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/

---

If you like going around being an ignorant sheep none of us can stop you. Me, I like to think for myself and happen to agree with SCOTUS who by the way have much more combined experience than Dan M.

As a matter of fact, I don't go around letting others think for me, and your mischaracterization is weak. My original post quoted what the man said, which was that the justices lacked the courage to put an end to this lawfare by progressive people like the CO supreme court. Others incorrectly stated that they Supreme Court couldn't do that. I know they can, and so does McLaughlin. Agreeing with someone doesn't make someone else who holds the same opinion a sheep. And when you can't persuade someone, don't go lame by implying that they possess a negative trait. That's what Dems do. Kind of like calling someone a racist because they don't believe in DEI.

So have those tyrants on the Col court been fired or arrested for the attempted suppression of voting rights by activist jurist.

Do that then I'll be happy.

I think suppression is the minimum. Ironically it feels quite insurrection-y in fact to attempt to prevent a fair election from taking place.

ttu_85 said:

---

So have those tyrants on the Col court been fired or arrested for the attempted suppression of voting rights by activist jurist.

Do that then I'll be happy.

---

Lock them up for a couple of years without legal representation, the way things work in America now.

schmellba99 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.

---

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.

---

The 2/3 vote is in reference to removing a disqualification under Section 3. As for the disqualification, it simply says your disqualified if you engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Quote:

---

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

---

The natural question... who makes that judgment? It sounds like the SC says Congress can. In which case, all it takes is a simple majority to pass the House and 60 votes to clear the Senate. And if the Dems get 51 votes in the Senate they can vote to eliminate the filibuster, bringing the threshold down to 51.

Complicating this are the ongoing trials against Trump where he's been indicted for insurrection-type stuff (Jack Smith). Not clear if those resolve by the election -- but if they do and find him guilty -- then that will further empower the Dems to reject him if they get the majority in both Chambers.

For the record, I think the "insurrection" claim is a bunch of BS, just like most things that come out of Dems' mouths. But it will be very interesting to watch what unfolds if Trump wins the WH and the Dems win Congress. That combination seems unlikely though.

Reich calling anything a scandal is laughable.

This is the guy that called for Republicans to be put in camps.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

future POTII (shush) .

---

I laughed.

Does this mean that multiple Supreme Courts would be SCOTI?

If Laura, Michelle and Melania do brunch, are they FLOTI?

---

I see you understand the proper pluralization of Latin acronyms...

Maine secretary of state, removes ban on Trump to be on the ballot, acknowledge s what a moron she is....lol

Shagga said:

---

As a matter of fact, I don't go around letting others think for me, and your mischaracterization is weak. My original post quoted what the man said, which was that the justices lacked the courage to put an end to this lawfare by progressive people like the CO supreme court. Others incorrectly stated that the Supreme Court couldn't do that. I know they can, and so does McLaughlin. Agreeing with someone doesn't make someone else who holds the same opinion a sheep. And when you can't persuade someone, don't go lame by implying that they possess a negative trait. That's what Dems do. Kind of like calling someone a racist because they don't believe in DEI.

---

Was that issue even adequately briefed? I don't think it was. Why would a court rule on an issue that wasn't before them?

YouBet said:

---

(Robert) Reich … called for Republicans to be put in camps.

---

Did you read that in a meme somewhere?

Because I guarantee that you cannot link to him making any such suggestion.

This one wasn't hard at all, yet millions were spent adjudicating it. Ridiculous. If the writers of the 14th wanted Section 3 of the Ammendment to apply to the President or Vice President, then it would have said:

"No person shall be President or Vice President, or Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as President or Vice President, or a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Even a sixth grader could figure that out.

This whole thing was a waste of time and money.

TDS was so strong with the Colorado Supreme Court that they pissed all over themselves. Smeared feces on the bathroom wall and grinned like the Cheshire cat.

Four of 'em rendered a judicial decision purely for symbolic purposes as a form of political protest.

Colorado Supreme Court dumped a turd in the punch bowl and then knocked over the punch bowl and left it for the US Supreme Court to clean up; which they did.

Wow

Also you will note that the gals didn't like the rest of the court's attempt to put this tar baby to bed once and for all. Looks like they wanted to leave the door cracked open.

They didn't like the Alabaster paint the rest of the court agreed on but preferred more of an Eggshell tone on this. So they made that known.Good for them.

Shagga said:

---

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.

---

The logic doesn't make sense.

The court said the state doesn't have the right to disqualify on the grounds cited. Period. You don't go farther into the weeds on what the President did, if the state doesn't have the ability to disqualify him based upon it. It's similar to when a case is dismissed based upon lack of standing. Generally, they aren't going to address the merits then too.

Just because you found a well-regarded lawyer that wrote an opinion piece with a unique perspective on this ruling (hence getting his article clicks), doesn't make it right.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

TDS was so strong with the Colorado Supreme Court that they pissed all over themselves. Smeared feces on the bathroom wall and grinned like the Cheshire cat.

Four of 'em rendered a judicial decision purely for symbolic purposes as a form of political protest.

Colorado Supreme Court dumped a turd in the punch bowl and then knocked over the punch bowl and left it for the US Supreme Court to clean up; which they did.

---

Note: All Colorado justices from the majority attended NON Ivy League law schools. All dissenting justices (4-3 decision) are from Ivy League schools.

cavjock88 said:

---

This one wasn't hard at all, yet millions were spent adjudicating it. Ridiculous. If the writers of the 14th wanted Section 3 of the Ammendment to apply to the President or Vice President, then it would have said:

"No person shall be President or Vice President, or Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as President or Vice President, or a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Even a sixth grader could figure that out.

This whole thing was a waste of time and money.

---

That's not what the court said. At all.

I would have thought that post was a bot. But it has 325 posts since 2006. So I think it is real.


Maybe?

Are bots taking over old dead accounts???

That's not what I said. I was pointing out how the 14th Section 3 could apply to the President or Vice President, insurrection argument aside, in this case. It wasn't an insurrection, BTW, in my opinion, but if there was an intent to include the President or Vice President in the list of those the 14th applies to, for Section 3, why weren't they included?

Im not going to engage the argument other than nobody actually arguing these cases gives that position any credence. That is a fringe position not accepted by anyone with a shred of credibility and was not argued or addressed by the attorneys or the judges in the arguments. It is a partisan argument.

Funny. I heard something very similar to my argument in the first minute of the oral arguments. That argument referenced that the President doesn't equal the use of officer language in the Constitution. Why would that argument fly and the failure to actually include the President and Vice President in the actual words of the Ammendment? I don't think it's a fringe argument.

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.

---

I'm not sure how you could possible know more about the Supreme Court than a class action defense attorney. I mean his argument that the Supreme Court should rule on something that wasn't the question presented and wasn't briefed or argued is perfectly logical. That's totally their M.O. and not completely insane ramblings.

cavjock88 said:

---

Funny. I heard something very similar to my argument in the first minute of the oral arguments. That argument referenced that the President doesn't equal the use of officer language in the Constitution. Why would that argument fly and the failure to actually include the President and Vice President in the actual words of the Ammendment? I don't think it's a fringe argument.

---

And how did the SC justices respond to that argument? Was it mentioned in any of the opinions?




Edit to add- If that was the only argument used by Trump the decision would have been 9-0 the other way.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The natural question... who makes that judgment? It sounds like the SC says Congress can. In which case, all it takes is a simple majority to pass the House and 60 votes to clear the Senate. And if the Dems get 51 votes in the Senate they can vote to eliminate the filibuster, bringing the threshold down to 51.

Complicating this are the ongoing trials against Trump where he's been indicted for insurrection-type stuff (Jack Smith). Not clear if those resolve by the election -- but if they do and find him guilty -- then that will further empower the Dems to reject him if they get the majority in both Chambers.

---

A simple majority wouldn't do it. Unless Trump is just stupid and has none of the best people around, the Dems would still need a veto-proof supermajority.

agsalaska said:

---

cavjock88 said:

---

Funny. I heard something very similar to my argument in the first minute of the oral arguments. That argument referenced that the President doesn't equal the use of officer language in the Constitution. Why would that argument fly and the failure to actually include the President and Vice President in the actual words of the Ammendment? I don't think it's a fringe argument.

---

And how did the SC justices respond to that argument? Was it mentioned in any of the opinions?




Edit to add- If that was the only argument used by Trump the decision would have been 9-0 the other way.

---

KBJ was all over that question, why weren't the President and VP listed?

Keith, table 6 needs their check and you're behind on rolling silverware. Put your phone down or I'll tag your restaurant again. https://t.co/EbOtKEBXoA

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) March 4, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

cavjock88 said:

---

Funny. I heard something very similar to my argument in the first minute of the oral arguments. That argument referenced that the President doesn't equal the use of officer language in the Constitution. Why would that argument fly and the failure to actually include the President and Vice President in the actual words of the Ammendment? I don't think it's a fringe argument.

---

And how did the SC justices respond to that argument? Was it mentioned in any of the opinions?




Edit to add- If that was the only argument used by Trump the decision would have been 9-0 the other way.

---

KBJ was all over that question, why weren't the President and VP listed?

---

I don't think there's any sign in the opinions that that argument actually took root. KBJ asked some questions but that doesn't mean she had already made her mind up on it or didn't change her mind once she read and thought more.


And I think the answer is simple. They are covered by the officer/office portion of the Amendment and they didn't need to write a redundant list. Should the emoluments clause not apply to the President because it just says officers?

Ol' Bob is not only a mental midget.

LOL.

TA-OP said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The natural question... who makes that judgment? It sounds like the SC says Congress can. In which case, all it takes is a simple majority to pass the House and 60 votes to clear the Senate. And if the Dems get 51 votes in the Senate they can vote to eliminate the filibuster, bringing the threshold down to 51.

Complicating this are the ongoing trials against Trump where he's been indicted for insurrection-type stuff (Jack Smith). Not clear if those resolve by the election -- but if they do and find him guilty -- then that will further empower the Dems to reject him if they get the majority in both Chambers.

---

A simple majority wouldn't do it. Unless Trump is just stupid and has none of the best people around, the Dems would still need a veto-proof supermajority.

---

I don't think so. This would happen before Trump took office and could wield a veto. Biden wouldn't veto it. I think a simple majority is all that would be needed.

Missed the start of Ktrk channel 13 news but the recap failed to mention scotus unanimously struck down states using stupid reasons to keep Trump off the ballot.

Antoninus said:

---

YouBet said:

---

(Robert) Reich … called for Republicans to be put in camps.

---

Did you read that in a meme somewhere?

Because I guarantee that you cannot link to him making any such suggestion.

---

Probably on twitter. It was a few years ago. It was commented on quite a bit back when he said it. He and Jennifer Rubin both made the comment around the same time.

And don't forget that Hillary Clinton effectively said the same thing within the last six months or so. She was going to have us all re-educated like the Orwellian disciple that she is.