|
The ruling in these cases concern primary elections, and those are quickly approaching. Although I guess the court issuing a temporary injunction allowing him to be on the primary ballot so they can decide the case later is a calvinball possibility that is possible.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
It’d be kind of like just shuffling your debt between credit cards though, since it’d just put even more pressure on their presidential immunity ruling (or lack thereof).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 06:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think the substack guy is mostly right but I'd actually shade the chances of Trump getting disqualified slightly higher, up to around maybe 25%. For something like this I think it's a mistake to look at "the Court" as a whole; you have to get granular and look at the individual justices. Couple of days back but I meant to touch on this reply and say that I agree, I was oversimplifying 'The Court' when we're really talking about Roberts, Gorsuch, and maybe Barrett. Honestly I wouldn't be at all surprised if Roberts sides with the liberals on this one, as you say he's very worried about the SCOTUS as an 'institution' and what legacy it has; people like Thomas and Alito don't care about how they're remembered but I think the idea Roberts could be remembered as the Chief Justice who goes into the history books as "The guy who was in charge when the pre-2CW court lost all remaining legitimacy and became a direct factor in the 2CW breaking out" keeps him up at night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 07:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Exactly. Sounds strange, but no weirder than the last ten years. (Puts on Hockey mask, takes out two baseball bats and leaps through the air.) GOONGALLA! GOONGALLA! One question, though. Let's say the SC does say "Trump is an insurrectionist. He can't be President." What happens next? All the Republican candidates then run on the platform of "this is an outrage that our beloved leader can't be on the ballot. That is why with a heavy heart, I must run for President!" Does this improve or worsen Bidden's chances of winning the election?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 07:23
|
|
|
What’s judge beer think? I mean Kavanaugh I’ve heard nothing about what he might think on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 07:27
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Sounds strange, but no weirder than the last ten years. The Republican Primary immediately gets flooded with guys who sat out because they knew better than to believe Trump wouldn't win. The whole thing becomes a fight between them trying to prove they're actually Trump 2.0, while Christie and Haley argue about which of them should be the the "fresh shot" candidate. Ron DiSantis' lifts will grow 2 sizes and cold whispered chants will emanate from his new red boots as the idiot window he dreamed of finally opens. Whatever the result, it increases Biden's chances of getting smoked noticeably. The new variables being whether MAGA stays home/writes in Trump, and whether the non-Republicans who were willing to crawl over broken glass to vote Biden while holding their nose also stay home. Plus the old age attack angle picks up a lot of power when the other candidate is maybe just over 60 instead of also going to High School prior to the Louisiana Purchase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 07:54
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:What’s judge beer think? I mean Kavanaugh I’ve heard nothing about what he might think on this. Kavanaugh will vote with the GOP unless he thinks it will benefit himself to not do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 07:58
|
|
|
Trump being barred would likely result in a significant fracturing of the Republican party as some portion of its base would commit even more fully to conspiracy theories around the election, likely splitting and diminishing R turnout.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 08:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Trump being barred would likely result in a significant fracturing of the Republican party as some portion of its base would commit even more fully to conspiracy theories around the election, likely splitting and diminishing R turnout. I doubt that. I think what would happen is that whoever comes out on top in the primary is going to be screeching really loud about how the drat liberals did Trump dirty, regardless of what they believe, just to woo the MAGA crowd too. (And then not actually do anyhing that's not symbolic about it.) Trump being ineligible for office makes supporting him risk-free. (Or at least seem risk-free.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 09:01
|
|
|
There are so many factors and possibilities that it's paretty much impossible to call it. Nobody who might inherit the Republican mantle looks to have the chops to weld the parts of the base together, and although they usually have the discipline to get the vote out despite fractures, this would be a pretty unique situation. If the GOP nominee is a business Republican are they going to be able to get the magas all fired up? Conversely if there's a maga person at the top of the ticket, it seems unlikely they'd have the sheer center of gravity needed to force the business wing into line the way Trump has (I imagine if anyone had that kind of touch we'd already know about them, but all the putative maga inheritors are bizarre mutant fish people like Ron and Vivek). And then what, does the nominee try to say "This was a great injustice and vote for me to make sure nobody else gets treated like Trump" or "Trump's off the ballot for a reason, and if the Republicans are to remain the party of law and order we have to accept that and discard his criminal ways"? How do his trials go, both in terms of what they reveal and actual verdicts and sentences? God only knows what kinds of attack ads you can run against the Republicans if there's convictions of Trump. And the nominee will be seeking his blessing and anointment, but I don't for one second expect he's going to be accepting a disqualification and saying someone else can run as his heir. What happens if he calls them a deep state agent taking his rightful place on the ballot? What if he says the election is a sham and his supporters should boycott it? What happens if he tries to get one of his kids onto the ticket or something similar? What if Trump gets a shitload of write-ins, enough to tank the candidate? I can certainly see the argument that a 'normal' Republican candidate has an advantage against Biden and I'm not going to be surprised if they do beat him with that as a core pillar of their support. But I think this assumes they can dance through a minefield and I feel it's at least as likely that recriminations, disarray, and a lack of unity will severely undermine their efforts this year. Some of those mines have thermonuclear charges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 10:07
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:Worth noting that if past is prologue, the mere consideration by those on the left of taking this type of action against Trump means that the GOP will actually do it in the next cycle. Aren't most of the suites to get Trump off the ballot being brought to court by Republicans? I know the CO one was. And as others have said the R's have been trying poo poo like this for a long time already. I remember there being a few attempts to get Obama off the ballot due to the birth cert nonsense too. The difference here is there has been some (limited) success in getting Trump off the ballot because he is obviously guilty of some poo poo and everyone with more than half a brain and a vague inclination to follow the rules knows it. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 11:08
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:
"Vote for me, Donald trump Jr. I promise you i will do everything my dad tells me."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 12:29
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:"Vote for me, Donald trump Jr. I promise you i will do everything my dad tells me." "Don't for that loser, I never even met him" - Donald "TRUMP" Sr.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 12:36
|
|
|
Gyges posted:
Discendo Vox posted:Trump being barred would likely result in a significant fracturing of the Republican party as some portion of its base would commit even more fully to conspiracy theories around the election, likely splitting and diminishing R turnout. Both of these are probably true in the "trump disqualified" scenario. Overall I think it probably makes it easier for a Republican to defeat Biden. Counterintuitively I think it probably helps Republicans more the earlier it happens. If Trump has already won a number of primaries, there's less remaining room to select a win-capable replacement candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 13:57
|
|
|
Trump being disqualified I think undisputavly has us enter the cool zone, like a politics event horizon where all the rules break down. No one can possibly know or predict what happens, it could collapse gop turnout across the board or it could super steroids it, literally anything could happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Is it possible the SC could just delay making a 14th amendment decision until after the Jan 6th trial? Like if the jury finds Trump guilty, then maybe the SC will have their justification to claim he's not eligible for president under the 14th amendment. Which could conceivably happen before the election and if it does then I could see a bunch of other state supreme courts declaring he's disqualified. And if that happens the inevitable appeals to the SC will probably just be ignored since it was already ruled on. The Supreme Court really isn't going to want to drag their feet on this, since it's an important issue and it's better to get it solved earlier in the election process. Hieronymous Alloy posted:There's also no *reason* for the court to baby-split. Either they want Trump president drat the torpedoes in which case they say crimes are legal, or else they don't, and they say Personally, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to be eager to disqualify a leading presidential contender, no matter who he is or what the circumstances are. Public support does matter to the Supreme Court, and I very much doubt that Roberts wants a situation where nine unelected men in robes are disqualifying the guy who'd otherwise win the election fair and square. No real good can come of that, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 14:11
|
|
.
|
Main Paineframe posted:. Sure, but that's a reason to rule in his favor decisively, not a reason to babysplit and bounce it back to the individual states. The more I think about this the more I think about timing. The faster the Court rules the more likely they are to disqualify. The longer the process takes and the more locked in Trump gets as a nominee, the greater the chance they abdicate in one way or another and allow his candidacy to proceed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Supreme Court really isn't going to want to drag their feet on this, since it's an important issue and it's better to get it solved earlier in the election process. I expect the Supreme Court to delay everything until it is „unfortunately“ to late to disqualify anyone so close to the election. As an example, see what they did in various gerrymandering cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
I do find the hypothetical example where a republican demagogue who is going to be 34 on the date of assuming office ran with the argument that 0 isn't a real number and so he would actually be 35. In some ways that is as debatable as to whether or not trump was involved in insurrection but also seems like a much more straightforward 'this person isn't qualified' and simultaneously a much less important question to punt on. If such an individual was actually popular enough to secure the votes of a majority of the population (or at least electoral college) would the court actually have the balls to rule that they couldn't take the oath? Conclusion from that is that the court would have hosed up by letting it get to that point. Letting someone who genuinely may be ineligible run creates the space for democratic legitimacy for their candidacy. Trying to wargame scenarios for this, there is no long term benefit to the court in punting on this unless they want to argue that constitutional eligibility is really a non justiciable question that should be decided by the voters or putting an enormous amount of pressure on themselves to rule out someone that has that democratic 'legitimacy'. The only reason to punt is if the full fascism now wing of the court think they are in the minority but can persuade one or two of the 'some fascism later' wing to wait and just roll the dice on trump winning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 14:49
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:They’ve already dragged their feet on it, as they refused Smith‘s request to immediately address Trump‘s immunity claims, instead letting it go through multiple levels of appeals. Eh, “skip the normal appeals process” is never going to have good odds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 14:56
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Eh, “skip the normal appeals process” is never going to have good odds. Especially when the DC appeals were clearly being put on greased lightning skids so there wasn't going to be that much delay anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
If I had to guess, whatever theoretical ruling the SC gives us going to exist somewhere between "Colorado doesn't have the right to unilaterally disqualify a federal candidate" and "come back when he's been convicted". It's about the safest tract they can do without appearing markedly partisan and allows Trump to continue his strategy of delaying until election day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
As expected, someone broke into the Colorado Supreme Court and shot up the place. It happened at 1am local time so thankfully no one was hurt. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:As expected, someone broke into the Colorado Supreme Court and shot up the place. It happened at 1am local time so thankfully no one was hurt. That's... uh... huh. I'm honestly not sure if the person went out intending to shoot up a nearly-empty building, or if there was something else going on. The article mentioned a car crash shortly beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
Comedy option: both at the same time. Think "taking the oath of office from a Georgia state penitentiary".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
Randalor posted:That's... uh... huh. I'm honestly not sure if the person went out intending to shoot up a nearly-empty building, or if there was something else going on. The article mentioned a car crash shortly beforehand. Yeah it's not clear to me if the guy even knew he was in the supreme court building. The article makes it sound like a road rage incident that got out of hand. He had a fender bender, drew a gun on the other guy, then went on a brief rampage and surrendered after he calmed down
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 16:59
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah it's not clear to me if the guy even knew he was in the supreme court building. The article makes it sound like a road rage incident that got out of hand. He had a fender bender, drew a gun on the other guy, then went on a brief rampage and surrendered after he calmed down I mean, I'm assuming drugs and/or alcohol were involved at some point in that persons evening, but it doesn't sound like there was much active thought put into this incident. The article says there was “significant and extensive damage to the building" but only mentions a handgun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Re: whether Trump being disqualified by SCOTUS helps or hurts Biden's chances in the next election: I think it's important to keep in mind that Trump is pretty unlikely to accept that he is disqualified. If he fully backed his replacement as the republican nominee, I think it would be a fair question as to whether this would give them good chances in the election. But if/when Trump doubles down and disputes his disqualification, the republicans have a pretty unwinnable situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Trump is definitely, 100% going to deny it happened if he gets removed from the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
The only way Trump backs his secondary is if they swear fealty to him. Trump cannot abide being secondary, he couldn't even countenance being the power behind the throne unless everyone knows it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
Of course if he is incarcerated that problem is solved. But waiting for incarceration extends this out further. Or think about maximum chaos option: he gets disqualified from the ballot . . . And then manages to seat a CHUD on the jury in his criminal trial, resulting in a hung jury.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:The only way Trump backs his secondary is if they swear fealty to him. Trump cannot abide being secondary, he couldn't even countenance being the power behind the throne unless everyone knows it. If he's disqualified after he clinches the Republican party nomination, he could pick a VP candidate as his replacement on the ballot. My guess is he'd pick Ivanka.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Aren't most of the suites to get Trump off the ballot being brought to court by Republicans? I’ve heard this used as a kind of exculpatory statement several times, but I think more important than who brought the suit is - who actually decides that Trump engaged in insurrection? This is categorically different from the age and citizenship disqualifications because it involves a subjective judgement call. So far you have a majority of Democratic-appointed judges in CO, and the Democratic Secretary of State for Maine. “Unelected leftists” took Trump off the ballot, will be the talking point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I’ve heard this used as a kind of exculpatory statement several times, but I think more important than who brought the suit is - who actually decides that Trump engaged in insurrection? This is categorically different from the age and citizenship disqualifications because it involves a subjective judgement call. So far you have a majority of Democratic-appointed judges in CO, and the Democratic Secretary of State for Maine. “Unelected leftists” took Trump off the ballot, will be the talking point. I mean that will be the rallying cry sure but that would be the cade no matter what. Both the CO and Maine decisions were functionally based on the Jan 6 report out of Congress, which was from a bipartisan committee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
The idea of the Republican establishment being the ones that shiv Trump by the Court narrowly saying no you can't be on the ballot and the RNC supporting the Not Like Trump candidate heavily because the ones closest to this insane rear end in a top hat are the most completely done with him being an insane rear end in a top hat is a move I dub the Caligula
The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
The supreme court dictating the election isn't even really novel territory, but the present majority justices have eaten away at their popular legitimacy so hard that I'm almost going to guarantee that they punt and do whatever it is keeps them out of the spotlight on this one, even if the leonard leo / conservative block justices have gone through hell and high water to assure us that they are textual originalists who cleave purely to the literal meaning of laws as written. Which means trump is probably good to go for the election. Ms Adequate posted:There are so many factors and possibilities that it's paretty much impossible to call it. Trump is both, in personality and applied methodology, the nucleus of american conservatism. There's a centralized institutionalized dependence on him as a public figure that has run through all levels of the gop from national to local. With each year that passed since 2016, any structure or institutional competence which was not both 1. thoroughly supportive of him, and 2. reliant on him as a figurehead and the central voting impetus for their voters got eroded away at a fascinatingly rapid pace, taking a large amount of what various institutional skills they had with them. Keep in mind, this process occurred whether or not the people who best serve trump's agenda and popular appeal are good at anything other than shouting the right kinds of trump-supporting nativist demagoguery (usually, they are not). These situations either terminate in dynasty or messy political collapse. Trump has none of the "dynasty" factors working for him (no suitable heir to power, seemingly no interest or even the personal capacity to set up the furtherance of his power base beyond himself, few of the vital consolidations of power) so all you really have is a political party in thrall to a very mentally unreliable, very aggressively criminal old man. If trump's political viability is terminated by the courts or by criminal trial, the outcome will probably be the same in either case: messy political collapse. You'll have a Very Super Angry conservative ruling minority that just had its head lopped off. There will be outrage, substantial outrage, but it will have been by the institution that's pushed outrage fatigue at all levels at full tilt. Attempts at violent reprisal won't go over very easily in terms of restoring public legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Kavros posted:... the present majority justices have eaten away at their popular legitimacy so hard that I'm almost going to guarantee that they punt and do whatever it is keeps them out of the spotlight on this one... I think SCOTUS will do a weak "Trump cannot be removed from the ballot, the voters get to decide" ruling that they say doesn't apply to other cases for vague reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why do we think the SCOTUS justices care about their public image? There is no recourse for any decision they make and they have not shown to care about public perception at all before. They are not beholden to the public. I don't think they'll consider popular legitimacy at all in their decision. Well, once public pressure began to build after the string of Clarence Thomas scandals, they responded. It was a weak response that changes nothing, but it shows that they do care. They are aware that the parts of the government that are beholden to the public do have power over them; congresspeople were talking about imposing a code of ethics on them legislatively and they did this as preemption Also Roberts specifically is known to care about his legacy; he doesn't want to go down in history being mentioned in the same breath as Taney
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why do we think the SCOTUS justices care about their public image? There is no recourse for any decision they make and they have not shown to care about public perception at all before. They are not beholden to the public. I don't think they'll consider popular legitimacy at all in their decision. If the kavenaugh hearings and the overturn of Roe taught them anything, it's that they can just straight up lie to get the result they want and they'll face no consequences of any real import. Because even if they lie and are found out, there's basically nobody and nothing to actually hold them to task. See also Thomas and Harlan Crow. The only tool available to discipline them is public shame and as we found out, it's not really effective. Yeah, Thomas wants to have an aire of legitimacy and try to keep things constrained, but Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, Barrett are under no such compuction and Thomas apparently is just in full "gently caress you, pay me" mode. My money is on the flimsyest defense of Trump, probably along the line of "he's not convicted something something innocent until proven guilty", giving more fuel for Trump to just try to delay indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why do we think the SCOTUS justices care about their public image? There is no recourse for any decision they make and they have not shown to care about public perception at all before. They are not beholden to the public. I don't think they'll consider popular legitimacy at all in their decision. Roberts absolutely cares about the Court's public image and legitimacy. He saved Obamacare on a bizarre tax technicality, probably to avoid looking too partisan. He wants (the appearance of) a legitimate, unbiased Court (that just so happens to rule for conservatives). Thomas and Alito don't really care about that. Alito wants a Christian dominion most likely and Thomas is his own brand of weird libertarianism, so I can see them sacrificing their own power and legitimacy if it brought them personal gain. Kavanaugh and Barrett are new enough it's hard to tell for sure, but they could probably be swayed to the chaos side of things. Gorsuch seems to be a true believer which oddly favors the legitimacy side. He's not been afraid to buck the conservatives when it comes to his pet issues. Between Roberts and Gorsuch, plus the question marks over Kavanaugh and Barrett, I think there's enough to have a majority that isn't totally insane. If SCOTUS rules that Trump can be King you've effectively ruled that Courts don't mean anything any more, so you've gotta be willing to sacrifice all future courts' power. Either because Trump wins and becomes fully ungovernable or he loses and you've lost all legitimacy to the left wing. Either way the Judicial branch becomes a vestigial appendage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 18:27
|
|