|
No one would be prevented from casting a vote. Hell, no one would be prevented from casting a write-in vote for Trump. He'd be that much less likely to win because a significant fraction of people who would have checked the box won't bother with the extra effort of a write-in*, but none of this is disenfranchisement *unless you're Lisa Murkowski, apparently
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Nope, because you (presumably) being foreign-born is an objective matter of record. Similarly, Trump can be convicted of, or successfully impeached for insurrection, and the 14th applies. What’s being floated here is that any state election official or civil judge can declare “Trump did an insurrection”, which results in him being removed from the ballot. That does actually smell like disenfranchisement and feels generally anti-democratic. It would be like some faceless Arizona election chud declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, therefore he’s removed from the ballot. It feels scummy. No, not remotely close, this is not how the law works. "Was Obama born in Kenya" is a question of fact, and an extremely easily verifiable fact at that. "Does this behavior qualify as an act of insurrection as described by the constitution" is a question of law, this is what judges do. I'd argue the vast majority of legal questions boil down to the judge deciding what statutes or case law a behavior or fact pattern fits most appropriately in order to apply the correct law or precedent. This isn't a criminal case, it's not a factual question of "did Trump do X", it's a law question of "When Trump did X were the conditions met to trigger law Y". This is one of the most basic functions of the civil legal system. The civil war is easy, those people belonged to an organization that openly declared itself in insurrection, set up an insurrectionary government complete with standing army, and waged open warfare against the United States. Trump's situation is a lot more murky and there's basically no case law on what constitutes an insurrection, legally, as per the 14th, aside from being a member of the Confederacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
So...if a few states succeed in removing Trump from the ballot, where do all the conservative minded "states' rights' types find themselves? I know that the answer is "Certain States Are Soros Tyranny" while Oklahoma, WV and Nebraska and Mississippi are glorious wonderful FREE STATES but, still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So...if a few states succeed in removing Trump from the ballot, where do all the conservative minded "states' rights' types find themselves? I know that the answer is "Certain States Are Soros Tyranny" while Oklahoma, WV and Nebraska and Mississippi are glorious wonderful FREE STATES but, still. They don’t actually give a poo poo about states’ rights and never have. See : the Fugitive Slave Act.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Area Poster Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution to Be posted:Nope, because you (presumably) being foreign-born is an objective matter of record. Similarly, Trump can be convicted of, or successfully impeached for insurrection, and the 14th applies. Article 1, Section 2 posted:The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. TheDisreputableDog posted:What’s being floated here is that any state election official or civil judge can declare “Trump did an insurrection”, which results in him being removed from the ballot. That does actually smell like disenfranchisement and feels generally anti-democratic. It would be like some faceless Arizona election chud declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, therefore he’s removed from the ballot. It feels scummy. Let's look at Georgia, for instance: quote:Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought. Next, a question of who can challenge a candidate's statutory and constitutional qualifications: quote:The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. quote:Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. quote:The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State. quote:The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. quote:The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are: I use Georgia because it's actually implemented this process over the 14th amendment and the target sought an injunction in Federal Court. Nowhere does the 75 page order suggest that this is a simple matter, easily determined by checking if the candidate has been convicted of insurrection. In fact, the candidate had to testify in front of the administrative law judge for 3 hours. This, again, is odd for something that can apparently be resolved by checking the candidate's criminal record. The challenge against MTG did not prevail, which seems to me a strike against the idea that the very concept is anti-democraric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Nope, because you (presumably) being foreign-born is an objective matter of record. Similarly, Trump can be convicted of, or successfully impeached for insurrection, and the 14th applies. What’s being floated here is that any state election official or civil judge can declare “Trump did an insurrection”, which results in him being removed from the ballot. That does actually smell like disenfranchisement and feels generally anti-democratic. It would be like some faceless Arizona election chud declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, therefore he’s removed from the ballot. It feels scummy. So what, in your mind, is a viable punishment for attempted coup? because if the answer is "none because of optics" why wouldn't any losing candidate make an attempt? if you fail and nothing happens besides declaring "oopsy coupsy" and if you succeed you are president for life, why wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:What’s being floated here is that any state election official or civil judge can declare “Trump did an insurrection”, which results in him being removed from the ballot. That does actually smell like disenfranchisement and feels generally anti-democratic. It would be like some faceless Arizona election chud declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, therefore he’s removed from the ballot. It feels scummy. This is an absurd comparison and you should be ashamed for making it. “any state election official or civil judge” is a really odd way to say, “people empowered by the constitution and laws governing the country to make determinations of fact and the application of law under all the due process provisions with all the various levels of oversight placed on those offices up to and including Supreme Court rulings and legislative acts at state and federal jurisdictions”? Or, yeah, just anyone. Edit: I think what really bothers me here is the false equivalence between a trivially disproven lie that was never made because it was false on its surface and an act for which there is copious evidence already as accepted fact in the public record and has multiple on going criminal trials based on it and that these two things are the same and have equal weight. That a ‘faceless election official in the middle of nowhere’ is the same national authority as a federal judge or state authority as a Secretary of State. It’s bad and false and nonsensical. Murgos fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Sep 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
Thing is, he did attempt an insurrection. It's not some frivolous bs accusation. There's proof he did it, and we watched it start. "But what if this sets a precedent?" isn't really a valid question because there is no precedent for this, and if a future Democrat does what he did then they should be barred from running again as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The bolded is your own invention, unsupported by the constitution or case law. It also strikes me as deeply odd that an impeachment would be necessary (even as an implied requirement), given impeachment has its own disqualification process. Though it's a bit academic given he's successfully been impeached for insurrection. That's good to hear. I was personally concerned about this when I started to see the news about the dozens of Cop City protesters getting hit with RICO domestic terror charges. I don't know of any of them getting capital I insurrection charges yet, but that's my concern. I want leaders from civil rights and social justice movements, who have participated in direct action and police protests in their past, to be able to go on to be our elected officials who help make policy. And they seem like they'd be disproportionately affected by this kind of ballot restriction. But, if it's not just a simple matter of banning anyone who has an insurrection conviction, maybe that allays my fears. Or maybe it's even more ripe for abuse? gently caress, I feel like I'm so brainpoisoned from decades of corrupt, bad-faith government. I always reflexively think, "but what if the fascists don't use this system honestly?" and I'm starting to feel like that question doesn't matter. Any law can be abused or subverted. That doesn't make the law bad, it means we need to actually start punishing people who abuse them. Ugh i wish i had a less trite answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Fascists don't use any system honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:
Even if section 3 of the 14th amendment is today ripe for abuse the people who are most open to being abused by it are the people most empowered to limit its potential for abuse. If the courts look like they are somehow going to decide that the the only proper way to interpret the language is the broadest most absurdly wide open reading of it then the senators and congressmen who currently hold office and would be vulnerable to being held to that standard can all work to limit its power by just passing a law that strictly interprets how to use it and what it means. Ted Cruz is a shithead but he’s a shithead who will gladly throw Trump under the bus to save his own position and come to the table to pass a law limiting section three in a way that makes the Dems okay to go with it. That said though it’s never going to come to that. The argument that section three is going to be construed to read that if you held up a sign saying, “town councilman Stinkybut has a stinky but” and now you are forbidden from holding federal office forever is all a dumb slippery slope argument and slippery slope arguments are probably the dumbest arguments there are because they all suppose that everyone is a drooling idiot with a determination to make only the most robotic binary decisions with no options for moderation. What’s actually on the table isn’t some vast expansion of state power to shape the presidential election but just one dumb old traitor being held to some minor and not actually all that damaging a penalty. Courts understand how to narrowly interpret the constitution and write their rulings so as to be applicable to just this one area this one time if they need or have the desire to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The bolded is your own invention, unsupported by the constitution or case law. It also strikes me as deeply odd that an impeachment would be necessary (even as an implied requirement), given impeachment has its own disqualification process. Though it's a bit academic given he's successfully been impeached for insurrection. Please refrain from condescension toward other posters, such as name you changed when quoting. However I won't be punishing you for it as the rest of this post is very good. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So...if a few states succeed in removing Trump from the ballot, where do all the conservative minded "states' rights' types find themselves? I know that the answer is "Certain States Are Soros Tyranny" while Oklahoma, WV and Nebraska and Mississippi are glorious wonderful FREE STATES but, still. They won't do anything but use it as a further example of evil liberalism. Regrettable, despicable, and wrong but nothing to actually do anything about. Alabama or some other way out of Biden's range state will probably try and counter disqualify Biden in a snit. Which is where it'll end because there's no way that actual swing States have enough concentrated anti-Trump power to actually follow through with removing dickhead from the ballot. Meanwhile deep MAGA states wouldn't just remove him from the ballot even if the Supreme Court agrees he did an insurrection in violation of the 14th.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Meanwhile deep MAGA states wouldn't just remove him from the ballot even if the Supreme Court agrees he did an insurrection in violation of the 14th. Oddly enough that’s when a senator and a congressman would stand up at the ballot counting and object to the president of the senate that the ballots are illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So...if a few states succeed in removing Trump from the ballot, where do all the conservative minded "states' rights' types find themselves? I know that the answer is "Certain States Are Soros Tyranny" while Oklahoma, WV and Nebraska and Mississippi are glorious wonderful FREE STATES but, still. Conservatives have no such values as states rights. They have two core values 1) You do what I say 2) I don't have to do what you say Everything else is a poorly hashed together justification for 1 and 2
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Insurrection Clause has always been deeply, deeply sensitive to political considerations. When it was first written, most of the southern states were under military rule and had no real political representation, and ultimately had to be forced into ratifying it. But once the former Confederate states had their national political power restored, there was a significant political incentive for people with national political ambitions to cozy up to the ex-Confederates. Meanwhile, enforcing policies like these turned out to be extremely difficult, as the states had zero interest in cooperating, the federal court system was lukewarm about the whole thing, and several Supreme Court justices at the time were known to be skeptical of the government's Reconstruction policies for one reason or another. In the end, the Insurrection Clause was essentially abandoned for political reasons, rendered toothless by large-scale amnesties within four years of the 14th Amendment's ratification - before most of the numerous cases filed for or against it could make their way through the courts. Didn't help that the President at the time, the roundly criticized Andrew Johnson, was a Confederate sympathizer despite opting to stay in the Senate when they seceded, who immediately sabotaged the Reconstruction the moment Lincoln was cold. Funny story, he hated the 14th too, and was impeached but missed conviction by a single vote for trying to restore the pre-war status quo and backdoor repeal the emancipation of slaves by denying them civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 07:44
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Didn't help that the President at the time, the roundly criticized Andrew Johnson, was a Confederate sympathizer despite opting to stay in the Senate when they seceded, who immediately sabotaged the Reconstruction the moment Lincoln was cold. His impeachment was at least as much focused on the power struggle between him and the radical Republicans (as seen in the tenure-of-office fight) which paralleled but was separate from the dispute over Reconstruction. Johnson is an odd duck that I've never fully been able to understand. During the war he was all about punishing secessionists, and as wartime governor of Tennessee he was at least as harsh in enforcing federal rule as Butler in Louisiana, though likely slightly less reviled (not that that's saying much), but once he's President he pulls a 180 because he hates the idea of free black people just that much. Total piece of poo poo, but not a straightforward one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
Kinda like Sherman, had Sherman been politically inclined. He did his duty during the war, but resisted having black troops in his army except as manual labor. IIRC he had to be ordered to integrate black combat regiments; even after that, he resisted employing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Kinda like Sherman, had Sherman been politically inclined. Regardless of his troublesome views, Sherman seemed to be fully committed to reparations and emancipation. He's often quoted with sayings like "The negro is hencefort free, and I will enforce it so"-style quips when people asked him if he'd allow white landowners to remain in charge or whatever. He also attempted a true case of reparations: https://reparationscomm.org/reparations-news/shermans-march-toward-reparations/ Sadly, it would not last due to Johnson. From my somewhat decent reading of Sherman's intentions and documents and quotes, he fully intended to enforce it post-war, too. Under President Grant, Sherman wasn't any less invested in the civil rights for black americans. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Sep 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:His impeachment was at least as much focused on the power struggle between him and the radical Republicans (as seen in the tenure-of-office fight) which paralleled but was separate from the dispute over Reconstruction. For Johnson (and many other moderate Southerners of the era), secession was always a both sides issue. During the war, he was reluctantly forced to admit that the willingness of the slaveowners to threaten things like nullification or secession in response to any weakening of the slaveholding aristocracy was a threat to the unity of the Union. But once the war ended, he considered the problem solved and felt that the Union should quickly be put back together. When it wasn't, he felt that any further disunity was the fault of abolitionists and radicals, who he felt were eager to use the war as an excuse to further abuse the rights and interests of Southerners. In his eyes, Southern states were fully within their rights to establish white supremacist governments run by ex-Confederates and maintain black people in a condition of perpetual servitude despite the official end of slavery, and Northerners had no right to demand that Southern states change those things before being readmitted to the Union. To him, the important thing was getting all those Southern states readmitted to the Union, not forcing new laws and new governments on them. Johnson was also a racist and former slaveholder, of course, who was born and raised in the Southern states and who had consistently supported slavery before the war. So he wasn't particularly interested in how post-war Southern governments were treating African-Americans either, and I'm sure that played a non-insignificant part in his stance as well. This was another not-uncommon feature among moderate Southerners. As for why he was so enthusiastic during his time as Tennessee's military governor, that's likely because of his political ambitions. During the Civil War, there were limited political options for a Southern Democrat who'd remained in the Union. Opposing secession had left him unpopular in Confederate Tennessee, but he couldn't hope to have much real pull as the only senator from a seceded state to remain in the Senate. On the other hand, Lincoln was fairly concerned with maintaining a narrative of national unity, and placed quite a bit of value on having the public support of a Southern Democrat. Johnson's policies as Tennessee's military governor likely played a significant role in his selection as vice-president, which ended up being even more of a political boost than he'd expected it to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I think what really bothers me here is the false equivalence between a trivially disproven lie that was never made because it was false on its surface and an act for which there is copious evidence already as accepted fact in the public record and has multiple on going criminal trials based on it and that these two things are the same and have equal weight. I wasn’t trying to provoke you, sorry about that - the cases aren’t meant to be equivalent, and I’m not saying they are. Whatever the right would come up with in response is going to be 90% bullshit, but they’ll just point to removing Trump and say it’s exactly the same. A better hypothetical - a Democratic candidate gave a speech before a BLM rally where a government building was damaged, therefore the fourteenth applies. It’s garbage, but I’m not sure the left can win a “they go low, we go lower” contest here. Ra Ra Rasputin posted:So what, in your mind, is a viable punishment for attempted coup? because if the answer is "none because of optics" why wouldn't any losing candidate make an attempt? if you fail and nothing happens besides declaring "oopsy coupsy" and if you succeed you are president for life, why wouldn't you? Oh, Trump should be jailed for insurrection, absolutely. He should’ve been convicted in the Senate, as well. You’re right that my argument is basically optics (I started with “legality aside”), I’m just saying that either of those two outcomes would significantly improve those optics if he’s removed from the ballot. As an aside, I was thinking that the amendment only bars “serving”, not running. So i wonder if theoretically Trump runs on the ballot, then his VP takes over on day one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, not remotely close, this is not how the law works. "Was Obama born in Kenya" is a question of fact, and an extremely easily verifiable fact at that. Um actually you'll find it's a FACT that B-Rock 'The Islamic Shock' HUSSEIN Super-Allah Obama was born in Kenya here look at this youtube video checkmate liberals. Either is going to end up in a courtroom. I just don't see a scenario in which our corrupted SCOTUS upholds a decision to disqualify Trump. In a 5-4 decision, "Trump never declared himself to be president of Not America therefore not insurrection neener neener"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:As an aside, I was thinking that the amendment only bars “serving”, not running. So i wonder if theoretically Trump runs on the ballot, then his VP takes over on day one? There is no way to force an inaugurated president out of office, except for impeachment, no. (Or the 25th, if he's incapacitated; if he's not, all he has to do is respond "no I'm not" and then it's undone, unless 2/3s of both House and Senate agree he is, so that's pointless.) States already ban people ineligible from a given office from running for it. That happens all the time, across the country. That's how these eligibility restrictions, Constitutional or otherwise, get enforced, because they can't be after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
On the other hand, if he's not allowed to serve, that means even if he wins the election his term cannot begin and he will not have a remainder of a term for the VP to assume. It may mean that any electoral votes cast for that candidate would be void and a different candidate would necessarily win
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
haveblue posted:On the other hand, if he's not allowed to serve, that means even if he wins the election his term cannot begin and he will not have a remainder of a term for the VP to assume. It may mean that any electoral votes cast for that candidate would be void and a different candidate would necessarily win If no candidate gets 50%+1 of the electoral votes it goes to the House of Representatives, who must select from the three candidates that got the most electoral votes, with each state getting one vote. Assuming no unfaithful electors (a massive assumption in this scenario) and no third party state wins, if the EVs for Trump were actually not allowed the only person they could vote for would be whoever he was running against. But then they’d be allowed to pick either VP, since AFAIK Trump being ineligible wouldn’t mean the VP pick lost their EVs. So it’s a very, very unlikely, unthinkable scenario but you could end up with a split White House that way. And just to be clear I do not see Trump’s EVs being thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:There is no way to force an inaugurated president out of office, except for impeachment, no. (Or the 25th, if he's incapacitated; if he's not, all he has to do is respond "no I'm not" and then it's undone, unless 2/3s of both House and Senate agree he is, so that's pointless.) my favorite bit of random trivia about the 25th is that there's not actually a provision preventing the vp from immediately doing it again after the votes fail, as long as he can transmit it to congress before the president fires enough traitors on the cabinet there's a political thriller comedy in there somewhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1701335285768786015 trump's moving for recusal of chutkan. never going to happen, but it does lay the base for further grievance sessions with his followers
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
Lol they stipulated that trump is who she's talking about as the head of the conspiracy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
pretty weak poo poo, all they've got is Chutkan -- who had to sentence people literally arguing that following Trump's directions should be a mitigating factor and reduce their sentences -- responding to those explicit arguments people made in her court, as she's required to do there's a mountain of precedent about how judicial remarks from the bench "almost never" count for these purposes, unless they are statements of like explicit extreme bias (e.g.: the bit about how the hearts of all Germans 'reek with disloyalty' lol) or ones that clearly reveal they're using a bunch of extrajudicial evidence https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1701339469750686062 eke out fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Sep 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Lol they stipulated that trump is who she's talking about as the head of the conspiracy When you can't stop telling on yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
logger posted:When you can't stop telling on yourself. It doesn’t matter. The whole point of this motion is for the RWM to say how obviously chutkan should recuse herself for her obvious documented bias every time her name comes up and then later call the whole trial fraudulent because she didn’t recuse. Never mind that her not recusing will be held up by all the superior courts through appeals and etc… because that’s just evidence about how the whole system is rigged. Trumps been playing and will continue to play the “I can’t get a fair hearing because these people Dems/RINOs/Deep State hate me” card to his base until he dies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It doesn’t matter. The whole point of this motion is for the RWM to say how obviously chutkan should recuse herself for her obvious documented bias every time her name comes up and then later call the whole trial fraudulent because she didn’t recuse. At this point, who gives a poo poo. He’s going to get his base of loons frothing mad about something, he can just make something up. It doesn’t matter what Jack Smith or Judge Chutkan or anyone does or doesn’t do. Follow the letter of the law and just take him down as quickly as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It doesn’t matter. The whole point of this motion is for the RWM to say how obviously chutkan should recuse herself for her obvious documented bias every time her name comes up and then later call the whole trial fraudulent because she didn’t recuse. Trump's team isn't filing motions for the sake of right-wing media. He's perfectly capable of just going on Truth Social and posting a rant about how the judge should totally recuse, and his base will eat that up just fine. No real reason to involve his lawyers in the propaganda. The point of the motion is almost certainly a simple matter of "when you've got a case as desperate as this one, it doesn't really hurt to throw everything remotely plausible at the wall just in case you get lucky and something sticks". Sure, the chance of this recusal motion amounting to anything are extremely slim, but "extremely slim" is still better than zero.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Plus, it's not like he's actually going to pay his attorneys for the extra work, so it costs him nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Trump's team isn't filing motions for the sake of right-wing media. He's perfectly capable of just going on Truth Social and posting a rant about how the judge should totally recuse, and his base will eat that up just fine. No real reason to involve his lawyers in the propaganda. Doesn't it give them a base from which to appeal, when it gets denied? That could also be a factor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:It would be like some faceless Arizona election chud declaring that Obama was born in Kenya, therefore he’s removed from the ballot. It feels scummy. ... you do realize that this is exactly the sort of factual question that would be answered by a case in civil court, right, if anyone did have sufficient evidence he wasn't born in the US? Just like the insurrection question for Trump. You're acting like "what if Obama had to play by the same rules" as a reason for Trump being allowed to play by different rules, it makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:... you do realize that this is exactly the sort of factual question that would be answered by a case in civil court, right, if anyone did have sufficient evidence he wasn't born in the US? Just like the insurrection question for Trump. You're acting like "what if Obama had to play by the same rules" as a reason for Trump being allowed to play by different rules, it makes no sense. I should note that Obama did have to play by the same rules. Republicans filed lots of challenges and litigation to throw Obama off ballots due to the birther conspiracies, and they failed. And it was where the question is suppose to be answered, and it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
A bipartisan group of Minnesotans have filed suit, looking for the state supreme court to direct the Secretary of State to bar Trump from the primary and general election ballots. Same 14th amendment theory as the Colorado case. Secretary of State Simon isn't mincing words: The buck stops.... there quote:"For the sake of Minnesota's voters, we hope the [United States Supreme] court resolves this issue to allow for orderly administration of the elections in 2024," he wrote. Meanwhile, noted torture enthusiast and crime-definition fetishist John Yoo is in the Federalist explaining why the 14th couldn't possibly be used to disqualify Trump from the ballot. A note from the start that the piece he's rebutting is an exhaustively cited law review article and his is a psuedointellectual blogpost. And a reminder that, again, Yoo has devoted his life to contorionist arguments that the law and constitution exist to protect his political allies and to deny the rights and humanity of their targets. First, would you believe that actually, it's the Dems fault that Trump didn't engage in insurrection? quote:If it were clear that Trump engaged in insurrection, the Justice Department should have acted on the Jan. 6 Committee’s referral for prosecution on that charge. Special Counsel Jack Smith should have indicted him for insurrection or seditious conspiracy, which remain federal crimes. If it were obvious that Trump had committed insurrection, Congress should have convicted him in the two weeks between Jan. 6 and Inauguration Day. Instead, the House impeached Trump for indictment to insurrection but the Senate acquitted him. We'll pause here, because this builds on the same foundation as most of the other arguments against disqualification: That it cannot be used (legally or in practice) without a criminal conviction. The problem with Yoo, and likeminded sufferers of intellectual dishonesty, is that there's really nothing more than vibes to back it... and multiple recent instances denying the theory from federal courts. But it feels right, so they'll continue to prattle it around regardless of contradictory evidence. In a novel strategy for right wing assholery, we also have a strawman tied to an ahistorical Obama hypothetical: quote:According to their view, he must carry the burden of proof to show he is not guilty of insurrection or rebellion — a process that achieves the very opposite of our Constitution’s guarantee of due process, which, it so happens, is not just provided for by the Fifth Amendment, but reaffirmed in the same 14th Amendment that contains the disqualification clause. It would be like requiring Barak[sic] Obama to prove he was native-born (a constitutional prerequisite for being president) if state election officials disqualified him for being foreign-born. We follow this with an extraordinarily dishonest citation to the Supreme Court: quote:The Supreme Court lent further support for this idea in United States Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), which held that states could not effectively add new qualifications for congressional candidates by barring long-time incumbents from appearing on the ballot. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens argued that allowing states to add term limits as a qualification for their congressional elections conflicted with “the uniformity and national character [of Congress] that the framers sought to ensure.” Allowing state election officials to decide for themselves whether someone has incited or committed insurrection, without any meaningful trial or equivalent proceeding, would give states the ability to achieve what term limits forbid. It's breathtaking to argue that the supreme court case ruling that states cannot add additional qualifications beyond the constitution also means that states cannot enforce the qualifications within the constitution. Approaching the end, it's tough to believe the bolded is said by someone who earlier in the same piece praises the role given the states in elections by the constitution. Also, note the call for nuHUAC quote:We are not arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment lacks the means of enforcement (though not every official who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution has such enforcement power). Each branch of the federal government can honor Section 3 in the course of executing its unique constitutional functions. Article I of the Constitution allows Congress to sentence an impeached president not just to removal from office, but also disqualification from office in the future. Congress could pass a statute disqualifying named insurrectionists from office — we think this would not qualify as an unconstitutional bill of attainder — or set out criteria for judicial determination. At last, the conclusion: Following the text of the constitution, absent any relevant or controlling precedent otherwise is anti-democratic and any disqualification other than being rejected by the voters is an offense against the franchise and Democracy itself quote:But as with the weak charges brought by the special counsel, the effort to hold Trump accountable for his actions should not depend on a warping of our constitutional system. Prosecutors should charge him with insurrection if they can prove it and have that conviction sustained on appeal. Congress should disqualify Trump if it can agree he committed the crime. Ultimately, the American people will decide Trump’s responsibility for the events of Jan. 6, but at the ballot box in 2024’s nominating and general elections for president. Neither Yoo nor the Federalist is capable of feeling shame and this would barely register on the scales if they were. Still, they (and any other current or "former" rightwingers who'd appeal to Democratic principles while waving the bloody shirt) deserve the same disrespect their arguments show the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Why do people assume they have a right to run for office? Is running for office an individual right, protected by the Constitution? Brett Kavanaugh definitely fell into this camp. I looked at that and thought, "Even if he's not guilty of such heinous behavior (he totally is), I want my Supreme Court justices to be so well thought of, that no one could even imagine them behaving in such a way. I want my Supreme Court justices to be beyond reproach." Same goes for Clarence Thomas. Why should Trump be any different? "Well, it wasn't technically insurrection," is not a defense for someone running for the office of loving President. Why is this hard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Why do people assume they have a right to run for office? Is running for office an individual right, protected by the Constitution? Brett Kavanaugh definitely fell into this camp. I looked at that and thought, "Even if he's not guilty of such heinous behavior (he totally is), I want my Supreme Court justices to be so well thought of, that no one could even imagine them behaving in such a way. I want my Supreme Court justices to be beyond reproach." Same goes for Clarence Thomas. For federal office, they do. There are requirements in the constitution outlining the qualifications for federal office and the courts have held over and over that states can't add significant new requirements, pass laws allowing recalls of federal officials, implement term limits, impose new requirements, etc. They can change the rules around signatures or ballot access, but people do have a fundamental right to run for federal office (assuming they meet the constitutional requirements) that states and other entities aren't allowed to dramatically infringe on. That is why all the efforts to keep Trump off the ballot specifically cite the 14th amendment as the reasoning. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Sep 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 22:55
|
|
