eligible to be president under, I believe it was section 3 or clause 3.

This is how the Democrats are going to block him from becoming president.

GenericAggie said:

---

If you listened to the full hearing in front of the Supreme Court, they talked about when somebody can be removed or not put into office. For example, it's very possible that Trump gets elected and in between the time he gets elected and January 6 Congress rules that he's not eligible to be president under, I believe it was section 3 or clause 3.

This is how the Democrats are going to block him from becoming president.

---

Very possible? No, they are more like certain to try to do that. And it won't stop with the first year of his term. It will continue until he leaves and will probably go on even after that. Their hatred of Trump and those that voted for him has no ceiling or end. Have you seen the MSM piece today on white rural America?

GenericAggie said:

---

If you listened to the full hearing in front of the Supreme Court, they talked about when somebody can be removed or not put into office. For example, it's very possible that Trump gets elected and in between the time he gets elected and January 6 Congress rules that he's not eligible to be president under, I believe it was section 3 or clause 3.

This is how the Democrats are going to block him from becoming president.

---

It woudl also take 2/3 majority of both houses, and I'm not sure there is a single subject on earth that you could get 2/3 of both houses to vote on to approve/agree on.

Except maybe money to Ukraine, raises for themselves and leaving the border open.

C@LAg said:

---

so the big question is how many house republicans will side with the commie dems if/when any legislation comes up to remove trump via this newly created rule?

and at what point does congress effectively shut down for "election season" so that these idiots are concerned with other things than making more bad legislation??

---

Assuming Trump were to win the election, any R that voted against him would effectively end their career and might well be part of what starts a series of events that gets really, really ugly.

Reality Check said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Quote:

---

Those behind this movement to disqualify Trump from the ballot never expected to succeed. What they did -- successfully -- was drain time and legal fees from the Trump camp while ginning up publicity in the mainstream media and getting their heroes in Congress and in the states to be able to yell "Insurrectionist! Insurrectionist!" while rolling video of Jan. 6 on an endless loop. What they didn't expect was for SOCTUS to nip it in the bud with the 5-4 declaration that Congress would have to pass a bill to outline how it would be enforced. This denies the same camp the opportunity to speculate in the receptive media for the next eight months and one day that Trump's status as an insurrectionist means that under the 14th Amendment Congress would not be required to ratify his Electoral College victory.

---

---

---

All correct in my view. However, Dan McLaughlin took it a step further, and he's spot on. And then

Quote:

---

All nine justices shirked their duty to finally adjudicate whether Trump is covered by Section 3 and whether he engaged in insurrection both matters the Court could have resolved by clearly construing the legal terms of Section 3, and without a detailed dive into the evidentiary record.

---

Quote:

---

But at the end of the day, in the haste of all the justices to put this pre-election dispute to bed, and in the determination of the liberals to leave open an avenue for post-election guerilla lawfare against a potential second Trump administration, the Court failed in its duty. It should have had the courage to say what the law is, and applied the plain meaning of Section 3 to the facts. Trump didn't engage in insurrection. A Court unwilling to define the terms of the law for fear of saying so will inevitably leave the wound open.

---

FireAg said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

If you listened to the full hearing in front of the Supreme Court, they talked about when somebody can be removed or not put into office. For example, it's very possible that Trump gets elected and in between the time he gets elected and January 6 Congress rules that he's not eligible to be president under, I believe it was section 3 or clause 3.

This is how the Democrats are going to block him from becoming president.

---

So Civil War?

That's what would happen if they did that...civil war...

You can't disenfranchise 80M+ voters and not have actual armed conflict break out...

---

No it wouldn't. Hell, we just did that exact thing in 2020 and we had a gathering that got treated like it was a war being started. The few folks who would even fight in your scenario would get crushed by the military/police so fast it would be a Bay of Pigs 2.0.

No, what would happen is that our rights will continue to get removed and replaced by Leftist garbage that requires us to pay more to their pet projects. At best, there are maybe 25% of the people who would fight like you talk about. Amongst the other 75%, 50% would take the regime's side, mostly out of fear and greed. The other 25% would sympathize but never pick up a weapon just to protect themselves.

You do realize that him recusing himself from the case would just change the ruling to 8-0, right? https://t.co/ZUhYkOsdin pic.twitter.com/X4FavZf8cN

— Leftism (@LeftismForU) March 4, 2024

Think so? Think most folks would just accept it?

The phrase "**** around and find out" comes to mind…

This country is more deeply divided than it has been since Fort Sumter…

There are a lot of hopping mad folks out there…

Shagga said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Quote:

---

Those behind this movement to disqualify Trump from the ballot never expected to succeed. What they did -- successfully -- was drain time and legal fees from the Trump camp while ginning up publicity in the mainstream media and getting their heroes in Congress and in the states to be able to yell "Insurrectionist! Insurrectionist!" while rolling video of Jan. 6 on an endless loop. What they didn't expect was for SOCTUS to nip it in the bud with the 5-4 declaration that Congress would have to pass a bill to outline how it would be enforced. This denies the same camp the opportunity to speculate in the receptive media for the next eight months and one day that Trump's status as an insurrectionist means that under the 14th Amendment Congress would not be required to ratify his Electoral College victory.

---

---

---

All correct in my view. However, Dan McLaughlin took it a step further, and he's spot on. And then

Quote:

---

All nine justices shirked their duty to finally adjudicate whether Trump is covered by Section 3 and whether he engaged in insurrection both matters the Court could have resolved by clearly construing the legal terms of Section 3, and without a detailed dive into the evidentiary record.

---

Quote:

---

But at the end of the day, in the haste of all the justices to put this pre-election dispute to bed, and in the determination of the liberals to leave open an avenue for post-election guerilla lawfare against a potential second Trump administration, the Court failed in its duty. It should have had the courage to say what the law is, and applied the plain meaning of Section 3 to the facts. Trump didn't engage in insurrection. A Court unwilling to define the terms of the law for fear of saying so will inevitably leave the wound open.

---

---

That question wasn't before the court, so they didn't have to answer it, and since the court likes to find a way to get rid of something without having to get into the facts of the case, that's the route they traditionally go. Plus, I'm not sure they want to wade into that if they don't have to, and I could easily seeing them saying "that's a decision for Congress to make, not us."

Here is something else to think about.

If Trump wins the election, and the house and Senate turn blue....

The new Congress is sworn in on Jan 3... President is sworn in on Jan 6.

Could both the house and the Senate vote on something regarding this and then get Biden to sign off on it in 3 days?

will25u said:

---

Here is something else to think about.

If Trump wins the election, and the house and Senate turn blue....

The new Congress is sworn in on Jan 3... President is sworn in on Jan 6.

Could both the house and the Senate vote on something regarding this and then get Biden to sign off on it in 3 days?

---

Inauguration is on the 20th.

That's McLaughlin's point - they should have answered that question and ended the progressive lawfare on Section 3 as applied to Trump once and for all. And the ability to answer the question was before the Court:

Quote:

---

Section 3 disqualifies anyone from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state" if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" after previously swearing an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States."

---

Either he engaged in insurrection, or he didn't. The facts indicate he didn't, so that's how they should have answered it, according to McLaughlin. It's pretty easy to say that the ruling didn't meet an essential element of the law, and that's all they needed to say but as Mclaughlin stated they lacked the courage.

These justices are like the Pharisees. Is it easier to say, "your sins are forgiven" or to say, "get up and walk". They didn't need to go into elaborate analysis to explain why Trump's sins are forgiven. In keeping with the spirit of the law they just had to say there is no insurrection, case dismissed.

Bregxit said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

Here is something else to think about.

If Trump wins the election, and the house and Senate turn blue....

The new Congress is sworn in on Jan 3... President is sworn in on Jan 6.

Could both the house and the Senate vote on something regarding this and then get Biden to sign off on it in 3 days?

---

Inauguration is on the 20th.

---

Better question...

What happens if a blue congress refuses to certify the election?

---

On what basis?

Shagga said:

---

That's McLaughlin's point - they should have answered that question and ended the progressive lawfare on Section 3 as applied to Trump once and for all. And the ability to answer the question was before the Court:

Quote:

---

Section 3 disqualifies anyone from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state" if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" after previously swearing an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States."

---

Either he engaged in insurrection, or he didn't. The facts indicate he didn't, so that's how they should have answered it, according to McLaughlin. It's pretty easy to say that the ruling didn't meet an essential element of the law, and that's all they needed to say but as Mclaughlin stated they lacked the courage.

These justices are like the Pharisees. Is it easier to say, "your sins are forgiven" or to say, "get up and walk". They didn't need to go into elaborate analysis to explain why Trump's sins are forgiven. In keeping with the spirit of the law they just had to say there is no insurrection, case dismissed.

---

No. The court only hears arguments related to the issue at hand. Go listen to the full arguments. Neither side was arguing that Trump committed insurrection or not.

They were never going to answer "did he participate in an insurrection" if they had literally any other off ramp.

And based on their ruling it would have been inappropriate to get into that.

Shagga said:

---

That's McLaughlin's point - they should have answered that question and ended the progressive lawfare on Section 3 as applied to Trump once and for all. And the ability to answer the question was before the Court:

Quote:

---

Section 3 disqualifies anyone from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state" if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" after previously swearing an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States."

---

Either he engaged in insurrection, or he didn't. The facts indicate he didn't, so that's how they should have answered it, according to McLaughlin. It's pretty easy to say that the ruling didn't meet an essential element of the law, and that's all they needed to say but as Mclaughlin stated they lacked the courage.

These justices are like the Pharisees. Is it easier to say, "your sins are forgiven" or to say, "get up and walk". They didn't need to go into elaborate analysis to explain why Trump's sins are forgiven. In keeping with the spirit of the law they just had to say there is no insurrection, case dismissed.

---

That is totally incorrect and not what the court was considering.

also, on a side note, you can say the facts indicate he didn't and someone else would argue that the facts show that he did. That can be argued out in court somewhere but that is not the argument put in front of the US Supreme Court.


Edit to add- didnt mean to give you a thumbs down. Not sure how that happened.

The Dems got run ruled

SC NEIN Dems 0

I think I trust Dan McLaughlin more than I trust you guys on the law. He says the court should have done it, so I'm certain it was appropriate and within their power to do so. He was only a class action defense lawyer for 20 years, which is the sort of job graduating cum laude from Harvard Law will get you.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielamclaughlin/

Shagga said:

---

I think I trust Dan McLaughlin more than I trust you guys on the law. He says the court should have done it, so I'm certain it was appropriate and within their power to do so. He was only a class action defense lawyer for 20 years, which is the sort of job graduating cum laude from Harvard Law will get you.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielamclaughlin/

---

Lol, okay.

None of the 9 justices thought they should do it. Any one of them could have done it.

Do you take any of their individual bona fides over Dan McLaughlin's?

Do you have a link to his argument?

I can understand why a partisan would say that and why a partisan would believe that was appropriate here. Is he a partisan? He must be.


But you go on and believe whoever you want to believe. You can find an authority to back just about any crazy opinion out there.

Shagga said:

---

I think I trust Dan McLaughlin more than I trust you guys on the law. He says the court should have done it, so I'm certain it was appropriate and within their power to do so. He was only a class action defense lawyer for 20 years, which is the sort of job graduating cum laude from Harvard Law will get you.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielamclaughlin/

---

There were no arguments to address if Trump committed insurrection or not. It wasn't argued. He's wrong or intentionally arguing that for political purposes.

I'm not an attorney. I'll defer those merits to Hawg or one of the other attorneys here.

Meh, let that dude believe whoever he wants to believe. I am sure he just went and found someone to reinforce his own partisan opinions.

Not worth the time arguing.

agsalaska said:

---

Do you have a link to his argument?

I can understand why a partisan would say that and why a partisan would believe that was appropriate here. Is he a partisan? He must be.


But you go on and believe whoever you want to believe. You can find an authority to back just about any crazy opinion out there.

---

McLaughlin is definitely a conservative but labeling him as partisan is a mischaracterization as I've seen frequent articles of his pointing out when Trump is wrong. He's a lawyer turned writer who tells it like it is. I copied the link below and it's on National Review, and paywalled, but if you've never logged you probably get a few free articles:

Haste and Acrimony Undermine a Unanimous Supreme Court in Trump-Eligibility Case

agsalaska said:

---

Meh, let that dude believe whoever he wants to believe. I am sure he just went and found someone to reinforce his own partisan opinions.

Not worth the time arguing.

---

My advice for him is to go listen to the arguments.

My concern is when the justices were discussing when a person could be ruled (wrong word) to have committed insurrection- between the election and inauguration. If the R's lose the house and the D's keep the Senate, watch out. I PROMISE you they will try to pull this crap. And, if that happens, who becomes President? The VP elect or the Dem who lost the election? As far as I understand, the Constitution does not give this level of detail. Crazy times.

Quote:

---

We granted former President Trump's petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?" See 601 U. S. ___ (2024).

---

That was the only question presented to the Court.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

We granted former President Trump's petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?" See 601 U. S. ___ (2024).

---

That was the only question presented to the Court.

---

Hawg - see my right above this post. Thoughts?

GenericAggie said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Meh, let that dude believe whoever he wants to believe. I am sure he just went and found someone to reinforce his own partisan opinions.

Not worth the time arguing.

---

My advice for him is to go listen to the arguments.

My concern is when the justices were discussing when a person could be ruled (wrong word) to have committed insurrection- between the election and inauguration. If the R's lose the house and the D's keep the Senate, watch out. I PROMISE you they will try to pull this crap. And, if that happens, who becomes President? The VP elect or the Dem who lost the election? As far as I understand, the Constitution does not give this level of detail. Crazy times.

---

I disagree…I think they are more likely to impeach him for the 3rd time and have the votes to convict in the Senate…cleaner than not certifying an election, but in the end, I predict either approach would result in violence…

You are caring more about the procedure than the point that is as plain as the nose on your face - hence my comment about the Pharisees. The Colorado court allowed removal from the state's primary ballot on the basis of the disqualification language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The law they relied upon, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, disqualifies anyone from "hold[ing] any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state" if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States. They have the power to comment specifically on the law whether it was argued or not. It's not a partisan argument - it's a straightforward reading of the US Constitution.

GenericAggie said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Meh, let that dude believe whoever he wants to believe. I am sure he just went and found someone to reinforce his own partisan opinions.

Not worth the time arguing.

---

My advice for him is to go listen to the arguments.

My concern is when the justices were discussing when a person could be ruled (wrong word) to have committed insurrection- between the election and inauguration. If the R's lose the house and the D's keep the Senate, watch out. I PROMISE you they will try to pull this crap. And, if that happens, who becomes President? The VP elect or the Dem who lost the election? As far as I understand, the Constitution does not give this level of detail. Crazy times.

---

Assuming the VP has not also been determined to be an insurrectionist, VP is Acting President. But there are a lot of moving parts for the Dems to be able to get there.