|
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna130484 I assume this will eventually end up at the SCOTUS but it'd be great if they just noped right the gently caress out instead of giving some bullshit argument that the office of the POTUS doesn't count and that it only applies to everyone else (until they decide it doesn't).
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna130484 I said this in the other thread but, funny thing is, the Roberts court now has an opportunity to not only do the funniest thing of all time, but also redeem a great deal of their lost political capital in the process while also returning power to the corporatist wing of the republican party. I wonder if they're smart enough to seize the chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna130484
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
USSC Then: The states have rights and can administer elections as they see fit! (Gerrymandering) USSC in the near future: No, not like that!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
It might turn into a dangerous can of worms to open. States have a lot of freedom to choose electors however they want, and you know the response to this will be "okay if they can throw Trump off of the ballot, we must find a way to throw Biden off of the ballot!" or some future Democratic candidate, and Democratic presidential victories right now depend on winning in states controlled by Republican legislatures with a track record of brazen anti-democratic power grabs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
It turns out Republicans will do whatever they can for the sake of power, regardless of any provocation from Democrats or not. See: anything they’ve done since ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:It turns out Republicans will do whatever they can for the sake of power, regardless of any provocation from Democrats or not. It's still too unpopular to pull off without threatening their grip on power, so they need to boil the frog first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 06:36
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:It might turn into a dangerous can of worms to open. States have a lot of freedom to choose electors however they want, and you know the response to this will be "okay if they can throw Trump off of the ballot, we must find a way to throw Biden off of the ballot!" or some future Democratic candidate, and Democratic presidential victories right now depend on winning in states controlled by Republican legislatures with a track record of brazen anti-democratic power grabs. You mean like the dozen+ cases in 2008? Or Megan Kelly before the 2016 election, joined by a former Attorney General before he had to walk it back and admit there was no there there? How about nonsense trotted out by Trump and his favorite insurrection attorney in 2020? I suppose my question is if it's really  when they've been trying this poo poo every election for nearly 20 years now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 06:52
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:If it were that simple then they'd have already done it when they held supermajorities large enough to do it. They can do it right now in NC if they want. They can try but even the current SCOTUS would smack them down almost immediately since banning someone from running for office just because you don't like them and their political beliefs violates the Equal Protection Clause, 1A, and god knows what else. Upholding it would also send a very clear message that Democracy is dead and if you want change your only way forward is through violence. Alito's probably insane enough to be ok with it and Thomas is Thomas but even people like Gorsuch are going to nope the gently caress out of that immediately and Roberts wouldn't even pretend to consider it. Maybe Barrett would be ok with it if someone told her it's a new Crusade. Realistically it'd be a 9-0 "get the gently caress out of here and don't come back" decision though because Alito's insanity aside, he probably likes the current status quo more than rolling the dice on surviving a nuclear civil war and Thomas would be placated with his usual bribes. e: Though I don't doubt for a second that Thomas believes he'd be spared by a what would be an extremely racist Christofascist regime. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Dec 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Hmmm yes, addressing executive / king immunity after an attempted coup is not an urgent matter ok
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hmmm yes, addressing executive / king immunity after an attempted coup is not an urgent matter Its cowardice on the USSCs part. What I think will happen is that the DC appeals court will deny Trumps idiotic claim of immunity, the USSC will sit on it for a few weeks and then deny cert. Trial will be delayed until May, assuming other poo poo isn't appealed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
Delay delay delay until hopefully Trump wins again then ................ Don't these idiots realize they'll be eventually up against the wall in the coming Christofascist Empire of their dreams? Especially Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Delay delay delay until hopefully Trump wins again then ................ I believe the prevailing hope is that the Rapture will happen first. This is a serious post, watch Justice Alito's interviews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Don't these idiots realize they'll be eventually up against the wall in the coming Christofascist Empire of their dreams? Especially Thomas. The wing that now broadly controls where the supreme court takes the country was not selected by people who are prudent in safeguarding the fundamental structure of a republic or the legitimacy of the courts. They were appointed to blindly pursue specific religious aims
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Delay delay delay until hopefully Trump wins again then ................ If the Supreme Court ends up against the wall, it's not going to be because of Donald Trump, it'll be because of the 70 million people who voted for Trump or whoever his successor is. And if the Supreme Court isn't in any rush to jump into this issue, it's not because they love Trump - it's because they're not very eager to remove the guy who is currently leading the polls to be the next president. If Trump was polling at 10%, I think the courts would be a lot quicker to jump into this issue. Supreme Court justices are well aware that just because they're unelected justices with life terms, that doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want without any regard for public opinion. They'll defy public opinion to a certain extent to push their personal ideologies or resolve issues they think can't be handled by the elected branches, but there's no way they've forgotten the lesson of the Chief Justice who thought he could prevent a civil war and ended up being one of the major contributors to causing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
The country’s more divided than ever! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
Wizard Master posted:The country’s more divided than ever! We must multiply to counteract the enemy efforts. Get to screwing private Lance! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 09:54
|
|
|
Well, cert has been granted and the Colorado appeal will be heard in February. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html Would not be surprised if the majority shits out one of the following: "Trump is not an officer of the United States even though by any originalist reading of the text he obviously is. Now is not the time for originalism. Don't ask why." "It was an insurrection but we aren't convinced Trump engaged in or supported it. Sure, he was on the phone pressuring lawmakers while the riot was kicking off, and deliberately did nothing for three hours but watch the violence unfold on TV while those around him begged him to issue a public condemnation, but none of that counts. If he wasn't physically right there in the thick of things, he wasn't part of the insurrection." "OK, Trump likely engaged in insurrection and even though the 14th Amendment's due process clause only applies when an individual stands to lose life, liberty, or property, it also applies to political aspirations because we say it does. We hereby declare Section 3 is not self-executing even though that's exactly how it worked in the past. New addendum to the US Constitution (just get a pen and scribble it in there under Section 3. Call it Section 3a): The individual must be convicted of insurrection first." "Fine, Trump engaged in insurrection and yes, the ability to run for political office isn't an essential need like life, liberty, and property, so due process doesn't enter the picture. But nonetheless we are gifting ourselves Congress' power to grant a Section 3 waiver because affirming the Colorado decision could make lots of people angry. Think of the optics!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 00:08
|
|
|
If they call it "self executing" without a conviction the USA won't get to 12/31/2024. There won't be more than 20 states that have both major parties on the ballet, assuming we even get to November without something else intervening. You want to see what an insurrection/civil-war actually looks like? That would do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
Eh, I think the Court is going to dismiss the Colorado case, but not on officer status. Instead they are going to say 'Well, what insurrection is hasn't been defined by congress, so no state can kick anyone off for insurrection. Case closed."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 01:56
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Eh, I think the Court is going to dismiss the Colorado case, but not on officer status. Instead they are going to say 'Well, what insurrection is hasn't been defined by congress, so no state can kick anyone off for insurrection. Case closed." "Congress screwed it up" is a very convenient excuse for courts, given it tends to be true! (Note also section 5)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:If they call it "self executing" without a conviction the USA won't get to 12/31/2024. There won't be more than 20 states that have both major parties on the ballet, assuming we even get to November without something else intervening. You want to see what an insurrection/civil-war actually looks like? That would do it. That's how Section 3 was applied in the case of Couy Griffin along with several ex-confederates who ran for public office right after the Civil War. None of the past instances of disqualification required a criminal conviction. Being barred from public office isn't a criminal penalty. There's potential for bad actors to try and weaponize the process in retaliation, but that shouldn't weigh on SCOTUS' decision. Their concern should be whether a fair interpretation of the 14th disqualifies Trump, not "think of all the anger if we uphold the Colorado decision." Also, the Supreme Courts of other states haven't all been captured by MAGA diehards (yet). The petitioners in those hypothetical cases will have the opportunity to explain in convincing detail which of Biden's actions warrant disqualification. And the judges in those cases are free to either laugh them out of court or attach their name and reputation to an obvious sham.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 03:31
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:If they call it "self executing" without a conviction the USA won't get to 12/31/2024. There won't be more than 20 states that have both major parties on the ballet, assuming we even get to November without something else intervening. You want to see what an insurrection/civil-war actually looks like? That would do it. The alternative is he runs from jail. Its better to disqualify him earlier while there's time to replace him on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 03:36
|
|
|
I'm scratching my head, can anybody explain how due process has anything to do with the 14th Amendment like, what is the plaintiff being denied that requires due process? not life, not property. you don't need due process to expel even elected members of Congress or bar them future service.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
the fact that we're even discussing this is absolutely nuts. this is your guy, GOP? you're really putting your best foot forward with a man who tried to break the continuity of American democracy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:the fact that we're even discussing this is absolutely nuts. this is your guy, GOP? you're really putting your best foot forward with a man who tried to break the continuity of American democracy? The GOP establishment types absolutely do not want Trump. They wanted someone like DeSantis or Haley or literally anyone else. However the base are the ones who turn out for the primaries and Trump is the living embodiment of what the base wants, due in no small part to poo poo like the Tea Party astroturfing that grew out of control and got away from the people who though it'd be their way to beat back Obama and have their Romney-types win power. It's extremely funny to see people like the "GOP Young Guns" all being out of office now because they burned themselves (and the rest of the country, unfortunately).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
Re:civil war, you guys remember when a huge groundswell of trump voters showed up to support him during his various arrests, after his campaign tried to drum up some momentum? neither do I Boogaloo circle jerking and huffy puffy bravado aside, the people who beg for civil war are not nearly as hard as they think
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
Plus the constant news about J6 arrests and convictions and serious jail time for over a thousand people (and counting) is probably hanging over would be idiots pretty heavily. They all want SOMEONE ELSE to rise up but they never leave their mom's basement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The GOP establishment types absolutely do not want Trump. They wanted someone like DeSantis or Haley or literally anyone else. what, they'd even take Christie over Trump? surely you jest
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Qtotonibudinibudet posted:what, they'd even take Christie over Trump? surely you jest Establishment Republicans? Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
Establishment republicans want money and behind-closed-doors discrimination. There are a ton of people who would deliver those things while not being too disruptive so it persists for as long as possible. That project was going pretty well until Trump got elected
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm scratching my head, can anybody explain how due process has anything to do with the 14th Amendment You can view it in at least two ways: first, the right of an otherwise eligible person to run for office is a liberty interest, which would implicate due process on its face. "Liberty" doesn't just mean not being locked up; it can include being deprived of rights that citizens would otherwise enjoy. Second, depriving a person of the right to run for office would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment unless you establish that they are specifically ineligible. The way you establish their ineligibility would be through some form of hearing, which would be a form of due process. The other thing to bear in mind is that "due process" does not necessarily mean a full trial with all of the protections of criminal procedure. Government agencies don't typically get to just say "nuh-uh" and leave it at that, but the normal requirements of due process are just notice that a decision is going to be made, an opportunity to be heard, and a not-completely-prejudiced decisionmaker. By all accounts the Colorado and Maine decisions were preceded by at least that level of due process. Expulsion from Congress or impeachment are kind of non-sequiturs because they either satisfy due process or are explicit exceptions to the due process requirement, depending on how you look at them. Aegis fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Establishment republicans want money and behind-closed-doors discrimination. There are a ton of people who would deliver those things while not being too disruptive so it persists for as long as possible. That project was going pretty well until Trump got elected Most of them seem perfect happy to let the hoi polloi do what they want when it doesn't get in the way of their financial interests or law enforcement power, though. That's why I wouldn't count too much on a higher moral conscience within the GOP somehow sabotaging Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
So who were the 4 justices who are apparently unaware of the supremacy clause, and what weird hosed up theory did they have for pretending not to be aware of it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 05:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:So who were the 4 justices who are apparently unaware of the supremacy clause, and what weird hosed up theory did they have for pretending not to be aware of it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:So who were the 4 justices who are apparently unaware of the supremacy clause, and what weird hosed up theory did they have for pretending not to be aware of it? The theory of "gently caress you we do what we (our party) wants" isn't exactly new for the conservative justices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
They already know the only Supremacy Clause they need: they're the Supreme Court and can do as they please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 15:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:So who were the 4 justices who are apparently unaware of the supremacy clause, and what weird hosed up theory did they have for pretending not to be aware of it? Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. They didn’t write anything explaining their reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
It makes it even more obvious what partisan hacks they are if you know what executive supremacists they are. They've all gone for decisions that let presidents do whatever the hell they want in the past. But suddenly it's all States Rights (to get brown people killed) and balance of power between the branches when the president has a -D
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. They didn’t write anything explaining their reasons. wait, what happened?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 16:34
|
|