|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Lol he asked the first question Considering 3rd Parties run candidates who are ineligible from time to time, it's not without precedent. I forget which year, but one of the Socialist Parties ran a lady who wasn't 35 and I could have voted for her.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
Trump being on the ballot, winning, and then being disqualified from taking the office would send him into intergalactic levels of grievance that might collapse the solar system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
gregday posted:Trump being on the ballot, winning, and then being disqualified from taking the office would send him into intergalactic levels of grievance that might collapse the solar system. No, once he's elected and wins then his disqualification becomes a nonjusticiable political question. And the USSC never has to risk getting shot at by fringe weirdos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I had a horse roll over me when I was 12. Luckily it was a fat soft horse and I wasn't hurt. A 19th century cop pedaling as fast as he can on a penny farthing bike is a hilarious visual to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Wouldn't that be like the easiest secret service gig. Like if he's in a white collar criminal prison you'd be think it would be easy enough to make it safe for him. Yeah but you'd have to still be around the guy your entire shift. And he wouldn't have any meetings or poo poo to keep him occupied so you'd probably have to listen to him randomly and ramble the entire time. I wouldn't last a shift. I have ADHD so I can blissfully zone out of conversations (unfortunately at random times beyond my control) so I'm sure that would kick in at some point and become Charlie Brown "Wah wah wah" background noise while I think about three completely different things at the same time. BigBallChunkyTime fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Is it just because I'm not a lawyer that it seems weird that Trump's lawyer is more or less conceding that Trump did an insurrection? It just doesn't matter because maybe he convinces Congress to agree by 2/3 that he's absolved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:38
|
|
|
This is the best lawyer Trump had yet had that I've heardGyges posted:Is it just because I'm not a lawyer that it seems weird that Trump's lawyer is more or less conceding that Trump did an insurrection? It just doesn't matter because maybe he convinces Congress to agree by 2/3 that he's absolved. He's not so much admitting anything as he is saying it's irrelevant at this stage whether he did it or not, he can't be excluded regardless because the right to run for office is distinct from the right to hold office, and the amendment only bars the right to hold. Which is a fair point. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is the best lawyer Trump had yet had that I've heard Getting paid in arguing before the Supreme Court. Lawyer exposure
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, once he's elected and wins then his disqualification becomes a nonjusticiable political question. Does it? The court's already held that states can force their states' electors to vote for their state's winner. If Trump's disqualified those states can just throw out his invalid electors and go with the next highest slate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Does it? The court's already held that states can force their states' electors to vote for their state's winner. If Trump's disqualified those states can just throw out his invalid electors and go with the next highest slate. Oh I mean such a ruling would be nonsensical but court is gonna court
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Getting paid in arguing before the Supreme Court. Lawyer exposure That's actually exposure that id think would skyrocket their demand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Does it? The court's already held that states can force their states' electors to vote for their state's winner. If Trump's disqualified those states can just throw out his invalid electors and go with the next highest slate. I think his point is that if Trump wins and it is challenged then the SC is just gonna go "Well it happened, can't stop it now Trump is President by default by the way this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent for Democratic candidates."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I think his point is that if Trump wins and it is challenged then the SC is just gonna go "Well it happened, can't stop it now Trump is President by default by the way this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent for Democratic candidates." Right
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:I have ADHD so I can blissfully zone out of conversations (unfortunately at random times beyond my control) so I'm sure that would kick in at some point and become Charlie Brown "Wah wah wah" background noise while I think about three completely different things at the same time. Why are you typing my thoughts out on the internet like that? Get out of my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Is it just because I'm not a lawyer that it seems weird that Trump's lawyer is more or less conceding that Trump did an insurrection? It just doesn't matter because maybe he convinces Congress to agree by 2/3 that he's absolved. They're getting to this now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I think his point is that if Trump wins and it is challenged then the SC is just gonna go "Well it happened, can't stop it now Trump is President by default by the way this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent for Democratic candidates." Can the high court just outright say "this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent" or do they have to be tricky about the word of the ruling. Seems a bit weird if one of the points of the high court seeming to be to actually set precedents on issues where the law is a bit vague.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Can the high court just outright say "this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent" or do they have to be tricky about the word of the ruling. They did it in 2000
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Can the high court just outright say "this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent" or do they have to be tricky about the word of the ruling. They can say that, and make it binding on lower courts, but they can't make it binding on themselves in perpetuity even if they wanted to. There is no higher authority that can tell the court they have to abide by a precedent. Congress in theory could do it, but Congress isn't willing to right now
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Can the high court just outright say "this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent" or do they have to be tricky about the word of the ruling. Technically it's complete bullshit, but the SC can do whatever it wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Listening (not a lawyer) and it sounds like justices are a bit leery about a state making decisions on a federal election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Nash posted:Listening (not a lawyer) and it sounds like justices are a bit leery about a state making decisions on a federal election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Federal elections are already managed by the states, though? Voting eligibility, electoral districts, voting times and locations, electors, etc? Whether a candidate is constitutionally eligible to be president under federal law can't really be decided on a state-by-state basis. There's lots of state-specific stuff that can be left up to the states, but something like that pretty much needs a national determination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Colorado explicitly stayed their decision pending supreme court review because it's not up to states to decide, and asked for a federal decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Ok yeah [edit: Kavanaugh] seems to really be hoping that a federal prosecution solves this issue for him I would not be optimistic for trumps immunity arguments listening to this
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I would not be optimistic for trumps immunity arguments listening to this
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:For him getting his immunity, or not? The court is not going to rule that presidents are allowed to commit crimes as a perk of holding office
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
If you think they styling on the plaintiff now just wait for next week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:For him getting his immunity, or not? Not. Kavanaugh is clearly accepting the premise that an insurrectionist can be prosecuted federally and that such a conviction would necessarily disqualify from holding office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, once he's elected and wins then his disqualification becomes a nonjusticiable political question. And the USSC never has to risk getting shot at by fringe weirdos. This was my problem with the justices' theoretical about one state deciding the presidential election. Their proposed remedy, Congress refusing to seat an ineligible election winner, is just as insane and would cause just as much chaos when you're talking about president, senator, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Robert’s basically just said if Colorado can kick Trump off the ballot, then every red state will kick off whoever the democratic is every election. He’s basically tipped his hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
gregday posted:Robert’s basically just said if Colorado can kick Trump off the ballot, then every red state will kick off whoever the democratic is every election. He’s basically tipped his hand. I mean if the democrat candidates in running in every red state in every election are convicted of treason, that seems fine... I'm somewhat sure the dems wouldn't be stupid enough to just run convicted treason people if they kept on getting kicked off the ballot. Particular after the first one got kicked off. Only way this would be a threat is if the GOP managed to pass laws in red states calling being a member of the Dems is treason, or something I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok yeah [edit: Kavanaugh] seems to really be hoping that a federal prosecution solves this issue for him Trump might have been able to make a case for some level of immunity, since we don't like holding Presidents accountable, but he's looking at full treason poo poo and is demanding cart blanche to assassinate political opponents and be a full on tyrant. I'm not even sure Thomas and Alito are on board for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Only way this would be a threat is if the GOP managed to pass laws in red states calling being a member of the Dems is treason, or something I guess? Pretty much. If you let states make the determination, they will inevitably make determinations that other states disagree with, and now different parts of the country are using different ballots to vote in federal elections. And something that requires keeping states in line and removing their agency is naturally the responsibility of the federal government
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
gregday posted:Robert’s basically just said if Colorado can kick Trump off the ballot, then every red state will kick off whoever the democratic is every election. He’s basically tipped his hand. Yeah this is going to be an easy reversal. May get as many as 7, 8 votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:I mean if the democrat candidates in running in every red state in every election are convicted of treason, that seems fine... Yeah the natural response would be to say "the judicial process can rapidly stay and dismiss cases that are totally insubstantial strategic lawsuits rather than genuine and material allegations". Its like saying a bad actor could try and drown a candidate in any spurious legal case, there is an established process for removing meritless cases. The theoretical use of SLAPP tactics would otherwise require extending immunity to all prosecution to any notable figure with public policy positions. Its a fairly farcical question to ask 'what if the other guy spams frivolous suits like a raging chimp with a photocopier'. The answer is courts have to reject meritless cases regardless of the law or principle used to construct them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Yeah the natural response would be to say "the judicial process can rapidly stay and dismiss cases that are totally insubstantial strategic lawsuits rather than genuine and material allegations". Its like saying a bad actor could try and drown a candidate in any spurious legal case, there is an established process for removing meritless cases. The theoretical use of SLAPP tactics would otherwise require extending immunity to all prosecution to any notable figure with public policy positions. Its a fairly farcical question to ask 'what if the other guy spams frivolous suits like a raging chimp with a photocopier'. The answer is courts have to reject meritless cases regardless of the law or principle used to construct them. The atty for the Colorado sec of state basically made this argument just now. Looking up the attorneys here the guy arguing for Trump is the same Stanford professor who invented the Texas "legalize private lawsuits to enforce abortion laws" thing. So, the rare competent, creative evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Pretty much. If you let states make the determination, they will inevitably make determinations that other states disagree with, and now different parts of the country are using different ballots to vote in federal elections. And something that requires keeping states in line and removing their agency is naturally the responsibility of the federal government This is how Presidential ballots already work. Each state decides who qualifies to be on the ballot. It just hasn't recently happened that the debate was over a major party candidate who committed insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The court is not going to rule that presidents are allowed to commit crimes as a perk of holding office quoting for posterity
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
The argument i have not yet heard that i would have liked to is that disqualifying him now protects voters rights it doesn't damage them, by preventing them from wasting votes on an ineligible candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:A 19th century cop pedaling as fast as he can on a penny farthing bike is a hilarious visual to me The brief period between the mass production of bicycles and the rise of the automobile really doesn’t get enough love. People went loving insane for a while, drunk on the absolute natural high of top speeds of ten to fifteen mph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 18:27
|
|
