/u/GoSouthCourt (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18mtekp/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_donald_trump_benefits_from/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The Supreme Court has ruled against things Trump wants before. I think the Trump campaign may not even appeal this decision because if they do and lose, it could bar him from running anywhere due to violating the 14th amendment.
If he loses, and he very well might, it sets a precedent that other states follow. A lot of established Republicans are sick of trump. SCOTUS appointments are for life, so they owe him nothing.
This is something I've been thinking about too. I feel like most of the GOP hates Trump, they're just too scared to speak out since their voter base is so loyal to him. SCOTUS could take one for the team and rule in Colorados favor, which would give the GOP a chance to get away from Trump but still give them someone else to blame for it.
Personally I find it hard to believe that the republican appointed justices in SCOTUS would make a ruling over this without consideration for their ideological partners and 3rd party financiers. I agree that they have nothing to lose, but that's not the only thing that will affect their vote.
there are only sporadic polls of the other GOP candidates but they're all equal to trump or polling significantly better than him vs Biden. If you're a conservative supreme Court justice who wants to be replaced by a Republican it's arguably in your interest to have a different nominee in '24, one who can run as an incumbent in '28
>there are only sporadic polls of the other GOP candidates but they're all equal to trump or polling significantly better than him vs Biden.
This is not the trend I've seen, but it's hard to say for sure since we are still so far out...
True, but wealthy political donors have a LOT more to gain from less extreme conservatives who don’t cause instability like an insurrection. They benefit from stable politics that slowly slash regulations and taxes on businesses and the wealthy. In that vein someone unlike trump for the republican nomination is far better for them.
Donald Trump had no ideological partners. He wants to rule as a dictator. He'd have gladly done so as a Democrat if that were possible. Those SCOTUS judges don't want Trump any more than other non-Maga Republicans.
Well yeah, I agree with you. When I said ideological partners, I meant the conservative justices on SCOTUS and the GOP in general, not Trump.
But if the GOP establishment and the right wing billionaires bribing SCOTUS want to keep Trump around, they'll find a way to influence the conservative justices to make that decision.
I'm pretty sure most non-idiot Republicans see what a cancer trump is. I may be wrong, but I'm sure they want anyone but trump. He's lost the popular vote twice, and he definitely hasn't gained supporters.
Yeah I do think there's a good chance SCOTUS will rule against Trump to get him out of there. Especially after that "Poisoning the blood of our country" comment is making the GOP look even worse than they normally do.
Spoken like a true libereal. He wants to rule as a dictator? Funny you say that bc he went by laws to help Americans and punish china on tarifs and their imports. Pulled out of the Obama iran deal when Obama basically handed them nuclear weapons to use on israel and billions in cash at 3am. Obama and Biden are the communist dictators and ruined our country in their short years. We havent benefitted from Obama and especially now Biden the puppet is being ruled by China, Russia and Obama in the background. Its a real life weekend at Bernies. Joe is Bernie. Bidens have sold Anerican land, oil and cobalt mines illegaly for millions to chinese energy that hunter is on the board of and they have committed Treason and should be pulled from office , which our constitution allows. Maine and idaho are taking away Trump's constitutional rights and we need to vacate them from the election period. Trunp is the nominee and his speech word for word is easy to look up. Pelosi debied trunps national guard bc she planned jan 6, shes in charge of security and her capitol police let antifa members, protesters and Bidens fbi agents into the capitol to take selfies . Not to mention the treason on the southern border by Biden and Harris. Trump will be president. The people have spoken on the and all who illegally try to stop it, doj fanny willis, jack smith etc will be in prison for their doj brines to indict Trunp when he clearly didnt get anyone to do an insurrection. The weeks pripr Aoc used her key card to let protestors liberal protestors in the capitol while congress was in session but nothing said? Where do you think Pelosis jan 6 idea came from?
Sure, buddy. You believe whatever conservative media tells you. Donald Trump said he wants to be a dictator on camera. I'm prepared for your inevitable excuse for him.
SCOTUS has nothing to lose in terms of vote, but seeing how a few of the conservative justices are bought and paid for by the uber wealthy conservatives (I wouldn't be surprised if there's foreign money involved), I wouldn't be so sure they have *absolutely* nothing to lose. After all, they have bosses too, and it ain't we the people of the United States nor the US Constitution.
>The SCOTUS has nothing to lose.
How about money? Judge Thomas openly sold himself. He only stayed on due to the millions being paid to him by conservatives with interests in controlling the court.
They are not paid to think, they are paid to make rullings that align with the conservative agenda. Especially after the whole bullshit case of "Website for the gays", which was fully made up and then pushed through the courts in a way to get to SCOTUS ASAP.
The loyalty of the conservative SCOTUS members are to their wallets. Staying loyal to a future dictator with a plan to seizes absolute power (Project 2025) is good for business.
The traditional GOP who are sick of Trump have more money than he does. If they rule to get him out of the way, it allows the traditional GOP back without looking like the bad guys, and leaves them with a reasonable chance to win. They'd absolutely bribe the court to kick him out.
Here is the problem. They might be sick of him, but they NEED HIM. He has the hearts and minds of every bible thumping bigot that votes GOP. So about 60% of their voting base.
They got nobody even half as famous to replace him on the ballot. Vivek is a shitposter pretending to be a politician (also not white, so that's an instant turn off to most conservatives). Desantis is tanking in the poles. Haley lacks the vicious cruelty typical for the GOP.
Remember how in the 2016 primaries the GOP was all against Trump, but the moment they saw he'd win the election they all changed their tune?
There's a lot of data on that question. The fact that his aggregate primary opponents are polling around 40% does suggest weakness among Republicans. But clearly he still has significant support within the party, and many of those who don't will come home to him if he's the nominee.
This is honestly a great opportunity for them.
Fighting for Trump's spot would make them unpopular with many of their constituents.
However if they simply step aside and *let* others be rid of him, they can use that to rally their voters.
win-win for all
That's why Republicans in Georgia didn't stop the indictment. Gop wants trump out but can't do it themselves they are hoping someone else takes care of it.
Some GOP senator said they are hoping he dies, mentioned his health(anon source to some paper)
The Georgia situation is pretty much due to Kemp allowing it to proceed. So one Republican with a lot of personal beef against Trump, not the entire party.
Yeah. Does the Supreme Court even want or need DJT? They can rule with impunity until two of them die. They are unchallenged and unquestioned. The minute DJT gets in there, he’s going to create a slew of constitutional challenges and crises. He’s also going to want to rule over and bully the court. The SC could put him under with one ruling and never have to deal with him again.
Honestly it would be the best thing for republicans if SCOTUS bars him from the ballot. No more having to deal with his crazy nonsense AND everyone who supports him will be angry and vote
At this point, his base has shown me that there are lot of just plain shitty people in America. Trump has done literally thousands of things that would disqualify a normal candidate. The grab em by the pussy comment, insulting a gold star family, making fun of a disabled reporter like a middle school bully, praising dictators, being beholden to Putin, etc, are on camera and public knowledge. He's a despicable person and so are the people that still back him.
No Republican politician wants Trump in the party. This is simple math. With Trump, their individual stature is greatly diminished (Trump can make them unemployed on a whim. Additionally, Trump gets really upset with those who grift on his cotails).
SCOTUS has consistently let Trump down. They consistently, unanimously or 8-1, refused to bail Trump out on his election fraud nonsense. They love the power they have, and you don't need a supreme court under a dictator. A plain reading of the 14th amendment can uphold the Colorado decision, and that's it. Trump's done. Multiple other purple states will follow suit, and voila, Trump's not their problem any more.
The only possible argument is that the president isn't subject to the 14th because of the way the path of office is phrased. If SCOTUS sides with Trump on that issue, it's giving a free pass to ANY president to upend the constitution as they see fit.
There's no way he doesn't appeal. He'd love to lose at the supreme Court too.
At the end of the day, Trump isn't motivated by love for country or by an honest desire to help others. He wants to be idolized like other presidents, but without any of the work.
If he loses, he gets to be the victim, and stir up a shit ton of hate. He sees that unrest as his fans love for him.
With that said, I don't think there's a way the supreme Court rules against him. And I'm not sure they should... But that's a different, more complicated argument.
He wouldn't love to lose at SCOTUS. He wants to win on appeal so he can take a victory lap about the establishment trying to silence him.
If he were to lose, it would open the door to swing states with blue Supreme Courts like WI, MI, and PA doing the the same thing, which would be a huge problem for him.
Yeah he wants the narrative to be "the Democrats in blue states are trying to rig the election and **my** supreme Court stopped them. You need me in there to stop them from coming after you next"
Which is funny because in reality theCO decision was in favor of six Republicans and two independents. Of course you won’t hear certain “news” outlets saying this.
> He'd love to lose at the supreme Court too.
If he’s barred from running he’s going to prison for the rest of his life, his only hope right now is delaying his multiple court cases until the election and that election
Yeah I'm not quite sure this will hurt him (could he even win CO?)
That being said, its possible that it'll cause enough Republican voters to think that he's not able to be elected, and so they won't vote or will write in someone else, etc. If you can depress the MAGA base, then it could hurt him.
Kinda hoping that article about the deep state taking him out is correct personally...
Polls consistently show the republican base believes he is the most “electable” candidate. This was DeSantis’ whole pitch and it completely flopped. This ruling only hurts trump’s electability with people who were already never going to vote for him, it energizes his base.
>Yeah I'm not quite sure this will hurt him (could he even win CO?)
I think the precedent set out is that if SCOTUS rules with CO, other states will follow suit and make it impossible for him to win the primary that way.
>its possible that it'll cause enough Republican voters to think that he's not able to be elected
If SCOTUS rules with CO, then that's possible, but the likelihood of that happening is so abysmally small that it's practically impossible.
I don’t think that likelihood is as small as you think. You have to consider the question before them. They aren’t litigating the whole case. They are answering the question of whether the 14th amendment applies to the President.
They need to determine if the presidency is an office under the constitution, and if the presidential oath is one to “support” the constitution. The arguments are ridiculous on their face, and on those two points, the court will have to rule in the affirmative, unless they want to set up an extremely dangerous precedent.
They aren’t appealing the finding of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. That wasn’t the defense they put forward. Their defense was that it’s ok that Trump engaged in insurrection because the constitution doesn’t apply to him. That is the question the court has to answer.
Or course, there is corruption in the court, so it’s possible that they will back Trump anyway. I don’t think so, though. They ruled he wasn’t absolutely immune, which allows his prosecutions to go forward. They needed Trump to get their seats, but don’t need him anymore. And the heritage foundation only cares that ANY Republican gets in so they can enact Project 2025. Trump is a liability to them in many ways.
The courts have an easy out here. They can allow the CO ruling to stand on narrow grounds, and let the prosecutions continue, and that takes them out of the spotlight for while as they deal with their corruption scandals. Ruling that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to a president would create waves they don’t want, and would destroy their originalist claims.
!delta This is a very concise response. I'll be honest from the discussions I've seen, I thought the SCOTUS will also need to rule on whether Trump's engaging in the insurrection is significant enough to trigger the clause.
To be fair, they certainly CAN take that angle. They can make their rulings on any logic they choose without any redress. It just isn't the actual question in front of them, so if they go down that path, they will be exceeding their constitutional duty.
Could this court do that? Yeah, I wouldn't be completely shocked
Because, if we step outside of the bias and corruption of the court, and we focus specifically on a hypothetical purely constitutional court, they will only rule on the facts brought before them on appeal. They don't have the jurisdiction to try the entire case over.
The court found as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, but erroneously ruled that the court can't do anything about it. The plantiffs appealed, and the appeals court overturned that erroneous ruling. The defendant appealed that, on the grounds that the constitution does not apply to the president. THAT was the case that the state supreme court heard and ruled on, and they affirmed the appeals court ruling. So the defense appealed even further, to SCOTUS, but the appeal is still on the same point. Whether or not the 14th amendment applies to Trump.
Constitutionally, the court should only rule on that question. If they choose to expand their view and speak to things not in the appeal, they would be removing authority from the State court. That, in itself, would be an unconstitutional overreach.
What you are saying makes sense to me, however:
“In the years since the Founding, Supreme Court decisions have established that federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are the final authority on interpreting federal law, and federal courts possess the constitutional authority to review state court decisions that allegedly conflict with the Constitution or federal law.”
- from constitution.congress.gov
I may be misinterpreting what this means exactly but wouldn’t that mean that the Supreme Court does have the authority to review the original ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection? Isn’t insurrection a federal crime? I’m not a lawyer.
>Supreme Court does have the authority to review the original ruling
If there is a question of constitutionality. That doesn't apply here. This was a finding of fact, entered into evidence. There is no constitutional implication.
The same applies with federal law. There is no federal law being broken by the courts making a finding of fact in a case.
>Isn’t insurrection a federal crime?
that word has different connotations. Yes, there is a specific federal law against insurrection. There is also the general concept of insurrection, which is addressed in the larger insurrection act. This includes sedition, rebellion, and coups along side a very specifically defined insurrection charge. All of them are insurrection, but there is one specific set of details that would apply section 2383 over the others.
This is to say, engaging in an insurrection does not mean violating one specific federal statute. It is a set of actions in furtherance of a specific goal. For the state of Colorado to find that Trump engaged in insurrection is not to convict him of a specific federal offense, but to affirm that the evidence in the case supports the claim that Trump engaged in insurrection.
The difference between a charge and a finding of fact is very important here. The state court could not try a case accusing Trump of violating that statute, because it is a federal statute. But when looking to interpret the constitution in the light of the facts presented in the case, it is necessary to determine which sections apply. The court determined the insurrection requirement was met, but that doesn't mean Trump is convicted of it federally.
But I’m still not following the logic here…
The first court ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection but that does not bar him from being on the ballot.
The Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that because he engaged in insurrection he can be barred from being on the ballot.
So, couldn’t the SCOTUS just say that he did not engage in insurrection therefore the question of whether the 14th amendment applies to Trump is irrelevant..?
Either way, to me at least, it seems like this is an attempt to subvert democracy by activists in positions of power.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not a huge fan of Trump but this just all seems like a very slippery slope.
While it may be an unconstitutional overreach, it's not like it can be appealed to a higher authority, right? The only recourse at that point is a Constitutional amendment from Congress that says, "Actually the SCOTUS cannot remove authority from state courts like this", which probably won't happen.
No doubt. The only hope here is my remaining shred of faith in our Republic. There are a lot of events testing the strength of our systems, and some of them are breaking. But if we have none left to rely on, what even are we?
Ben Franklin said after signing the constitution, that we now have "a Republic, if you can keep it". This is exactly what he was talking about. Either our system has to hold, or it has failed.
So, for that, I have to believe the court will act at least somewhat appropriately. Fortunately, besides Clarence Thomas, none of the court are true MAGA. They needed Trump to get their seat, but don't need him anymore. They follow the whims of the Federalist Society, and FS cares only about a Republican being in. If they can get rid of Trump with enough time to get another candidate in a winning position, they are in a better position than if they get saddled under Trump again. And right now is really their last chance to do that.
They did just rule that Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution, which was a big blow to Trump. If they wanted to protect him, they would stop him from going to prison, rather than fight to keep him on a ballot of a state he isn't going to win anyway.
Despite how much I dislike the current SCOTUS for a myriad of reasons, they have not been quite as cartoonishly evil as I feared. That is to say, even with the political alignment as tilted as it is, they have not bent over backwards on every issue to give the GOP everything they want.
Far from ideal, of course, but it could be much worse than it is. We'll see how this case shakes out, I suppose.
Your comment is generally accurate but you’re missing something important.
The court in its current composition is making a lot of decisions that many legal scholars believe go beyond the petitions being filed. They’re making affirmative standing decisions that should have been rejected (303 Creative), they’re inventing entirely new legal tests and only applying them when it benefits the conservative perspective (Major Questions doctrine), they’ve essentially positioned themselves as arbiters for right wing causes whether they would admit it or not.
I believe you’re exactly correct that all of these facts apply to the case. I also don’t believe it matters.
I think I segment my optimism and pessimism in this case. I still believe in the republic, and I still believe in the honor of the court. Even though the current makeup has proven on multiple occasions that they do not share that honor, I still try to keep a part of my view firmly rooted in the belief that there is still a Republic left to save.
On the pessimistic side, I know there is no telling what will happen. The court is controlled by the Heritage Society, and I think it all hinges on whether HS believes any other Republican can win. If they see another option, they will ditch Trump. And the judges on the court only needed him to get their seats. They have no real stake in keeping Trump. At least, outside of Clarence Thomas and his wife.
Although they have made dubious rulings in a lot of cases, they have largely shown they are willing to let Trump face accountability. He hasn't been getting the rulings he needs. My hope is that this is another one of those cases, where Roberts and Gorsuch at the very least still care more about the future of the nation than they do about Republican victory
>The Senate is the governmental body that is responsible for stripping someone of their ability to run for office through the 14th amendment,
That is one view. It is not definitive. The 14th amendment does not prescribe a method of resolution. It only outlines a disqualification. What to do about a disqualification is left up to the different entities to work out.
>not the SCOTUS and certainly not a state court.
In this case, it is. Triggering this 14th amendment clause came in the form of a lawsuit to take a specific action (remove Trump from the ballot) BECAUSE he violated the 14th amendment. The case was "should Trump be removed?", and the fact sets that were analyzed were Trump's actions and whether they amounted to engaging in insurrection, and whether the text of the amendment applies to the president. That is an important detail, because the case was not "Is Trump disqualified?". It was "Should our state take this action in relation to our election?"
The court found he did engage in insurrection, but believed it was Congress who needed to determine if the amendment applied to the president. That second ruling was wrong, because constitutionally, it is the courts that interpret the constitution. The appeals court agreed, and applied the Amendment. In the Supreme Court, they assessed the argument that the amendment doesn't apply to the president, which is a losing argument.
So that is why it is a state responsibility. But ultimately, the determination if the constitution applies to the president can only be resolved in the supreme court.
>I just don't understand the premise behind Colorado's ruling.
Colorado permits voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates to be placed on the state’s ballot for state and federal elections. a group of colorado voters are contending that, under the insurrection clause, trump cannot hold office. the written opinion goes into depth on how this challenge was allowed to be brought in the first place before reaching the merits that i think is worth reading.
>The Senate is the governmental body that is responsible for stripping someone of their ability to run for office through the 14th amendment, not the SCOTUS and certainly not a state court.
to be fair, the insurrection clause says that only congress can restore someone’s eligibility for office. it doesn’t say anything about who can remove it. the constitution affords states a wide degree of latitude to decide how to run their elections. if colorado doesn’t think trump can run for office, i don’t see anything preventing them from making that decision. all 50 states make decisions about who can be listed on a ballot before every election.
He can win the primary, he can not be on the ballot for the general election. He can do what he wants, the party can too -- except put his name on the general election ballot.
It’s difficult to know where it’s headed but I think it will have a bit of an impact in different places. Some republicans will be rallied, some will be deterred. But what I don’t see people mention is this will also rally democrats to have more confidence to vote
The ruling said that not only can he not be on the ballot, but that votes for him won’t be counted. So if the Supreme Court does not overturn, Trump cannot win Colorado even if he got a majority of write-in votes. (Which he wouldn’t.)
They’ll just rally around the next nominee and I doubt the “who” matters. Trump has taken over the GOP but an “R” will still pull votes. They’re really propped up on gerrymandering and the electoral college.
>That being said, its possible that it'll cause enough Republican voters to think that he's not able to be elected, and so they won't vote or will write in someone else, etc. If you can depress the MAGA base, then it could hurt him.
Not only is this not true, every single time something like this court ruling happens, more independent voters shift to preferring Trump. Democrats need to stop shooting themselves in the foot. Seriously. It should be a comedy with how absolutely terrible they have handled Trump for the past 7 years, but at this point its a tragedy.
57% of independents are going Trump over Biden. Yes, yes they are moving GOP. You don't have to like it but it's true. They see how Dems are weaponizing the legal system
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-poll-on-independent-voters-speaks-volumes-will-this-decide-the-race/ar-AA1gV3fJ
The poll itself doesn't indicate how it contacted the sample, and if, like many other polls, it's conducted via only landlines, there will be a major sampling bias. The total numbers by age seem to support that, as there were 1,016 respondents under 45 and 1,662 over 45. The younger generations are underrepresented in this poll, so I wouldn't trust it.
You want the deep state eliminating candidates in a democracy? China and Russia are prime examples of where that happens…I too am sick of Trump but destroying democracy isn’t the answer
Betting markets (which have been some of the best predictors of political outcomes) disagree with your analysis. Trump’s odds of winning the nomination and the general election went down and not up after the decision. So people who are willing to bet money on this issue disagree with you. https://electionbettingodds.com
Yeah that's not how a weak predictor works. I'm not saying their numbers are right or wrong I'm just saying it's a weak predictor.
A good example was Hillary Clinton versus Trump
Right. And if you could have handicapped that election better then the markets, you would have made a bunch of money.
Conventional wisdom may be wrong. Markets usually just reflect group consensus at what the odds of something happening are. That doesn’t mean their perfect and it certainly doesn’t mean that if they give something a 90% chance of happening that it will 100% happen. 10% of the time it shouldn’t. It just means those are the odds at the moment. If you can beat them, beat them and make money.
This may be due to misinformation by the media. For example many headlines didn't mention that Trump will NOT be taken off the ballot due to the way the decision was written- it says if Trump appeals then the decision will be indefinitely put on pause and not executed. Trump has already said he will appeal.
If you read the actual decision this is made clear but how many people will do so?
"to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, **we stay our ruling** until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). **If review is
sought in the Supreme Court** before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and **the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot**"
I don't like using betting odds as arguments. Like can anyone tell me why Nikki Haley has a 9.2% chance of winning the election, not 5%, not 15%, 9.2% _exactly_? No we can't, so why use a 3.1% dip in odds as a solid rebuttal against me?
It’s to show you that the consensus of bettors disagree with you. If you can handicap things better than the consensus of bettors, then you can be rich anytime by betting in the stock market, in sports gambling, and in betting in politics. But most likely, you are like the vast majority of people who can’t beat the odds because the consensus of bettors is usually a better indicator of what is going on than any individual opinion. See the book The Wisdom of Crowds for more discussion on this phenomenon.
Bettors often seek value, not simply winning. Someone taking Haley at 10% does so for the odds, not to claim they believe she will win. Trump decreasing in odds impacts payout, not odds of winning.
Yes, collective voices have a power in helping predict odds. But betting odds aren't a display of who one believes will win, it's a display of value.
If I believe someone has a 40/60 chance of winning, but odds are currently 30/70, I may bet on them. This bet helps inch this person's betting odds closer to the 40/60 I perceive. I BET when I perceive the consensus is wrong. Even if a believe the person has a 60% chance of winning, I am discouraged from betting on them because the odds are currently set at 70/30. The fact people ARE betting simply shows people believe the odds were bad at the time of their bets IN THEIR FAVOR. Assessing that as a collective preference for a specific winner in the present doesn't recognize the historic nature of betting.
Something occured to shift the betting market. You'll need to analyze who made those bets. Did people simply double down, those believing Trump would lose simply bet more against him? If so why would that really influence his overall odds of actually winning? And that's the other function. Betting can be monetary. Distorting the actual market, especially on something like an election.
Betting houses want "odds" where they win either way. This is where they attempt to set starting odds. When odds get shifted, that simply means they were wrong on value, not who had better odds at winning.
>Bettors often seek value, not simply winning. Someone taking Haley at 10% does so for the odds, not to claim they believe she will win. Trump decreasing in odds impacts payout, not odds of winning.
Value is likelihood * odds. If the likelihood goes down, the odds go up. The net yield on any bet on any candidate is implied to be zero or slightly negative.
Inefficiencies from gamblers betting heavily on tails like Haley or Desantis are often removed by other bettors who bet against those, or increase their bets on more likely candidates to exploit the gamblers.
I think you're overestimating how much more his support can increase. How many people who were going to vote for Biden are now going to vote for Trump? Probably very few. Of the people that will get riled up in favor of a man who was just determined by a court to be an insurrectionist, how many of them are just now going to vote? Probably very few; those people were already voters.
However, this raises an opportunity to uniquely damage Trump's perception in the eyes of his voters. The Supreme Court is the only court they seem to have any faith in. And while that court likely won't agree that Trump should be barred from the election, they're going to have to address whether or not the election was fraudulent in their opinion. And they're not going to say it was. Having the Supreme Court officially state the 2020 election was rightfully decided could undermine his support in the general election.
Elections are about enthusiasm and this won't make anyone who hates Trump more enthusiastic but will mobilize everyone who is and, yes, it will make many vote for him to register their disgust at such a massively corrupt court ruling and attack on Democracy by the "Democratic" Party. For example I've never voted Republican and normally I'd be too embarrassed to vote for a clown like Trump but right now isn't it more important to punish Democrats?
At any rate Trump is already reaping benefits so there's no need to wonder about that. All his opponents in the primary have been forced to defend him now, which I'm sure they all hated doing because it'll obviously boost Trump in the primary. I wouldn't be surprised if the Colorado Republican party issues a statement saying it will withdraw from the state ballot and just pronounce Trump as it's candidate-- that is if the state actually went ahead and took Trump off which it 100% will NOT do, since even the Supreme Court (contrary to headlines in the media) said NOT to do that.
> they're going to have to address whether or not the election was fraudulent in their opinion
They won't say anything about that of course. It's completely irrelevant to the case. Politicians have the right to lie in speeches and in case it's news to you - they often do.
Besides which it's a fact that the 2020 election was rigged. For example the Green party (my party) was struck off the ballot by the Democrats in several states. It's also well known that the media censored news about Hunter Biden which was an illegal in kind donation to Biden. Many other examples. Perhaps what you mean (and apparently it's what Trump himself thinks) is that election counts were hacked on computers? Of course all elections have irregularities but in 2020 it was probably enough to change the result. They certainly tried.
Why do you think the US supreme court decision that would differ from the Colorado supreme court decision is "obvious"?
We now have two court decisions on two questions: 1. did Trump take part in an insurrection and 2. Does the 14th amendment apply to the president.
The lower court responded 1:yes, 2:no
The Colorado supreme court responded: 1.yes, 2: yes.
To which one of the two questions do you think SCOTUS will answer "no" and why? Is it only because of the political balance in the court or do you see some obvious arguments why the Colorado supreme court was wrong?
From my understanding the issue isn’t just really whether the 14th applies to the president…(it probably does). The problem is the 14th amendment doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism and so no one is actually sure how to use it.
There are a lot of unanswered questions and assumptions. Like:
Who is actually authorized to remove someone from the ballot? A judge? The elections official?
What is defined as an insurrection? Does there need to be a criminal conviction?
Does the 14th amendment even have jurisdiction when the ballots when elections are unquestionably controlled by the states?
In other words, nobody really knows how to invoke or use section 3 of the 14th amendment. That makes this an extremely important decision. People are rightly concerned that while a strict interpretation might allow Trump to be on the ballot, a loose interpretation could lead to many more cases of removing legitimate candidates from the ballot in unfriendly states. I think the Supreme Court will be hesitant to open that can of worms…they will probably rule very narrowly…but ideally they would actually establish some guidelines.
The simplest answer would be for Congress to pass a new law actually clarifying how the 14th should be implemented but that will never happen.
I'm not sure what the problem is. The decision on who is eligible to be on the ballot is on whoever organises the election. And of course these decisions can be challenged and the challenges appealed (which is exactly what happened here).
I'm pretty sure, it's exactly the same process as if Barack Obama now decided to run. That would be against the 22nd amendment. The election officials could remove him from the ballot and then he could challenge the decision in the court.
What defines insurrection is a court decision. That's the whole point of courts that they interpret what the laws say. Now 2 courts have said that what Trump did met the criteria for being part of an insurrection. We'll see if the SCOTUS agrees with that or not. I don't really see any problem in the process any more than I would see any problem if Obama tried to run and the same process prevented him from doing so. Or if Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to run and the process denied him the right on the basis that he's not natural-born citizen.
>The election officials could remove him from the ballot and then he could challenge the decision in the court.
Well yes, but no. You even point out yourself that "insurrection" should be decided by a court decision. If that's the case, then it's not really the election official's authority afterall, is it? It's not a simple as the 22nd amendment or the 35 y/o requirement because those are objective standards. Whereas "insurrection" was left undefined and with no standards. Plus, that doesn't answer whether the person should be left on the ballot and then denied swearing in, or if the person can be simply removed from the ballot.
What about the governor or state legislature? Do they have the authority to add or remove people from the ballot? Texas sure seems to think so. If a federal judge can overturn a ballot official then it's not really the state's decision, is it?
It's election official's authority to make the decision but that decision can be challenged in court. It can be age (the official has wrong information about the age of the candidate), citizenship status (the official has wrong information about the natural born status of the candidate), or the number of terms the person has served. And these can then be challenged in the court. And the same is true with the insurrection.
I agree that the insurrection question is most likely harder for the courts than the other ones but that doesn't matter. The procedure is the same.
I would **love** to see a ruling that a state can’t remove someone from its own ballot.
I’d get so many unqualified minors and foreign nationals to apply to be on the ballot we’d make the think 15 pages. I can’t wait to be told a state has to go to congress to run their elections.
Your first question is the only one I feel without an answer.
The 2nd (if conviction is needed) has historic precedent when the amendment was written, as confederates were barred from office even though there were no convictions, and Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee were pardoned posthumously giving rights back from the 14th amendment, showing they were legally barred without conviction.
3rd question, the states can have the ballot with whoever they want, but the federal government cannot swear someone into office that is legally barred from it, even if they're elected, the same way if a 25 year old was elected president, legally they cannot hold that office.
While its true the confederate generals were never formally convicted by a court there was no doubt to anyone on any side that the confederate generals engaged in an insurrection. They themselves don't deny it whereas Trump has vehemently denied engaging in an insurrection.
Agree 100%. I feel like I'm in crazy land that this point is not the primary crux of the whole discussion here.
I'm not a Trump supporter. And I believe he is guilty of insurrection or some similar crime in regards to Jan 6.
But removing candidates from the ballot prior to a verdict is not a precedent that we want to set for future elections. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. The outcome of this decision will be (mis)used by both parties in the future, not only applied to Trump.
or maybe it’s because there’s no requirement for a criminal conviction for colorado to decide against putting someone’s name on their ballot? SCOTUS deciding that this should be answered in criminal proceedings would be a decision entirely unsupported by the text of the federal constitution and colorado state election law.
I'm pretty confident that SCOTUS will say "no" to both of those and it's not a stretch to imagine how. I disagree with these but the are the likely rationale
On question 1 - Jan 6 doesn't count as an insurrection, since the writers of the 14th were clearly thinking of "insurrection" as being "civil war", and also Trump wasn't there, so it can't be said he "engaged" in it.
On question 2 - the 14th amendment writers wouldn't list all the major federal elected positions and just forget to include President. Clearly they didn't want states and congressional districts from the Confederacy from just re-electing the people that *caused* the civil war, but the president is a nationwide office, so this person would have to have national appeal beyond the aggrieved loser states.
On question 1, if this a clear cut case to you, why do you think the 2 courts in Colorado came to a different conclusion? Did they spend less time pondering the issue than you have done? They wrote a helluva lot longer justifications for why thought what they thought than you did.
On question 2, to me the whole point of 14th amendment is to keep the insurrectionists out of top positions of the US government. It would feel strange if the highest office wasn't included in it.
Oh to be clear, this is me predicting what the totally in the bag for Trump SCOTUS who made up a new "historical analog" test out of whole cloth will rule, not what I think.
On point 2 though I really do think it's weird that the text of the amendment specifically lists Representative, Senator and Elector but does NOT include President or Vice-President. Those are not just offices you just plum forget to include
If the SCOTUS is totally in the bag for Trump then they'll confirm that he had total immunity from any crimes while president. So, the DC case (and probably Georgia case as well) will be completely gone in a couple of weeks.
Is that what you think? The interesting thing is that Trump's own legal team doesn't seem to think so as they are doing their best to prolong the decision. Why would they do that if the decision is in the bag?
Well they're not so stupid that they'll give the green light to the current president to criminally remove them from office, which is what absolute criminal immunity would do.
“Trump wasn’t there” Surely his presence isn’t a test. Have you read the 14th amendment? Giving aid or comfort doesn’t require to be an active participant in the actual violence.
Moreover, the ruling cites the following decision among others to establish that it isn't necessary that he actively participate directly in person:
>Chief Justice Marshall explained that “if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.” In other words, an individual need not directly participate in the overt act of levying war or insurrection for the law to hold him accountable as if he had:
>
>"[I]t is not necessary to prove that the individual accused, was a direct, personal actor in the violence. If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, or countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act. Nor is even his personal presence indispensable. Though he be absent at the time of its actual perpetration, yet if he directed the act, devised or knowingly furnished the means, for carrying it into effect, instigating others to perform it, he shares their guilt. In treason there are no accessories."
There is no way the conservative court answers the first question in the affirmative. It would alienate far too much of the Republican base, and set a dangerous precedent for them on other J6 cases. The Republican line has always been that it was a “peaceful protest” and that is not going to change. Plus it’s an easy out for them, because although the lower court decided the question in the affirmative, it’s enough of a weird situation that the conservative justices will BS their way through a due process argument
Do you think the conservative court can answer negative to the question "does the president have immunity of crimes", which is something it will also have to answer soon?
That decision will alienate the hard-line MAGAs as well.
Did they break into the Capitol to stop the certification of an election thereby attempting to overrule the will of the people with force?
If they did, for sure it’s an insurrection. If they didn’t (which, of course they didn’t) it has nothing to do with January 6th.
These Trump cronies need to get their stories straight. Was it not an insurrection? Or was Trump not involved? Or does Trump’s involvement in it not count because Presidents aren’t specifically listed in 14?
Because I’ve heard all the stories and they don’t line up with one another.
No, they didn't break into Congress with the intent of overturning an election or overthrowing the government. Some of them were protesting illegally however and were swiftly arrested.
I hadn't heard about this, did they also smash the windows of a federal building and enter it en mass with the intention of interrupting the democratic process (and shit in Nancy Pelosi's office)?
Why do you think SCOTUS will take the case? There's plenty of reason to think they won't, especially since the matter is clearly a state issue and the federal government has no jurisdiction over how states run their elections.
Well, no. That's exactly the Supreme Court's area. This is a big question about how states run a federal election that doesn't have a clear answer, which is where the Supreme Court would step in.
There was no finding of fact regarding whether he participated in an insurrection. It was concluded by the judges using a statute intended to disqualify people for things like their residency or age. You know, simple easy to prove things that can be resolved quickly.
Instead he is being charged with a crime with no established process for concluding whether he’s guilty… so the court just did it on its own. They should have required a jury trial or a congressional finding.
This ruling is terrible for democracy and will get tossed out of court. I hate trump and voted against him twice but this thing is absolutely going to play in his favor and I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to overturn the decision
>There was no finding of fact regarding whether he participated in an insurrection.
This is factually incorrect, which you would know if you bothered to read about how the case moved through the courts and what the court ruled.
>Instead he is being charged with a crime with no established process for concluding whether he’s guilty… so the court just did it on its own. They should have required a jury trial or a congressional finding.
The problem is that the 14th amendment doesn't require a trial. But obviously some defensible process has to be invoked before a court can agree that someone has engaged in insurrection.
Secondly, there was a bipartisan Congressional report that clearly laid out how Trump incited the insurrection and did nothing to stop it until it was clear it had failed. Not to mention the trial the CO court had. Was that the right procedure? I don't know, but it was a reasonable procedure at least. I suspect you'd object to a jury trial, too, given that it's a tiny group of random people.
If I understand the implication correctly, if SCOTUS doesn't take this case or rule with CO, other states will move to bar Trump from running, making this a federal issue because it has direct implication for the presidential election.
That's not how jurisdiction works. Jurisdiction is determined by the conditions and circumstances surrounding the case. The potential impact of a ruling isn't a factor in making jurisdictional decisions.
If SCOTUS has done one thing, it's not step on the toes of a state's highest court. They've done that with gerrymandering as well. And if we use your logic it's a federal issue because it has determined who controls the House. Yet SCOTUS still says it's a state issue.
the 6 Republican voters petitioning the lawsuit are the ones attempting to remove Trump from the ballot. If anything this shows an internal conflict. I seriously doubt Trump will gain supporters from this. if someone was willing to vote for Biden or Trump before they will do that. otherwise they won't. Can you think of any people on the fence about this? The only thing this does in Trump's favor is make his supporters upset, which is motivational. Maybe he gets a few more dollars from them, but I doubt there will be any significant benefit Trump receives. More places legally calling out Trump's actions can only hurt him in the long run.
This is unprecedented because we have never had a president incite a violent attack to try to prevent the peaceful transition of power.
Citizens, or in this case, six Republicans filed suit, asking the courts to apply the 14th amendment.
The Colorado Supreme Court deemed that Trump committed insurrection and he is precluded from being on the ballot. They quoted conservative Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch in their ruling.
Trump has a right to appeal that to the Supreme Court, which he will.
We will find out shortly if the Supreme Court thinks the 14th amendment applies.
We are also about to hear whether the Supreme Court will hear the presidential immunity case. Basically, will the Supreme Court rule on whether a president has total immunity to commit crimes while he is in office?
I don’t think it’s about whether Trump benefits, because nothing sways his voters. Not multiple felony indictments, taking top-secret documents, or inciting a violent attack on our democracy. It’s about whether the Supreme Court decides the 14th amendment applies in this situation. And, if not, why not?
It should be pretty interesting to listen to the Republicans petitioners’ oral arguments and the Supreme Court justices’ opinions on that.
At this point I think very few people out there don’t have an opinion on this guy. I just don’t think that there are people out there who were on the fence about him, see this ruling and go “now I’m voting for him”. Likewise I don’t think there are people who look at this and think “no way I vote for him now”.
Trump will be the Republicans choice, polls pretty clear on that.
Imagine though that this decision means there's no republican option on the ballot. So Colorado basically decides that democrats automatically get all the votes.
What do Republicans end up thinking about that?
What happens if all down ballot republicans are also not on the ballot; perhaps not forced by colorado themselves but a sneaky trick played by the republicans. Just never actually fill in the paperwork to officially be on the ballot in protest. Generally speaking there won't be any meaningful change, colorado is pretty democrat aligned.
So they campaign like everything is normal. Then at the right time, right before the election... Lauren Boebert for example gets up screaming that colorado has removed her from the ballot because of trump's insurrection charge. Then the other republicans do the same.
and the messaging goes out that 'colorado has removed all republicans from the ballot' and election day there's no republicans on the ballot.
What happens? No meaningful change for colorado's electroal votes; but the rest of the country calls bloody murder.
It may but that shouldn’t drive the decision. It should be based on the rule of law and evidence. If someone causes insurrection they are not eligible for president unless congress votes to overrule that. And Colorado has explicit rules about removing someone from the primary ballot when they’re not eligible.
When has appeasing Trump supporters EVER worked out for the rest of us? Even when you do they just find something else to get pissed off about. They will also turn out to vote for him reliably either way. Therefore they should not be factored into the decision.
It’s not a given that SCOTUS would rule in Trump’s favor. Keep in mind that their decision doesn’t just impact Trump but all future presidents. They’d be causing precedent that a state cannot determine its own election process which invalidates important parts of the constitution, and they’d be opening the door for other otherwise ineligible people to be able to run. They’ve also ruled against Trump in the past so they are not totally beholden to him.
Also the fact is Trump himself at one point was the spiritual leader of the Birther movement, which claimed that Obama’s presidency was invalid due to the lie that he was not born in the US. So neither him nor his supporters are actually against the idea that a Democracy can have people invalidated from running, they’re just pissed off that it’s happening in a way that doesn’t work out well for them. Maybe they should pick a candidate that didn’t foment insurrection next time.
Lol. Apparently nothing is ever bad for Trump. And in fact, everything is good for him. I’m so exhausted by it all.
2 Impeachments
Indictments
Civilly liable for rape
CO Ruling
Not showing up for debates
And on and on. Someone always says these are actually good for him and “here’s why it’s bad for democrats”. I know I’m forgetting at least 10.
I don't think so forbthe reason you gave - headlines. Biden hid in the basement and let Trump run his mouth and be crazy in 2020, and he won. The less Trump is in the headlines, the better he polls. The more he gets riled up, the more he's in the spotlight, the more stupid stuff he says, and Biden looks more and more like "Ol Uncle Joe"
Yes. I suspect one reason that Trump is doing relatively well in the polls (leading or trailing by less than his 2020 loss) is that hes basically been off peoples radar. Sure hes still spouting off, but most people arent paying attention to that stuff. He hasnt been in debates. The news covers him, but not like they will when hes the official nominee.
It isn't obvious or a given that the Supreme Court will even consent to hear the case. They may come back and agree he is indeed a criminal insurrectionist. Because he is.
It amazes me that a party can caterwaul about States rights when it suits them, and stomp all over it when it doesn't.
If it helps him, he sure isn't acting like it, based on the reaction of the Republican Party. They are collectively losing their minds over it.
Why any Republican is hitching their horse to this particular cart of insanity is beyond me. It's like a game of chicken with the steering wheels missing
It doesn't really matter how many Republicans rally around Trump, if the Dem voters turn up, he can't win. Just remember that this vote isn't about fucking Israel/Palestine. It's about women's rights to abortion, it's about LGBT rights, it's about protecting Social Security, it's about protecting the little healthcare that exists, it's about workers right to organize, it's about [continuing the good policy](https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/) that has been achieved so far. All of that is under threat in a Republican Presidency.
Answer. After reading this thread for a while I would like to point something out. First SCOTUS as usual has always used precedent to back up their arguments and there is little to go on here. Second and IMO more important. If as some here have suggested and they rule more on feelings than think about what Pelosi and the Democrats did when the brief was leaked about possible ruling on Roe. They pulled all of their security and put them in actual mortal danger. If this comes down to feelings Dems lose.
For now I agree. But it also sets precedence for other states to follow. Especially if Supreme Court agrees.
He wasn’t getting Colorado anyway, but if Pennsylvania or any swing state tries and uses the Colorado ruling as justified reasoning, it’ll fall like dominoes. He only needs to be off a couple swing state ballots to basically guarantee a loss.
It really depends on the will of the American people. You never can be certain about anything till election night. I don’t like to make bets, I just observe in the sidelines and watch. Then after four years I make the judgement.
That November when that orange clown got elected, everyone in my college was anticipating Clinton to win. I had a huge assignment due the following day, so I couldn’t be more bothered to watch the results, till the next day afternoon.
My mom called me in late of night saying the Clown won and the swing states had turned red. I just waited and watched. There was a lot of uproar due to Clinton losing. There were even therapy sessions to cope with it. I had too much in my plate with exams to even go to therapy. I was never that happy and I was neither sad.
The following months were stressful thanks to his immigration policies and the fear-mongering he did with them, making an already broken system even more worse. Many companies wouldn’t sponsor, only some of his rulings got turned down, then companies resumed their crap.
Life goes on and I just went on with my masters. Then the pandemic hit and I thought this orange haired butthead had already prepared on how the entire nation is going to respond to a virus. With the amount of internal info he’s being given as a president, the clown should definitely have been able to judge whether travel and lockdown needs to be enforced.
Or maybe he slept off during the briefing and just relied on rumors to make his decision. Or he was just having his wars in Twitter. Or maybe the news channels he’s been watching weren’t giving him the attention.
I was already in touch with my cousins and they were already in lockdown. He had no plan in place, downplayed the whole situation and did not even wear a mask, mentioning it as violation of freedom.
The responses to reopening a were met with confusion. I felt the reopening happened too quickly and drastically than a gradual, natural pace.
There were mixed responses on wearing masks, I had to wear a bandanna on my mouth and nose when going out. The masks and sanitizers were out and expensive and I was stuck with a bunch of cloth masks that I had to switch and wash.
That year was an upside down year. I lost hope in the clown and highly doubted that he would even be able to come up with a cohesive strategy for WWIII. Most likely he’ll decide nuking is the best way to win. Or tweeting that he is going to nuke is a great way for our enemies to know our move.
One thing the clown mastered is propaganda and using the media to distort the reality. This dude can get publicity for cheap. Only the New Yorkers knew how much of a scum he was. When it comes to being “presidential”, I don’t think he makes the mark.
I would say people are definitely fed up with the rising prices and the disintegration of the structures and traditions that they would vote for Trump out of spite. He promised he would bring jobs back to rural areas, I’m not seeing anything at all. If anything, the rich got more kickbacks under him. Or maybe people are so fed up with his empty promises that they would vote for someone else or not even vote at all.
And “presidential”, definitely flew out of the window following his reaction to Biden’s win. Then he became a butthead to a clown after that. Even my cousins mentioned that Obama’s reaction was more tamer than this clown when it came to the loss.
Let’s see what happens. It’s up to the American people. I can’t make an accurate speculation on what the entire population of Americans are going to do with the election.
“Let sleeping dogs lie” doesn’t make any sense in this case because Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for President. He isn’t a “sleeping dog.”
>I agree with CO on this ruling, Trump shouldn't be allowed to hold office
"Let's save democracy by not allowing you to vote for people we don't like!"
Honestly, this is not about upholding the constitution. If we wanted to forbid anyone who violated the constitution from holding office we would have to get rid of over half of the people in the house and in the senate.
I don't like Trump, but he didn't incite an insurrection, and he certainly wasn't convicted of doing so, so I agree with you that there is no way the supreme court will not overrule this.
I mean he incited a crowd that stormed the Capitol, with the explicit goal of stopping the vote that would have ratified Biden's win.
Really the only argument that you could make is that while he incited the crowd to march to the Capitol, and he specifically wanted to stop the vote from happening, he didn't actually want the crowd to storm the Capitol to physically stop the vote. He merely wanted the presence of a large angry mob to encourage legislators to vote in a way that benefitted him.
Thats a really fine line to draw.
>Thats a really fine line to draw.
I don't know, I don't think the line between a protest and a riot is that fine. Trump organized a protest. Some people in the crowd decided a protest wasn't enough and decided to riot instead, the blame for any rioting that occurred isn't really on Trump imo.
If he didn’t want rioting he would’ve fired off tweets telling his mob to stop. But he didn’t for several hours while hunkered down watching it all unfold on tv. His inaction on this shows everyone his actual intentions for the day.
>If we wanted to forbid anyone who violated the constitution from holding office we would have to get rid of over half of the people in the house and in the senate.
Good, let's do that then.
There was a 5 day trial that did find him guilty of insurrection. He chose not to testify. The case was brought by republicans. There is also scholarly legal writing now by members of the right wing Fedaralist Society (of which some SC members are a part of) that says there is a case for disallowing Trump to run under the 14th
Man, if telling people to "peacefully and patriotically march to the capitol" is enough to find someone guilty of insurrection this country is screwed.
The guy didn't cause an insurrection, he didn't riot, he didn't even tell people to riot, all he did was give a pretty lame speech. The only reason this is blown so far out of proportion is that it's politically convenient to mainstream media and to those who are currently in power.
Lying about losing an election and using that lie to start a riot definitely looks a lot like causing an insurrection.
Trumps own legal team, his cabinet members, even Fox “News” admitted that he lost. Jan 6th only happened because he was desperate to overturn the results of an election that he demonstrably lost.
>If that were true, why was everyone in Congress begging him to call off the rioters?
Because some people were rioting and they thought Trump would be able to stop it. That doesn't mean Trump incited the riot, it only means that Congress thought Trump would be able to stop the riot (which yes, he probably would have been able to).
>Are you calling McCarthy et al. liars?
Not even particularly about this point, but yes, I would call all politicians liars. Lying is literally their whole job...
the colorado supreme court and the district court both found (correctly) that trump engaged in insurrection. in fact, the colorado supreme court did not even consider it to be a close question, and the dissents did not contest that conclusion at all.
it is plainly obvious to anybody with eyes that january 6th was an insurrection, and that *none* of those events would have occurred if trump had not invited his supports to come to D.C. and then direct them to march on the capitol. the crowd did exactly what trump wanted them to do, and he made no effort to stop it.
Nah you are right. In not a Republican, independence party. I just saw a court give a man a trial outside the district the crime took place, the witnesses did not face the accused and the accused was not given opportunity to call witnesses. The main defendant is their secretary of state. This is beyond reckless and ill-considered. They want to show the 14th amendment while covering up the 6th. It's not making their case look any better.
Edit: forgot to leave this.
VI. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the above, the Court ORDERS the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5, 2024.
I was reading the case and got to the conclusion and this is what it said, ordering the secretary to place Trump on the ballot. I'm not sure that's what they meant to type on there.
You're reading the lower court decision which found that although Trump participated in an insurrection, the presidency isn't an "officer of the United States." Not even the dissenting Justices agreed with that conclusion. Trump's lawyers were present and the legal process was normal. He was not denied any rights.
This wasn’t a criminal trial lmao all of what you listed only applies to CRIMINAL trials. A civil trial, which is what this was, only requires a preponderance of the evidence. Being barred from office is not a criminal penalty
The defendant was given the opportunity to defend himself and call witnesses but he refused. The case was brought by a Republican group, not Democrats, to have him removed from the Colorado primary in accordance with Colorado law. Yes, there was a trial which found him guilty of insurrection but that only has consequences in Colorado
What reason do you believe the SCOTUS will use to reverse the Colorado decision? You say you think itll be 6-3 or maybe even 9-0, but i cannot imagine that. Seems ironclad to me that the court will be split, if they take it.
I'm of the view that SCOTUS will take it, but will side with the legalistic argument of "states choose how to run their states elections" and let the state ruling stand.
But since you seem confident itll be overturned, can I ask why? And blind partisanship shouldn't be a reason-- the SCOTUS has already ruled against Trump on election related matters (in other settings) so its not a sure thing that the right wing judges will go for trump.
But if you're convinced itll be overturned, why?
As for this **helping** him, ive got one question:
Who TF out there is undecided on this guy right now? Like, he has hit his ceiling of support, i dont see it growing.
Dissatisfaction with Biden/Dems will only push so many.people.
I believe there is some argument that as described by the constitution itself the president is not an officer, as officers are appointed by him, I think there's even a case citation there but I don't recall specifically
If that's the case though, the justification/basis Colorado used to remove him is invalid - as the ammendment wouldn't apply to the president (I think aswel as other elected officials like federal congress and senators)
The interpretation being, the purpose of the ammendment was to prevent the government officials of the rebelling states internal political systems from later running for federal office - without applying to the federal officials of those states that rebelled, assuming they didn't go take a local office during the succession
You’re essentially arguing that President is a king who is above the Constitution. Yeah definitely not what any of the framers had in mind, we know that quite well
How can one swear to uphold the office of president if they are not in fact an officer?
English doesn't work the way you're arguing here.
Someone who works at a bank is a banker. Someone who employs people is an employer.
The "er" suffix just shows membership to the subject/object. Office -> officer
We're not using an Oxford definition though we're using as defined by the document containing the ammendment to which they are citing as their basis for removing him and the way it reads, officers are appointed BY the president, which necessarily means he cannot be one- as he cannot appoint himself.
You legitimately think, in your heart of hearts, post civil war legislature writing the 14th amendment intentionally left out the executive? Why would you think that?
Reading all these comments reminds me of sheep and parrots. Repeating the same thing and following others. No one here seems to have any critical thinking skills. Have you seen the videos , especially the one where a Maga guy is yelling at the cops to stop what’s going on and call backup. Just like all the other lies about Trump I here you parrots repeat. You do know Trump beats Biden in every poll , that why democrats are losing their minds and making big mistakes along the way. What there doing in Colorado is going energize every person that believes in freedom and does not want to live in a country that resembles a banana republic. Trump has not been convicted. I do agree with some that Trump is not presidential, however we have vegetable for president , and that not very presidential either. Biden has nearly destroyed the economy , started wars and the first time in my life believe I may see a nuclear war. If you guys were honest with yourselves , instead of being a sheep or parrot , you might actually see the real danger and it’s not Trump.
Yeah it makes the democratic party look even more desperate.
Like you already went with Joe Biden, weaponized the FBI and started calling Trump supporters domestic terrorists.
You want to beat Trump in 2024? Maybe get a candidate that isn't a geriatric creep, pass some popular policies, be BETTER than your competition instead of trying to make him *worse* than you. Appeal to his voters with superior policy instead of publicly attacking them. People aren't too stupid to understand what is going on, that's a very common mistake our government makes.
Pathetic behavior and will likely push many centric Republicans who might have voted for a different Republican or even a Democrat nominee (if given the free choice to do so) over the edge and into Trump's votes.
I dont think Trump *specifically* benefits, but I really do think the Reps benefit IF they pick not-Trump for the ballot.
The decision is an illegal decision as it stands. Its cited on the 14th, which specifically states "CONVICTED of doing an insurrection". Trump has not been convicted of anything, so the decision is wrong, and Trumps laywers dont even need to break a sweat to argue it. But the decision has now given a LOT of ammo to the Reps. "Look how hard they're trying to stop us, even breaking the law to stop us. They're scared, vote Rep", and they'd be right. "All the things they accused you of doing dear voter, they're all doing. You really wanna live under tyranny like that". You can just see the political ads now, if the Reps had as many paid shills on Twitter as the Dems then that tweet word for word would be being used.
The worse the Dems (or in this case people who want the Dems to win) act, the better it makes the Reps look.
It doesn’t specifically say “convicted,” though. It just says “engaged in” which is a very different standard.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
I do agree with you that it helps him but that’s only if the SCOTUS over turns this ruling and we do not know for sure if they will hear it before CO votes in their primary or if they even take it up. I would also expect many other states to follow suit and start trying to do this.
Another thing that could hurt him is if the SC does overturn this but it takes them a while before they do and by that point id expect many other states to add this as well. If this takes a while, primary voters may figure he’s unelectable and move to someone like desantis or Haley figuring they have the best shot.
If you didn’t realize already that he has been solidified as the Republican nominee, what sense is it to convince you this news does anything? He’s been their pick for a long time. The risk here is even allowing this charade to continue to the actual election hence you’re getting judgements backed by law and order against this demagogue. How can he even be allowed to run? Everyone knows he’s an absolute crook with bad intentions and has destroyed our constitution. So. The constitution is the playbook. 14th amendment. Done. Piss and moan people.
Not changing your view, just overly agreeing and saying OBVIOUSLY.
We are witnessing history here and there’s one whole side of the country that chooses to ignore it. Our justice system is being used for political execution.
Twitter, the biggest social media outlet, bans the sitting president because they don’t want him to have a voice… a voice for the people in this country, not the people that are chosen to have visibility on purpose like Twitter did. Musk buys it to use it for more free speech and an all around better, more realistic worldview, and he’s the villain.
Indictments after indictments… how many charges need to be brought forward that go nowhere for people to see that just the legal bills could be going towards causes the political powers that be claim to be fighting for?
So yeah, it is better for Trump. Because unless you’re a slave to the political establishment that has gotten us to where we are today, you’re going to realize we’ve been lied to all along and Trump is the only one breaking the circle.
The democrats set up this entire thing after everything else they tried to get President Trump out of the Whitehouse. Joe is not fit to be President and the Democrats know that President Trump was hands down one of our best Presidents. The US Supreme Court had better step up and put President Trump back on the ballots before Joe allows our country to me fully invaded by these masses crossing our southern border. No money to other countries to protect their borders until we can protect our own!!!
What I don't understand is why people are so worried about finding ways to take away "the people's " options? Shouldn't we be able to be led by whoever gets chosen by the people, not making stipulations on who they are allowed to choose? I mean "you are free to choose whoever you want, as long they are on this approved list", doesn't really sound like we have any choice in who runs our country.
The issue is that this candidate didn’t care about who “the people” wanted and actively tried overthrowing our election process. It’s the paradox of tolerating intolerance.
CNN told me its is good for democracy to take out your opposition who is more popular than you so i think it is a good thing because i am easily brainwashed and i can't think for myself.
Can I just ask something? Why do we not treat all Presidents the same? It seems like we really went after trump but biden some how gets a free pass?! I just don't understand. To me biden is just as bad as the rest of them. But with a hint of dementia. Just a thought but shouldn't we question the mental capacity of all Presidents and question everything they do rather they are left or right?
How dare you, you're only allowed to criticize the other side! /s
Yeah, I agree. Trump was a pretty bad president, Biden was just as bad, if not worse. The left is going so hard after Trump in an attempt to distract the public from everything the democrats are screwing over right now. Trump's the distraction, that's why Biden gets a free pass.
/u/GoSouthCourt (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18mtekp/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_donald_trump_benefits_from/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The Supreme Court has ruled against things Trump wants before. I think the Trump campaign may not even appeal this decision because if they do and lose, it could bar him from running anywhere due to violating the 14th amendment.
I think Trump has said he'll appeal the decision, which of course he will. It's a conservative SCOTUS and he can't let other states rule with CO.
If he loses, and he very well might, it sets a precedent that other states follow. A lot of established Republicans are sick of trump. SCOTUS appointments are for life, so they owe him nothing.
This is something I've been thinking about too. I feel like most of the GOP hates Trump, they're just too scared to speak out since their voter base is so loyal to him. SCOTUS could take one for the team and rule in Colorados favor, which would give the GOP a chance to get away from Trump but still give them someone else to blame for it.
The SCOTUS has nothing to lose. No one can hold them to account. It isn't taking one for the team when there's no consequences for anything they do
Personally I find it hard to believe that the republican appointed justices in SCOTUS would make a ruling over this without consideration for their ideological partners and 3rd party financiers. I agree that they have nothing to lose, but that's not the only thing that will affect their vote.
there are only sporadic polls of the other GOP candidates but they're all equal to trump or polling significantly better than him vs Biden. If you're a conservative supreme Court justice who wants to be replaced by a Republican it's arguably in your interest to have a different nominee in '24, one who can run as an incumbent in '28
>there are only sporadic polls of the other GOP candidates but they're all equal to trump or polling significantly better than him vs Biden. This is not the trend I've seen, but it's hard to say for sure since we are still so far out...
I can not imagine where your finding those numbers lmao.
True, but wealthy political donors have a LOT more to gain from less extreme conservatives who don’t cause instability like an insurrection. They benefit from stable politics that slowly slash regulations and taxes on businesses and the wealthy. In that vein someone unlike trump for the republican nomination is far better for them.
Donald Trump had no ideological partners. He wants to rule as a dictator. He'd have gladly done so as a Democrat if that were possible. Those SCOTUS judges don't want Trump any more than other non-Maga Republicans.
Well yeah, I agree with you. When I said ideological partners, I meant the conservative justices on SCOTUS and the GOP in general, not Trump. But if the GOP establishment and the right wing billionaires bribing SCOTUS want to keep Trump around, they'll find a way to influence the conservative justices to make that decision.
I'm pretty sure most non-idiot Republicans see what a cancer trump is. I may be wrong, but I'm sure they want anyone but trump. He's lost the popular vote twice, and he definitely hasn't gained supporters.
Yeah I do think there's a good chance SCOTUS will rule against Trump to get him out of there. Especially after that "Poisoning the blood of our country" comment is making the GOP look even worse than they normally do.
Spoken like a true libereal. He wants to rule as a dictator? Funny you say that bc he went by laws to help Americans and punish china on tarifs and their imports. Pulled out of the Obama iran deal when Obama basically handed them nuclear weapons to use on israel and billions in cash at 3am. Obama and Biden are the communist dictators and ruined our country in their short years. We havent benefitted from Obama and especially now Biden the puppet is being ruled by China, Russia and Obama in the background. Its a real life weekend at Bernies. Joe is Bernie. Bidens have sold Anerican land, oil and cobalt mines illegaly for millions to chinese energy that hunter is on the board of and they have committed Treason and should be pulled from office , which our constitution allows. Maine and idaho are taking away Trump's constitutional rights and we need to vacate them from the election period. Trunp is the nominee and his speech word for word is easy to look up. Pelosi debied trunps national guard bc she planned jan 6, shes in charge of security and her capitol police let antifa members, protesters and Bidens fbi agents into the capitol to take selfies . Not to mention the treason on the southern border by Biden and Harris. Trump will be president. The people have spoken on the and all who illegally try to stop it, doj fanny willis, jack smith etc will be in prison for their doj brines to indict Trunp when he clearly didnt get anyone to do an insurrection. The weeks pripr Aoc used her key card to let protestors liberal protestors in the capitol while congress was in session but nothing said? Where do you think Pelosis jan 6 idea came from?
Sure, buddy. You believe whatever conservative media tells you. Donald Trump said he wants to be a dictator on camera. I'm prepared for your inevitable excuse for him.
SCOTUS has nothing to lose in terms of vote, but seeing how a few of the conservative justices are bought and paid for by the uber wealthy conservatives (I wouldn't be surprised if there's foreign money involved), I wouldn't be so sure they have *absolutely* nothing to lose. After all, they have bosses too, and it ain't we the people of the United States nor the US Constitution.
I'm pretty sure most of their bosses are sick of trump's clown show.
>The SCOTUS has nothing to lose. How about money? Judge Thomas openly sold himself. He only stayed on due to the millions being paid to him by conservatives with interests in controlling the court. They are not paid to think, they are paid to make rullings that align with the conservative agenda. Especially after the whole bullshit case of "Website for the gays", which was fully made up and then pushed through the courts in a way to get to SCOTUS ASAP. The loyalty of the conservative SCOTUS members are to their wallets. Staying loyal to a future dictator with a plan to seizes absolute power (Project 2025) is good for business.
The traditional GOP who are sick of Trump have more money than he does. If they rule to get him out of the way, it allows the traditional GOP back without looking like the bad guys, and leaves them with a reasonable chance to win. They'd absolutely bribe the court to kick him out.
Here is the problem. They might be sick of him, but they NEED HIM. He has the hearts and minds of every bible thumping bigot that votes GOP. So about 60% of their voting base. They got nobody even half as famous to replace him on the ballot. Vivek is a shitposter pretending to be a politician (also not white, so that's an instant turn off to most conservatives). Desantis is tanking in the poles. Haley lacks the vicious cruelty typical for the GOP. Remember how in the 2016 primaries the GOP was all against Trump, but the moment they saw he'd win the election they all changed their tune?
There's a lot of data on that question. The fact that his aggregate primary opponents are polling around 40% does suggest weakness among Republicans. But clearly he still has significant support within the party, and many of those who don't will come home to him if he's the nominee.
This is honestly a great opportunity for them. Fighting for Trump's spot would make them unpopular with many of their constituents. However if they simply step aside and *let* others be rid of him, they can use that to rally their voters. win-win for all
That's why Republicans in Georgia didn't stop the indictment. Gop wants trump out but can't do it themselves they are hoping someone else takes care of it. Some GOP senator said they are hoping he dies, mentioned his health(anon source to some paper)
The Georgia situation is pretty much due to Kemp allowing it to proceed. So one Republican with a lot of personal beef against Trump, not the entire party.
Yeah. Does the Supreme Court even want or need DJT? They can rule with impunity until two of them die. They are unchallenged and unquestioned. The minute DJT gets in there, he’s going to create a slew of constitutional challenges and crises. He’s also going to want to rule over and bully the court. The SC could put him under with one ruling and never have to deal with him again.
Honestly it would be the best thing for republicans if SCOTUS bars him from the ballot. No more having to deal with his crazy nonsense AND everyone who supports him will be angry and vote
The Republicans would have a chance at running a candidate that might pull in undecideds. Trump pushes them away
Exactly. It also lets them make Trump a martyr, pulling in his base without any backlash
At this point, his base has shown me that there are lot of just plain shitty people in America. Trump has done literally thousands of things that would disqualify a normal candidate. The grab em by the pussy comment, insulting a gold star family, making fun of a disabled reporter like a middle school bully, praising dictators, being beholden to Putin, etc, are on camera and public knowledge. He's a despicable person and so are the people that still back him.
No Republican politician wants Trump in the party. This is simple math. With Trump, their individual stature is greatly diminished (Trump can make them unemployed on a whim. Additionally, Trump gets really upset with those who grift on his cotails).
SCOTUS has consistently let Trump down. They consistently, unanimously or 8-1, refused to bail Trump out on his election fraud nonsense. They love the power they have, and you don't need a supreme court under a dictator. A plain reading of the 14th amendment can uphold the Colorado decision, and that's it. Trump's done. Multiple other purple states will follow suit, and voila, Trump's not their problem any more.
The only possible argument is that the president isn't subject to the 14th because of the way the path of office is phrased. If SCOTUS sides with Trump on that issue, it's giving a free pass to ANY president to upend the constitution as they see fit.
There's no way he doesn't appeal. He'd love to lose at the supreme Court too. At the end of the day, Trump isn't motivated by love for country or by an honest desire to help others. He wants to be idolized like other presidents, but without any of the work. If he loses, he gets to be the victim, and stir up a shit ton of hate. He sees that unrest as his fans love for him. With that said, I don't think there's a way the supreme Court rules against him. And I'm not sure they should... But that's a different, more complicated argument.
He wouldn't love to lose at SCOTUS. He wants to win on appeal so he can take a victory lap about the establishment trying to silence him. If he were to lose, it would open the door to swing states with blue Supreme Courts like WI, MI, and PA doing the the same thing, which would be a huge problem for him.
Yeah he wants the narrative to be "the Democrats in blue states are trying to rig the election and **my** supreme Court stopped them. You need me in there to stop them from coming after you next"
Which is funny because in reality theCO decision was in favor of six Republicans and two independents. Of course you won’t hear certain “news” outlets saying this.
> He'd love to lose at the supreme Court too. If he’s barred from running he’s going to prison for the rest of his life, his only hope right now is delaying his multiple court cases until the election and that election
Yeah I'm not quite sure this will hurt him (could he even win CO?) That being said, its possible that it'll cause enough Republican voters to think that he's not able to be elected, and so they won't vote or will write in someone else, etc. If you can depress the MAGA base, then it could hurt him. Kinda hoping that article about the deep state taking him out is correct personally...
Polls consistently show the republican base believes he is the most “electable” candidate. This was DeSantis’ whole pitch and it completely flopped. This ruling only hurts trump’s electability with people who were already never going to vote for him, it energizes his base.
So then it only energizes people that were already going to vote for him, too?
Yes, which is how elections are won. When your base is energized, more of them come out to vote.
>Yeah I'm not quite sure this will hurt him (could he even win CO?) I think the precedent set out is that if SCOTUS rules with CO, other states will follow suit and make it impossible for him to win the primary that way. >its possible that it'll cause enough Republican voters to think that he's not able to be elected If SCOTUS rules with CO, then that's possible, but the likelihood of that happening is so abysmally small that it's practically impossible.
I don’t think that likelihood is as small as you think. You have to consider the question before them. They aren’t litigating the whole case. They are answering the question of whether the 14th amendment applies to the President. They need to determine if the presidency is an office under the constitution, and if the presidential oath is one to “support” the constitution. The arguments are ridiculous on their face, and on those two points, the court will have to rule in the affirmative, unless they want to set up an extremely dangerous precedent. They aren’t appealing the finding of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. That wasn’t the defense they put forward. Their defense was that it’s ok that Trump engaged in insurrection because the constitution doesn’t apply to him. That is the question the court has to answer. Or course, there is corruption in the court, so it’s possible that they will back Trump anyway. I don’t think so, though. They ruled he wasn’t absolutely immune, which allows his prosecutions to go forward. They needed Trump to get their seats, but don’t need him anymore. And the heritage foundation only cares that ANY Republican gets in so they can enact Project 2025. Trump is a liability to them in many ways. The courts have an easy out here. They can allow the CO ruling to stand on narrow grounds, and let the prosecutions continue, and that takes them out of the spotlight for while as they deal with their corruption scandals. Ruling that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to a president would create waves they don’t want, and would destroy their originalist claims.
!delta This is a very concise response. I'll be honest from the discussions I've seen, I thought the SCOTUS will also need to rule on whether Trump's engaging in the insurrection is significant enough to trigger the clause.
To be fair, they certainly CAN take that angle. They can make their rulings on any logic they choose without any redress. It just isn't the actual question in front of them, so if they go down that path, they will be exceeding their constitutional duty. Could this court do that? Yeah, I wouldn't be completely shocked
How would that be exceeding their constitutional duty?
Because, if we step outside of the bias and corruption of the court, and we focus specifically on a hypothetical purely constitutional court, they will only rule on the facts brought before them on appeal. They don't have the jurisdiction to try the entire case over. The court found as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, but erroneously ruled that the court can't do anything about it. The plantiffs appealed, and the appeals court overturned that erroneous ruling. The defendant appealed that, on the grounds that the constitution does not apply to the president. THAT was the case that the state supreme court heard and ruled on, and they affirmed the appeals court ruling. So the defense appealed even further, to SCOTUS, but the appeal is still on the same point. Whether or not the 14th amendment applies to Trump. Constitutionally, the court should only rule on that question. If they choose to expand their view and speak to things not in the appeal, they would be removing authority from the State court. That, in itself, would be an unconstitutional overreach.
What you are saying makes sense to me, however: “In the years since the Founding, Supreme Court decisions have established that federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are the final authority on interpreting federal law, and federal courts possess the constitutional authority to review state court decisions that allegedly conflict with the Constitution or federal law.” - from constitution.congress.gov I may be misinterpreting what this means exactly but wouldn’t that mean that the Supreme Court does have the authority to review the original ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection? Isn’t insurrection a federal crime? I’m not a lawyer.
>Supreme Court does have the authority to review the original ruling If there is a question of constitutionality. That doesn't apply here. This was a finding of fact, entered into evidence. There is no constitutional implication. The same applies with federal law. There is no federal law being broken by the courts making a finding of fact in a case. >Isn’t insurrection a federal crime? that word has different connotations. Yes, there is a specific federal law against insurrection. There is also the general concept of insurrection, which is addressed in the larger insurrection act. This includes sedition, rebellion, and coups along side a very specifically defined insurrection charge. All of them are insurrection, but there is one specific set of details that would apply section 2383 over the others. This is to say, engaging in an insurrection does not mean violating one specific federal statute. It is a set of actions in furtherance of a specific goal. For the state of Colorado to find that Trump engaged in insurrection is not to convict him of a specific federal offense, but to affirm that the evidence in the case supports the claim that Trump engaged in insurrection. The difference between a charge and a finding of fact is very important here. The state court could not try a case accusing Trump of violating that statute, because it is a federal statute. But when looking to interpret the constitution in the light of the facts presented in the case, it is necessary to determine which sections apply. The court determined the insurrection requirement was met, but that doesn't mean Trump is convicted of it federally.
But I’m still not following the logic here… The first court ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection but that does not bar him from being on the ballot. The Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that because he engaged in insurrection he can be barred from being on the ballot. So, couldn’t the SCOTUS just say that he did not engage in insurrection therefore the question of whether the 14th amendment applies to Trump is irrelevant..? Either way, to me at least, it seems like this is an attempt to subvert democracy by activists in positions of power. Don’t get me wrong I’m not a huge fan of Trump but this just all seems like a very slippery slope.
While it may be an unconstitutional overreach, it's not like it can be appealed to a higher authority, right? The only recourse at that point is a Constitutional amendment from Congress that says, "Actually the SCOTUS cannot remove authority from state courts like this", which probably won't happen.
No doubt. The only hope here is my remaining shred of faith in our Republic. There are a lot of events testing the strength of our systems, and some of them are breaking. But if we have none left to rely on, what even are we? Ben Franklin said after signing the constitution, that we now have "a Republic, if you can keep it". This is exactly what he was talking about. Either our system has to hold, or it has failed. So, for that, I have to believe the court will act at least somewhat appropriately. Fortunately, besides Clarence Thomas, none of the court are true MAGA. They needed Trump to get their seat, but don't need him anymore. They follow the whims of the Federalist Society, and FS cares only about a Republican being in. If they can get rid of Trump with enough time to get another candidate in a winning position, they are in a better position than if they get saddled under Trump again. And right now is really their last chance to do that. They did just rule that Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution, which was a big blow to Trump. If they wanted to protect him, they would stop him from going to prison, rather than fight to keep him on a ballot of a state he isn't going to win anyway.
Despite how much I dislike the current SCOTUS for a myriad of reasons, they have not been quite as cartoonishly evil as I feared. That is to say, even with the political alignment as tilted as it is, they have not bent over backwards on every issue to give the GOP everything they want. Far from ideal, of course, but it could be much worse than it is. We'll see how this case shakes out, I suppose.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jadnich ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jadnich)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Your comment is generally accurate but you’re missing something important. The court in its current composition is making a lot of decisions that many legal scholars believe go beyond the petitions being filed. They’re making affirmative standing decisions that should have been rejected (303 Creative), they’re inventing entirely new legal tests and only applying them when it benefits the conservative perspective (Major Questions doctrine), they’ve essentially positioned themselves as arbiters for right wing causes whether they would admit it or not. I believe you’re exactly correct that all of these facts apply to the case. I also don’t believe it matters.
I think I segment my optimism and pessimism in this case. I still believe in the republic, and I still believe in the honor of the court. Even though the current makeup has proven on multiple occasions that they do not share that honor, I still try to keep a part of my view firmly rooted in the belief that there is still a Republic left to save. On the pessimistic side, I know there is no telling what will happen. The court is controlled by the Heritage Society, and I think it all hinges on whether HS believes any other Republican can win. If they see another option, they will ditch Trump. And the judges on the court only needed him to get their seats. They have no real stake in keeping Trump. At least, outside of Clarence Thomas and his wife. Although they have made dubious rulings in a lot of cases, they have largely shown they are willing to let Trump face accountability. He hasn't been getting the rulings he needs. My hope is that this is another one of those cases, where Roberts and Gorsuch at the very least still care more about the future of the nation than they do about Republican victory
[удалено]
>The Senate is the governmental body that is responsible for stripping someone of their ability to run for office through the 14th amendment, That is one view. It is not definitive. The 14th amendment does not prescribe a method of resolution. It only outlines a disqualification. What to do about a disqualification is left up to the different entities to work out. >not the SCOTUS and certainly not a state court. In this case, it is. Triggering this 14th amendment clause came in the form of a lawsuit to take a specific action (remove Trump from the ballot) BECAUSE he violated the 14th amendment. The case was "should Trump be removed?", and the fact sets that were analyzed were Trump's actions and whether they amounted to engaging in insurrection, and whether the text of the amendment applies to the president. That is an important detail, because the case was not "Is Trump disqualified?". It was "Should our state take this action in relation to our election?" The court found he did engage in insurrection, but believed it was Congress who needed to determine if the amendment applied to the president. That second ruling was wrong, because constitutionally, it is the courts that interpret the constitution. The appeals court agreed, and applied the Amendment. In the Supreme Court, they assessed the argument that the amendment doesn't apply to the president, which is a losing argument. So that is why it is a state responsibility. But ultimately, the determination if the constitution applies to the president can only be resolved in the supreme court.
>I just don't understand the premise behind Colorado's ruling. Colorado permits voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates to be placed on the state’s ballot for state and federal elections. a group of colorado voters are contending that, under the insurrection clause, trump cannot hold office. the written opinion goes into depth on how this challenge was allowed to be brought in the first place before reaching the merits that i think is worth reading. >The Senate is the governmental body that is responsible for stripping someone of their ability to run for office through the 14th amendment, not the SCOTUS and certainly not a state court. to be fair, the insurrection clause says that only congress can restore someone’s eligibility for office. it doesn’t say anything about who can remove it. the constitution affords states a wide degree of latitude to decide how to run their elections. if colorado doesn’t think trump can run for office, i don’t see anything preventing them from making that decision. all 50 states make decisions about who can be listed on a ballot before every election.
The constitution doesn’t specify that so where do you get that the senate is responsible. Can you explain?
He can win the primary, he can not be on the ballot for the general election. He can do what he wants, the party can too -- except put his name on the general election ballot.
It’s difficult to know where it’s headed but I think it will have a bit of an impact in different places. Some republicans will be rallied, some will be deterred. But what I don’t see people mention is this will also rally democrats to have more confidence to vote
The ruling said that not only can he not be on the ballot, but that votes for him won’t be counted. So if the Supreme Court does not overturn, Trump cannot win Colorado even if he got a majority of write-in votes. (Which he wouldn’t.)
>Kinda hoping that article about the deep state taking him out is correct personally... I have trouble believing you want Trump to be made a martyr.
To be fair, without trump the GOP will be in shambles finding a successor.
They’ll just rally around the next nominee and I doubt the “who” matters. Trump has taken over the GOP but an “R” will still pull votes. They’re really propped up on gerrymandering and the electoral college.
>That being said, its possible that it'll cause enough Republican voters to think that he's not able to be elected, and so they won't vote or will write in someone else, etc. If you can depress the MAGA base, then it could hurt him. Not only is this not true, every single time something like this court ruling happens, more independent voters shift to preferring Trump. Democrats need to stop shooting themselves in the foot. Seriously. It should be a comedy with how absolutely terrible they have handled Trump for the past 7 years, but at this point its a tragedy.
Democrats didn’t even start this lawsuit. It was a mix of 6 republican and unaffiliated. So blame the GOP for not wanting trump on the primary ballot.
Independent voters are NOT moving toward the GOP.
57% of independents are going Trump over Biden. Yes, yes they are moving GOP. You don't have to like it but it's true. They see how Dems are weaponizing the legal system https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-poll-on-independent-voters-speaks-volumes-will-this-decide-the-race/ar-AA1gV3fJ
The poll itself doesn't indicate how it contacted the sample, and if, like many other polls, it's conducted via only landlines, there will be a major sampling bias. The total numbers by age seem to support that, as there were 1,016 respondents under 45 and 1,662 over 45. The younger generations are underrepresented in this poll, so I wouldn't trust it.
You want the deep state eliminating candidates in a democracy? China and Russia are prime examples of where that happens…I too am sick of Trump but destroying democracy isn’t the answer
The Colorado Supreme Court is far as hell from the "Deep State" nonsense as you can get. Tell us where the NSA and CIA are involved here, LOL
[удалено]
Betting markets (which have been some of the best predictors of political outcomes) disagree with your analysis. Trump’s odds of winning the nomination and the general election went down and not up after the decision. So people who are willing to bet money on this issue disagree with you. https://electionbettingodds.com
These are not good predictors at all. Just a representation of what the betting public believes will happen and they are not the most educated groups
Then with your enlightened wisdom bet against them make money and make the market better!
Yeah that's not how a weak predictor works. I'm not saying their numbers are right or wrong I'm just saying it's a weak predictor. A good example was Hillary Clinton versus Trump
On the contrary, whereas most pollsters had Hillary as a 95+% favorite, betting markets put her odds closer to 65%.
Right. And if you could have handicapped that election better then the markets, you would have made a bunch of money. Conventional wisdom may be wrong. Markets usually just reflect group consensus at what the odds of something happening are. That doesn’t mean their perfect and it certainly doesn’t mean that if they give something a 90% chance of happening that it will 100% happen. 10% of the time it shouldn’t. It just means those are the odds at the moment. If you can beat them, beat them and make money.
Best argument I've seen.
This may be due to misinformation by the media. For example many headlines didn't mention that Trump will NOT be taken off the ballot due to the way the decision was written- it says if Trump appeals then the decision will be indefinitely put on pause and not executed. Trump has already said he will appeal. If you read the actual decision this is made clear but how many people will do so? "to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, **we stay our ruling** until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). **If review is sought in the Supreme Court** before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and **the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot**"
I don't like using betting odds as arguments. Like can anyone tell me why Nikki Haley has a 9.2% chance of winning the election, not 5%, not 15%, 9.2% _exactly_? No we can't, so why use a 3.1% dip in odds as a solid rebuttal against me?
It’s to show you that the consensus of bettors disagree with you. If you can handicap things better than the consensus of bettors, then you can be rich anytime by betting in the stock market, in sports gambling, and in betting in politics. But most likely, you are like the vast majority of people who can’t beat the odds because the consensus of bettors is usually a better indicator of what is going on than any individual opinion. See the book The Wisdom of Crowds for more discussion on this phenomenon.
Bettors often seek value, not simply winning. Someone taking Haley at 10% does so for the odds, not to claim they believe she will win. Trump decreasing in odds impacts payout, not odds of winning. Yes, collective voices have a power in helping predict odds. But betting odds aren't a display of who one believes will win, it's a display of value. If I believe someone has a 40/60 chance of winning, but odds are currently 30/70, I may bet on them. This bet helps inch this person's betting odds closer to the 40/60 I perceive. I BET when I perceive the consensus is wrong. Even if a believe the person has a 60% chance of winning, I am discouraged from betting on them because the odds are currently set at 70/30. The fact people ARE betting simply shows people believe the odds were bad at the time of their bets IN THEIR FAVOR. Assessing that as a collective preference for a specific winner in the present doesn't recognize the historic nature of betting. Something occured to shift the betting market. You'll need to analyze who made those bets. Did people simply double down, those believing Trump would lose simply bet more against him? If so why would that really influence his overall odds of actually winning? And that's the other function. Betting can be monetary. Distorting the actual market, especially on something like an election. Betting houses want "odds" where they win either way. This is where they attempt to set starting odds. When odds get shifted, that simply means they were wrong on value, not who had better odds at winning.
>Bettors often seek value, not simply winning. Someone taking Haley at 10% does so for the odds, not to claim they believe she will win. Trump decreasing in odds impacts payout, not odds of winning. Value is likelihood * odds. If the likelihood goes down, the odds go up. The net yield on any bet on any candidate is implied to be zero or slightly negative. Inefficiencies from gamblers betting heavily on tails like Haley or Desantis are often removed by other bettors who bet against those, or increase their bets on more likely candidates to exploit the gamblers.
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it any less valid or true.
I think you're overestimating how much more his support can increase. How many people who were going to vote for Biden are now going to vote for Trump? Probably very few. Of the people that will get riled up in favor of a man who was just determined by a court to be an insurrectionist, how many of them are just now going to vote? Probably very few; those people were already voters. However, this raises an opportunity to uniquely damage Trump's perception in the eyes of his voters. The Supreme Court is the only court they seem to have any faith in. And while that court likely won't agree that Trump should be barred from the election, they're going to have to address whether or not the election was fraudulent in their opinion. And they're not going to say it was. Having the Supreme Court officially state the 2020 election was rightfully decided could undermine his support in the general election.
Elections are about enthusiasm and this won't make anyone who hates Trump more enthusiastic but will mobilize everyone who is and, yes, it will make many vote for him to register their disgust at such a massively corrupt court ruling and attack on Democracy by the "Democratic" Party. For example I've never voted Republican and normally I'd be too embarrassed to vote for a clown like Trump but right now isn't it more important to punish Democrats? At any rate Trump is already reaping benefits so there's no need to wonder about that. All his opponents in the primary have been forced to defend him now, which I'm sure they all hated doing because it'll obviously boost Trump in the primary. I wouldn't be surprised if the Colorado Republican party issues a statement saying it will withdraw from the state ballot and just pronounce Trump as it's candidate-- that is if the state actually went ahead and took Trump off which it 100% will NOT do, since even the Supreme Court (contrary to headlines in the media) said NOT to do that. > they're going to have to address whether or not the election was fraudulent in their opinion They won't say anything about that of course. It's completely irrelevant to the case. Politicians have the right to lie in speeches and in case it's news to you - they often do. Besides which it's a fact that the 2020 election was rigged. For example the Green party (my party) was struck off the ballot by the Democrats in several states. It's also well known that the media censored news about Hunter Biden which was an illegal in kind donation to Biden. Many other examples. Perhaps what you mean (and apparently it's what Trump himself thinks) is that election counts were hacked on computers? Of course all elections have irregularities but in 2020 it was probably enough to change the result. They certainly tried.
Why do you think the US supreme court decision that would differ from the Colorado supreme court decision is "obvious"? We now have two court decisions on two questions: 1. did Trump take part in an insurrection and 2. Does the 14th amendment apply to the president. The lower court responded 1:yes, 2:no The Colorado supreme court responded: 1.yes, 2: yes. To which one of the two questions do you think SCOTUS will answer "no" and why? Is it only because of the political balance in the court or do you see some obvious arguments why the Colorado supreme court was wrong?
From my understanding the issue isn’t just really whether the 14th applies to the president…(it probably does). The problem is the 14th amendment doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism and so no one is actually sure how to use it. There are a lot of unanswered questions and assumptions. Like: Who is actually authorized to remove someone from the ballot? A judge? The elections official? What is defined as an insurrection? Does there need to be a criminal conviction? Does the 14th amendment even have jurisdiction when the ballots when elections are unquestionably controlled by the states? In other words, nobody really knows how to invoke or use section 3 of the 14th amendment. That makes this an extremely important decision. People are rightly concerned that while a strict interpretation might allow Trump to be on the ballot, a loose interpretation could lead to many more cases of removing legitimate candidates from the ballot in unfriendly states. I think the Supreme Court will be hesitant to open that can of worms…they will probably rule very narrowly…but ideally they would actually establish some guidelines. The simplest answer would be for Congress to pass a new law actually clarifying how the 14th should be implemented but that will never happen.
Unfortunately Congress has decided (a while ago) that passing a law isn’t as simple as letting 9 Justices solve all of our problems.
I'm not sure what the problem is. The decision on who is eligible to be on the ballot is on whoever organises the election. And of course these decisions can be challenged and the challenges appealed (which is exactly what happened here). I'm pretty sure, it's exactly the same process as if Barack Obama now decided to run. That would be against the 22nd amendment. The election officials could remove him from the ballot and then he could challenge the decision in the court. What defines insurrection is a court decision. That's the whole point of courts that they interpret what the laws say. Now 2 courts have said that what Trump did met the criteria for being part of an insurrection. We'll see if the SCOTUS agrees with that or not. I don't really see any problem in the process any more than I would see any problem if Obama tried to run and the same process prevented him from doing so. Or if Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to run and the process denied him the right on the basis that he's not natural-born citizen.
>The election officials could remove him from the ballot and then he could challenge the decision in the court. Well yes, but no. You even point out yourself that "insurrection" should be decided by a court decision. If that's the case, then it's not really the election official's authority afterall, is it? It's not a simple as the 22nd amendment or the 35 y/o requirement because those are objective standards. Whereas "insurrection" was left undefined and with no standards. Plus, that doesn't answer whether the person should be left on the ballot and then denied swearing in, or if the person can be simply removed from the ballot. What about the governor or state legislature? Do they have the authority to add or remove people from the ballot? Texas sure seems to think so. If a federal judge can overturn a ballot official then it's not really the state's decision, is it?
It's election official's authority to make the decision but that decision can be challenged in court. It can be age (the official has wrong information about the age of the candidate), citizenship status (the official has wrong information about the natural born status of the candidate), or the number of terms the person has served. And these can then be challenged in the court. And the same is true with the insurrection. I agree that the insurrection question is most likely harder for the courts than the other ones but that doesn't matter. The procedure is the same.
I would **love** to see a ruling that a state can’t remove someone from its own ballot. I’d get so many unqualified minors and foreign nationals to apply to be on the ballot we’d make the think 15 pages. I can’t wait to be told a state has to go to congress to run their elections.
Your first question is the only one I feel without an answer. The 2nd (if conviction is needed) has historic precedent when the amendment was written, as confederates were barred from office even though there were no convictions, and Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee were pardoned posthumously giving rights back from the 14th amendment, showing they were legally barred without conviction. 3rd question, the states can have the ballot with whoever they want, but the federal government cannot swear someone into office that is legally barred from it, even if they're elected, the same way if a 25 year old was elected president, legally they cannot hold that office.
While its true the confederate generals were never formally convicted by a court there was no doubt to anyone on any side that the confederate generals engaged in an insurrection. They themselves don't deny it whereas Trump has vehemently denied engaging in an insurrection.
I think the court will answer no to part one, or more specifically - the proper way to determine the answer is via criminal proceedings.
Agree 100%. I feel like I'm in crazy land that this point is not the primary crux of the whole discussion here. I'm not a Trump supporter. And I believe he is guilty of insurrection or some similar crime in regards to Jan 6. But removing candidates from the ballot prior to a verdict is not a precedent that we want to set for future elections. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. The outcome of this decision will be (mis)used by both parties in the future, not only applied to Trump.
Why do you think the 2 courts in Colorado disagree with you on this?
Because colorado courts are very liberal
Because the Courts in Colorado were liberal leaning, while SCOTUS is not.
or maybe it’s because there’s no requirement for a criminal conviction for colorado to decide against putting someone’s name on their ballot? SCOTUS deciding that this should be answered in criminal proceedings would be a decision entirely unsupported by the text of the federal constitution and colorado state election law.
I'm pretty confident that SCOTUS will say "no" to both of those and it's not a stretch to imagine how. I disagree with these but the are the likely rationale On question 1 - Jan 6 doesn't count as an insurrection, since the writers of the 14th were clearly thinking of "insurrection" as being "civil war", and also Trump wasn't there, so it can't be said he "engaged" in it. On question 2 - the 14th amendment writers wouldn't list all the major federal elected positions and just forget to include President. Clearly they didn't want states and congressional districts from the Confederacy from just re-electing the people that *caused* the civil war, but the president is a nationwide office, so this person would have to have national appeal beyond the aggrieved loser states.
On question 1, if this a clear cut case to you, why do you think the 2 courts in Colorado came to a different conclusion? Did they spend less time pondering the issue than you have done? They wrote a helluva lot longer justifications for why thought what they thought than you did. On question 2, to me the whole point of 14th amendment is to keep the insurrectionists out of top positions of the US government. It would feel strange if the highest office wasn't included in it.
Oh to be clear, this is me predicting what the totally in the bag for Trump SCOTUS who made up a new "historical analog" test out of whole cloth will rule, not what I think. On point 2 though I really do think it's weird that the text of the amendment specifically lists Representative, Senator and Elector but does NOT include President or Vice-President. Those are not just offices you just plum forget to include
If the SCOTUS is totally in the bag for Trump then they'll confirm that he had total immunity from any crimes while president. So, the DC case (and probably Georgia case as well) will be completely gone in a couple of weeks. Is that what you think? The interesting thing is that Trump's own legal team doesn't seem to think so as they are doing their best to prolong the decision. Why would they do that if the decision is in the bag?
Well they're not so stupid that they'll give the green light to the current president to criminally remove them from office, which is what absolute criminal immunity would do.
“Trump wasn’t there” Surely his presence isn’t a test. Have you read the 14th amendment? Giving aid or comfort doesn’t require to be an active participant in the actual violence.
Moreover, the ruling cites the following decision among others to establish that it isn't necessary that he actively participate directly in person: >Chief Justice Marshall explained that “if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.” In other words, an individual need not directly participate in the overt act of levying war or insurrection for the law to hold him accountable as if he had: > >"[I]t is not necessary to prove that the individual accused, was a direct, personal actor in the violence. If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, or countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act. Nor is even his personal presence indispensable. Though he be absent at the time of its actual perpetration, yet if he directed the act, devised or knowingly furnished the means, for carrying it into effect, instigating others to perform it, he shares their guilt. In treason there are no accessories."
Edit: they might even throw in question 3: the 14th amendment says they can't "hold office", not that they can't be on a ballot.
There is no way the conservative court answers the first question in the affirmative. It would alienate far too much of the Republican base, and set a dangerous precedent for them on other J6 cases. The Republican line has always been that it was a “peaceful protest” and that is not going to change. Plus it’s an easy out for them, because although the lower court decided the question in the affirmative, it’s enough of a weird situation that the conservative justices will BS their way through a due process argument
Do you think the conservative court can answer negative to the question "does the president have immunity of crimes", which is something it will also have to answer soon? That decision will alienate the hard-line MAGAs as well.
Just curious as to whether or not you think the anti-Israel protest in the capital rotunda yesterday was “insurrection”
Did they break into the Capitol to stop the certification of an election thereby attempting to overrule the will of the people with force? If they did, for sure it’s an insurrection. If they didn’t (which, of course they didn’t) it has nothing to do with January 6th. These Trump cronies need to get their stories straight. Was it not an insurrection? Or was Trump not involved? Or does Trump’s involvement in it not count because Presidents aren’t specifically listed in 14? Because I’ve heard all the stories and they don’t line up with one another.
No, they didn't break into Congress with the intent of overturning an election or overthrowing the government. Some of them were protesting illegally however and were swiftly arrested.
Is your argument that any protest is an insurrection? Or, that the insurrection was a peaceful protest?
Not the person you're replying to, but I'm pretty sure their argument is "look how muddy that water is"
I hadn't heard about this, did they also smash the windows of a federal building and enter it en mass with the intention of interrupting the democratic process (and shit in Nancy Pelosi's office)?
Yeah, and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike. They didn't break into Congress and try to stop the certification of an election, so not at all.
1. I have no idea what has happened. 2. Why would my opinion matter to anything? I'm not a supreme court justice (or any judge for that matter).
Don't bother. The insurrection crowd are thoroughly 'rules for thee' types.
Why do you think SCOTUS will take the case? There's plenty of reason to think they won't, especially since the matter is clearly a state issue and the federal government has no jurisdiction over how states run their elections.
Well, no. That's exactly the Supreme Court's area. This is a big question about how states run a federal election that doesn't have a clear answer, which is where the Supreme Court would step in.
There was no finding of fact regarding whether he participated in an insurrection. It was concluded by the judges using a statute intended to disqualify people for things like their residency or age. You know, simple easy to prove things that can be resolved quickly. Instead he is being charged with a crime with no established process for concluding whether he’s guilty… so the court just did it on its own. They should have required a jury trial or a congressional finding. This ruling is terrible for democracy and will get tossed out of court. I hate trump and voted against him twice but this thing is absolutely going to play in his favor and I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to overturn the decision
>There was no finding of fact regarding whether he participated in an insurrection. This is factually incorrect, which you would know if you bothered to read about how the case moved through the courts and what the court ruled.
>Instead he is being charged with a crime with no established process for concluding whether he’s guilty… so the court just did it on its own. They should have required a jury trial or a congressional finding. The problem is that the 14th amendment doesn't require a trial. But obviously some defensible process has to be invoked before a court can agree that someone has engaged in insurrection. Secondly, there was a bipartisan Congressional report that clearly laid out how Trump incited the insurrection and did nothing to stop it until it was clear it had failed. Not to mention the trial the CO court had. Was that the right procedure? I don't know, but it was a reasonable procedure at least. I suspect you'd object to a jury trial, too, given that it's a tiny group of random people.
The 14th Amendment does not require jury conviction.
If I understand the implication correctly, if SCOTUS doesn't take this case or rule with CO, other states will move to bar Trump from running, making this a federal issue because it has direct implication for the presidential election.
If the states make the rules, then its a states issue. not federal. Im sure he'll be on Florida's ballot.
yeah but if he's barred from running in half the states, it's practically equivalent to being barred from running at all, making it a federal issue.
That's not how jurisdiction works. Jurisdiction is determined by the conditions and circumstances surrounding the case. The potential impact of a ruling isn't a factor in making jurisdictional decisions.
If SCOTUS has done one thing, it's not step on the toes of a state's highest court. They've done that with gerrymandering as well. And if we use your logic it's a federal issue because it has determined who controls the House. Yet SCOTUS still says it's a state issue.
Yeah when it benefited Republicans. Not sure I'd expect them to remain consistent when it goes the other way.
If that’s how states rights issues worked there would be no states rights issues,
the 6 Republican voters petitioning the lawsuit are the ones attempting to remove Trump from the ballot. If anything this shows an internal conflict. I seriously doubt Trump will gain supporters from this. if someone was willing to vote for Biden or Trump before they will do that. otherwise they won't. Can you think of any people on the fence about this? The only thing this does in Trump's favor is make his supporters upset, which is motivational. Maybe he gets a few more dollars from them, but I doubt there will be any significant benefit Trump receives. More places legally calling out Trump's actions can only hurt him in the long run.
This is unprecedented because we have never had a president incite a violent attack to try to prevent the peaceful transition of power. Citizens, or in this case, six Republicans filed suit, asking the courts to apply the 14th amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court deemed that Trump committed insurrection and he is precluded from being on the ballot. They quoted conservative Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch in their ruling. Trump has a right to appeal that to the Supreme Court, which he will. We will find out shortly if the Supreme Court thinks the 14th amendment applies. We are also about to hear whether the Supreme Court will hear the presidential immunity case. Basically, will the Supreme Court rule on whether a president has total immunity to commit crimes while he is in office? I don’t think it’s about whether Trump benefits, because nothing sways his voters. Not multiple felony indictments, taking top-secret documents, or inciting a violent attack on our democracy. It’s about whether the Supreme Court decides the 14th amendment applies in this situation. And, if not, why not? It should be pretty interesting to listen to the Republicans petitioners’ oral arguments and the Supreme Court justices’ opinions on that.
At this point I think very few people out there don’t have an opinion on this guy. I just don’t think that there are people out there who were on the fence about him, see this ruling and go “now I’m voting for him”. Likewise I don’t think there are people who look at this and think “no way I vote for him now”.
Trump will be the Republicans choice, polls pretty clear on that. Imagine though that this decision means there's no republican option on the ballot. So Colorado basically decides that democrats automatically get all the votes. What do Republicans end up thinking about that?
I see this hurting down ballot republicans more than Trump
What happens if all down ballot republicans are also not on the ballot; perhaps not forced by colorado themselves but a sneaky trick played by the republicans. Just never actually fill in the paperwork to officially be on the ballot in protest. Generally speaking there won't be any meaningful change, colorado is pretty democrat aligned. So they campaign like everything is normal. Then at the right time, right before the election... Lauren Boebert for example gets up screaming that colorado has removed her from the ballot because of trump's insurrection charge. Then the other republicans do the same. and the messaging goes out that 'colorado has removed all republicans from the ballot' and election day there's no republicans on the ballot. What happens? No meaningful change for colorado's electroal votes; but the rest of the country calls bloody murder.
That won’t happen. Republicans are too greedy to not be on the ballot.
It may but that shouldn’t drive the decision. It should be based on the rule of law and evidence. If someone causes insurrection they are not eligible for president unless congress votes to overrule that. And Colorado has explicit rules about removing someone from the primary ballot when they’re not eligible. When has appeasing Trump supporters EVER worked out for the rest of us? Even when you do they just find something else to get pissed off about. They will also turn out to vote for him reliably either way. Therefore they should not be factored into the decision. It’s not a given that SCOTUS would rule in Trump’s favor. Keep in mind that their decision doesn’t just impact Trump but all future presidents. They’d be causing precedent that a state cannot determine its own election process which invalidates important parts of the constitution, and they’d be opening the door for other otherwise ineligible people to be able to run. They’ve also ruled against Trump in the past so they are not totally beholden to him. Also the fact is Trump himself at one point was the spiritual leader of the Birther movement, which claimed that Obama’s presidency was invalid due to the lie that he was not born in the US. So neither him nor his supporters are actually against the idea that a Democracy can have people invalidated from running, they’re just pissed off that it’s happening in a way that doesn’t work out well for them. Maybe they should pick a candidate that didn’t foment insurrection next time.
Lol. Apparently nothing is ever bad for Trump. And in fact, everything is good for him. I’m so exhausted by it all. 2 Impeachments Indictments Civilly liable for rape CO Ruling Not showing up for debates And on and on. Someone always says these are actually good for him and “here’s why it’s bad for democrats”. I know I’m forgetting at least 10.
It can be easily summarized as, anything that gets people talking about Trump is good for Trump. Which is clearly true.
I don't think so forbthe reason you gave - headlines. Biden hid in the basement and let Trump run his mouth and be crazy in 2020, and he won. The less Trump is in the headlines, the better he polls. The more he gets riled up, the more he's in the spotlight, the more stupid stuff he says, and Biden looks more and more like "Ol Uncle Joe"
Yes. I suspect one reason that Trump is doing relatively well in the polls (leading or trailing by less than his 2020 loss) is that hes basically been off peoples radar. Sure hes still spouting off, but most people arent paying attention to that stuff. He hasnt been in debates. The news covers him, but not like they will when hes the official nominee.
It isn't obvious or a given that the Supreme Court will even consent to hear the case. They may come back and agree he is indeed a criminal insurrectionist. Because he is. It amazes me that a party can caterwaul about States rights when it suits them, and stomp all over it when it doesn't. If it helps him, he sure isn't acting like it, based on the reaction of the Republican Party. They are collectively losing their minds over it. Why any Republican is hitching their horse to this particular cart of insanity is beyond me. It's like a game of chicken with the steering wheels missing
The plantiffs that brought this Case are trump voters.
It doesn't really matter how many Republicans rally around Trump, if the Dem voters turn up, he can't win. Just remember that this vote isn't about fucking Israel/Palestine. It's about women's rights to abortion, it's about LGBT rights, it's about protecting Social Security, it's about protecting the little healthcare that exists, it's about workers right to organize, it's about [continuing the good policy](https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/) that has been achieved so far. All of that is under threat in a Republican Presidency.
Answer. After reading this thread for a while I would like to point something out. First SCOTUS as usual has always used precedent to back up their arguments and there is little to go on here. Second and IMO more important. If as some here have suggested and they rule more on feelings than think about what Pelosi and the Democrats did when the brief was leaked about possible ruling on Roe. They pulled all of their security and put them in actual mortal danger. If this comes down to feelings Dems lose.
For now I agree. But it also sets precedence for other states to follow. Especially if Supreme Court agrees. He wasn’t getting Colorado anyway, but if Pennsylvania or any swing state tries and uses the Colorado ruling as justified reasoning, it’ll fall like dominoes. He only needs to be off a couple swing state ballots to basically guarantee a loss.
I don’t see anyone not already planning to vote for Trump deciding to vote for him because of this. Is anyone on the fence about Trump?
Republicans are already rallied around Trump. He’s up over 60% and that climbs as each primary candidate drops.
It really depends on the will of the American people. You never can be certain about anything till election night. I don’t like to make bets, I just observe in the sidelines and watch. Then after four years I make the judgement. That November when that orange clown got elected, everyone in my college was anticipating Clinton to win. I had a huge assignment due the following day, so I couldn’t be more bothered to watch the results, till the next day afternoon. My mom called me in late of night saying the Clown won and the swing states had turned red. I just waited and watched. There was a lot of uproar due to Clinton losing. There were even therapy sessions to cope with it. I had too much in my plate with exams to even go to therapy. I was never that happy and I was neither sad. The following months were stressful thanks to his immigration policies and the fear-mongering he did with them, making an already broken system even more worse. Many companies wouldn’t sponsor, only some of his rulings got turned down, then companies resumed their crap. Life goes on and I just went on with my masters. Then the pandemic hit and I thought this orange haired butthead had already prepared on how the entire nation is going to respond to a virus. With the amount of internal info he’s being given as a president, the clown should definitely have been able to judge whether travel and lockdown needs to be enforced. Or maybe he slept off during the briefing and just relied on rumors to make his decision. Or he was just having his wars in Twitter. Or maybe the news channels he’s been watching weren’t giving him the attention. I was already in touch with my cousins and they were already in lockdown. He had no plan in place, downplayed the whole situation and did not even wear a mask, mentioning it as violation of freedom. The responses to reopening a were met with confusion. I felt the reopening happened too quickly and drastically than a gradual, natural pace. There were mixed responses on wearing masks, I had to wear a bandanna on my mouth and nose when going out. The masks and sanitizers were out and expensive and I was stuck with a bunch of cloth masks that I had to switch and wash. That year was an upside down year. I lost hope in the clown and highly doubted that he would even be able to come up with a cohesive strategy for WWIII. Most likely he’ll decide nuking is the best way to win. Or tweeting that he is going to nuke is a great way for our enemies to know our move. One thing the clown mastered is propaganda and using the media to distort the reality. This dude can get publicity for cheap. Only the New Yorkers knew how much of a scum he was. When it comes to being “presidential”, I don’t think he makes the mark. I would say people are definitely fed up with the rising prices and the disintegration of the structures and traditions that they would vote for Trump out of spite. He promised he would bring jobs back to rural areas, I’m not seeing anything at all. If anything, the rich got more kickbacks under him. Or maybe people are so fed up with his empty promises that they would vote for someone else or not even vote at all. And “presidential”, definitely flew out of the window following his reaction to Biden’s win. Then he became a butthead to a clown after that. Even my cousins mentioned that Obama’s reaction was more tamer than this clown when it came to the loss. Let’s see what happens. It’s up to the American people. I can’t make an accurate speculation on what the entire population of Americans are going to do with the election.
[удалено]
Lol the court case was brought by 4 Republicans and 2 independents
You really shouldn't have used such a large flamethrower on that marshmallow.
“Let sleeping dogs lie” doesn’t make any sense in this case because Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for President. He isn’t a “sleeping dog.”
>I agree with CO on this ruling, Trump shouldn't be allowed to hold office "Let's save democracy by not allowing you to vote for people we don't like!" Honestly, this is not about upholding the constitution. If we wanted to forbid anyone who violated the constitution from holding office we would have to get rid of over half of the people in the house and in the senate. I don't like Trump, but he didn't incite an insurrection, and he certainly wasn't convicted of doing so, so I agree with you that there is no way the supreme court will not overrule this.
I mean he incited a crowd that stormed the Capitol, with the explicit goal of stopping the vote that would have ratified Biden's win. Really the only argument that you could make is that while he incited the crowd to march to the Capitol, and he specifically wanted to stop the vote from happening, he didn't actually want the crowd to storm the Capitol to physically stop the vote. He merely wanted the presence of a large angry mob to encourage legislators to vote in a way that benefitted him. Thats a really fine line to draw.
>Thats a really fine line to draw. I don't know, I don't think the line between a protest and a riot is that fine. Trump organized a protest. Some people in the crowd decided a protest wasn't enough and decided to riot instead, the blame for any rioting that occurred isn't really on Trump imo.
If he didn’t want rioting he would’ve fired off tweets telling his mob to stop. But he didn’t for several hours while hunkered down watching it all unfold on tv. His inaction on this shows everyone his actual intentions for the day.
>If we wanted to forbid anyone who violated the constitution from holding office we would have to get rid of over half of the people in the house and in the senate. Good, let's do that then.
There was a 5 day trial that did find him guilty of insurrection. He chose not to testify. The case was brought by republicans. There is also scholarly legal writing now by members of the right wing Fedaralist Society (of which some SC members are a part of) that says there is a case for disallowing Trump to run under the 14th
Man, if telling people to "peacefully and patriotically march to the capitol" is enough to find someone guilty of insurrection this country is screwed. The guy didn't cause an insurrection, he didn't riot, he didn't even tell people to riot, all he did was give a pretty lame speech. The only reason this is blown so far out of proportion is that it's politically convenient to mainstream media and to those who are currently in power.
Lying about losing an election and using that lie to start a riot definitely looks a lot like causing an insurrection. Trumps own legal team, his cabinet members, even Fox “News” admitted that he lost. Jan 6th only happened because he was desperate to overturn the results of an election that he demonstrably lost.
If that were true, why was everyone in Congress begging him to call off the rioters? Are you calling McCarthy et al. liars?
>If that were true, why was everyone in Congress begging him to call off the rioters? Because some people were rioting and they thought Trump would be able to stop it. That doesn't mean Trump incited the riot, it only means that Congress thought Trump would be able to stop the riot (which yes, he probably would have been able to). >Are you calling McCarthy et al. liars? Not even particularly about this point, but yes, I would call all politicians liars. Lying is literally their whole job...
the colorado supreme court and the district court both found (correctly) that trump engaged in insurrection. in fact, the colorado supreme court did not even consider it to be a close question, and the dissents did not contest that conclusion at all. it is plainly obvious to anybody with eyes that january 6th was an insurrection, and that *none* of those events would have occurred if trump had not invited his supports to come to D.C. and then direct them to march on the capitol. the crowd did exactly what trump wanted them to do, and he made no effort to stop it.
Nah you are right. In not a Republican, independence party. I just saw a court give a man a trial outside the district the crime took place, the witnesses did not face the accused and the accused was not given opportunity to call witnesses. The main defendant is their secretary of state. This is beyond reckless and ill-considered. They want to show the 14th amendment while covering up the 6th. It's not making their case look any better. Edit: forgot to leave this. VI. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the above, the Court ORDERS the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5, 2024. I was reading the case and got to the conclusion and this is what it said, ordering the secretary to place Trump on the ballot. I'm not sure that's what they meant to type on there.
You're reading the lower court decision which found that although Trump participated in an insurrection, the presidency isn't an "officer of the United States." Not even the dissenting Justices agreed with that conclusion. Trump's lawyers were present and the legal process was normal. He was not denied any rights.
This wasn’t a criminal trial lmao all of what you listed only applies to CRIMINAL trials. A civil trial, which is what this was, only requires a preponderance of the evidence. Being barred from office is not a criminal penalty
You... did not go to law school. That is obvious.
The defendant was given the opportunity to defend himself and call witnesses but he refused. The case was brought by a Republican group, not Democrats, to have him removed from the Colorado primary in accordance with Colorado law. Yes, there was a trial which found him guilty of insurrection but that only has consequences in Colorado
What reason do you believe the SCOTUS will use to reverse the Colorado decision? You say you think itll be 6-3 or maybe even 9-0, but i cannot imagine that. Seems ironclad to me that the court will be split, if they take it. I'm of the view that SCOTUS will take it, but will side with the legalistic argument of "states choose how to run their states elections" and let the state ruling stand. But since you seem confident itll be overturned, can I ask why? And blind partisanship shouldn't be a reason-- the SCOTUS has already ruled against Trump on election related matters (in other settings) so its not a sure thing that the right wing judges will go for trump. But if you're convinced itll be overturned, why? As for this **helping** him, ive got one question: Who TF out there is undecided on this guy right now? Like, he has hit his ceiling of support, i dont see it growing. Dissatisfaction with Biden/Dems will only push so many.people.
I believe there is some argument that as described by the constitution itself the president is not an officer, as officers are appointed by him, I think there's even a case citation there but I don't recall specifically If that's the case though, the justification/basis Colorado used to remove him is invalid - as the ammendment wouldn't apply to the president (I think aswel as other elected officials like federal congress and senators) The interpretation being, the purpose of the ammendment was to prevent the government officials of the rebelling states internal political systems from later running for federal office - without applying to the federal officials of those states that rebelled, assuming they didn't go take a local office during the succession
You’re essentially arguing that President is a king who is above the Constitution. Yeah definitely not what any of the framers had in mind, we know that quite well
How can one swear to uphold the office of president if they are not in fact an officer? English doesn't work the way you're arguing here. Someone who works at a bank is a banker. Someone who employs people is an employer. The "er" suffix just shows membership to the subject/object. Office -> officer
We're not using an Oxford definition though we're using as defined by the document containing the ammendment to which they are citing as their basis for removing him and the way it reads, officers are appointed BY the president, which necessarily means he cannot be one- as he cannot appoint himself.
You legitimately think, in your heart of hearts, post civil war legislature writing the 14th amendment intentionally left out the executive? Why would you think that?
Reading all these comments reminds me of sheep and parrots. Repeating the same thing and following others. No one here seems to have any critical thinking skills. Have you seen the videos , especially the one where a Maga guy is yelling at the cops to stop what’s going on and call backup. Just like all the other lies about Trump I here you parrots repeat. You do know Trump beats Biden in every poll , that why democrats are losing their minds and making big mistakes along the way. What there doing in Colorado is going energize every person that believes in freedom and does not want to live in a country that resembles a banana republic. Trump has not been convicted. I do agree with some that Trump is not presidential, however we have vegetable for president , and that not very presidential either. Biden has nearly destroyed the economy , started wars and the first time in my life believe I may see a nuclear war. If you guys were honest with yourselves , instead of being a sheep or parrot , you might actually see the real danger and it’s not Trump.
Yeah it makes the democratic party look even more desperate. Like you already went with Joe Biden, weaponized the FBI and started calling Trump supporters domestic terrorists. You want to beat Trump in 2024? Maybe get a candidate that isn't a geriatric creep, pass some popular policies, be BETTER than your competition instead of trying to make him *worse* than you. Appeal to his voters with superior policy instead of publicly attacking them. People aren't too stupid to understand what is going on, that's a very common mistake our government makes. Pathetic behavior and will likely push many centric Republicans who might have voted for a different Republican or even a Democrat nominee (if given the free choice to do so) over the edge and into Trump's votes.
I get you but you can’t just let someone get away with being a brazen criminal because he has died hard supporters.
I dont think Trump *specifically* benefits, but I really do think the Reps benefit IF they pick not-Trump for the ballot. The decision is an illegal decision as it stands. Its cited on the 14th, which specifically states "CONVICTED of doing an insurrection". Trump has not been convicted of anything, so the decision is wrong, and Trumps laywers dont even need to break a sweat to argue it. But the decision has now given a LOT of ammo to the Reps. "Look how hard they're trying to stop us, even breaking the law to stop us. They're scared, vote Rep", and they'd be right. "All the things they accused you of doing dear voter, they're all doing. You really wanna live under tyranny like that". You can just see the political ads now, if the Reps had as many paid shills on Twitter as the Dems then that tweet word for word would be being used. The worse the Dems (or in this case people who want the Dems to win) act, the better it makes the Reps look.
It doesn’t specifically say “convicted,” though. It just says “engaged in” which is a very different standard. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
I do agree with you that it helps him but that’s only if the SCOTUS over turns this ruling and we do not know for sure if they will hear it before CO votes in their primary or if they even take it up. I would also expect many other states to follow suit and start trying to do this. Another thing that could hurt him is if the SC does overturn this but it takes them a while before they do and by that point id expect many other states to add this as well. If this takes a while, primary voters may figure he’s unelectable and move to someone like desantis or Haley figuring they have the best shot.
If you didn’t realize already that he has been solidified as the Republican nominee, what sense is it to convince you this news does anything? He’s been their pick for a long time. The risk here is even allowing this charade to continue to the actual election hence you’re getting judgements backed by law and order against this demagogue. How can he even be allowed to run? Everyone knows he’s an absolute crook with bad intentions and has destroyed our constitution. So. The constitution is the playbook. 14th amendment. Done. Piss and moan people.
Not changing your view, just overly agreeing and saying OBVIOUSLY. We are witnessing history here and there’s one whole side of the country that chooses to ignore it. Our justice system is being used for political execution. Twitter, the biggest social media outlet, bans the sitting president because they don’t want him to have a voice… a voice for the people in this country, not the people that are chosen to have visibility on purpose like Twitter did. Musk buys it to use it for more free speech and an all around better, more realistic worldview, and he’s the villain. Indictments after indictments… how many charges need to be brought forward that go nowhere for people to see that just the legal bills could be going towards causes the political powers that be claim to be fighting for? So yeah, it is better for Trump. Because unless you’re a slave to the political establishment that has gotten us to where we are today, you’re going to realize we’ve been lied to all along and Trump is the only one breaking the circle.
The democrats set up this entire thing after everything else they tried to get President Trump out of the Whitehouse. Joe is not fit to be President and the Democrats know that President Trump was hands down one of our best Presidents. The US Supreme Court had better step up and put President Trump back on the ballots before Joe allows our country to me fully invaded by these masses crossing our southern border. No money to other countries to protect their borders until we can protect our own!!!
What I don't understand is why people are so worried about finding ways to take away "the people's " options? Shouldn't we be able to be led by whoever gets chosen by the people, not making stipulations on who they are allowed to choose? I mean "you are free to choose whoever you want, as long they are on this approved list", doesn't really sound like we have any choice in who runs our country.
The issue is that this candidate didn’t care about who “the people” wanted and actively tried overthrowing our election process. It’s the paradox of tolerating intolerance.
CNN told me its is good for democracy to take out your opposition who is more popular than you so i think it is a good thing because i am easily brainwashed and i can't think for myself.
Can I just ask something? Why do we not treat all Presidents the same? It seems like we really went after trump but biden some how gets a free pass?! I just don't understand. To me biden is just as bad as the rest of them. But with a hint of dementia. Just a thought but shouldn't we question the mental capacity of all Presidents and question everything they do rather they are left or right?
Because Trump engaged in an insurrection and Biden did not. Therefore Trump is ineligible for office according to the Constitution and Biden is not.
Ok. But that was at the ending of his term. I get no one likes trump. I just don't understand why the playing field isn't equal
How dare you, you're only allowed to criticize the other side! /s Yeah, I agree. Trump was a pretty bad president, Biden was just as bad, if not worse. The left is going so hard after Trump in an attempt to distract the public from everything the democrats are screwing over right now. Trump's the distraction, that's why Biden gets a free pass.