I am mightily disappointed

I am mightily disappointed

Debates

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8691
243d

I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question. The one really pertinent question is: based on the 14 Amendment, could a state have barred Jeff Davis from being a Senator or an Elector, but NOT have barred him from being president? Yes or no. If a state could NOT have barred Davis from the presidency, then Trump can be on the ballot in CO and every other state. If a state could have barred Davis from the presidency, as well as from the Senate and from being an Elector, then CO CAN bar Trump from being on the ballot, and every other state can decide for itself whether to put him on the ballots or not, because the Constitution specifically states that states regulate federal elections.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ballot/index.html

k
Flexible

The wrong side of 60

Joined
22 Dec 11
Moves
37246
243d
1 edit

@moonbus said
I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question. The one really pertinent question is: based on the 14 Amendment, could a state have barred Jeff Davis from being a Senator or an Elector, but NOT have barred him from being president? Yes or no. If a state could N ...[text shortened]... ions.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ballot/index.html
I think for the sake of order over chaos it was probably the right decision. If every state can debar a candidate from the ballot you might as well do away with presidential elections as they are and just have a truly open POTUS election where the candidate with the most votes wins.
Actually that is how it should be anyway rather than this gerrymandered system the US has now, whereby unpopulated rural states can swing the election on a minority vote.

Misfit Queen

Isle of Misfit Toys

Joined
08 Aug 03
Moves
37173
243d
1 edit

@kevcvs57 said
I think for the sake of order over chaos it was probably the right decision. If every state can debar a candidate from the ballot you might as well do away with presidential elections as they are and just have a truly open POTUS election where the candidate with the most votes wins.
Actually that how it should be anyway rather than this gerrymandered system the US has now.
But we have a Constitutional Amendment that exactly dictates how people can make themselves ineligible to run. There shouldn't be any "wiggle room" to make it different based on what state it is. The Amendment is clear.

Every bit of confusion on this is fabricated by Trump loyalists.

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8691
243d
2 edits

@suzianne said
But we have a Constitutional Amendment that exactly dictates how people can make themselves ineligible to run. There shouldn't be any "wiggle room" to make it different based on what state it is. The Amendment is clear.

Every bit of confusion on this is fabricated by Trump loyalists.
Agreed. Trump’s council was slitting hairs over whether the president is an officer and presidency is an office. The language of the amendment is so bloody obvious. The reason why Senators and Electors were mentioned at all is that Senators have a SEAT not an office, and an Elector has neither a seat, like a Senator, nor an office, like the president. I was just gritting my teeth through the whole procedure. If an insurrectionist can’t VOTE for a president, as an Elector, it can only mean the authors of the amendment meant that an insurrectionist cannot BE president.

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8691
243d

@kevcvs57 said
I think for the sake of order over chaos it was probably the right decision. If every state can debar a candidate from the ballot you might as well do away with presidential elections as they are and just have a truly open POTUS election where the candidate with the most votes wins.
Actually that is how it should be anyway rather than this gerrymandered system the US has now, whereby unpopulated rural states can swing the election on a minority vote.
Each state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.

w

Joined
20 Oct 06
Moves
9624
243d
1 edit

@moonbus said
Each state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.
I think the justices were concerned that the decision of one state would impact all states elections for president, who may decide to include that candidate on the ballot. Colorado's decision potentially disenfranchises the voters in other states.

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
53878
243d

@moonbus said
Agreed. Trump’s council was slitting hairs over whether the president is an officer and presidency is an office. The language of the amendment is so bloody obvious. The reason why Senators and Electors were mentioned at all is that Senators have a SEAT not an office, and an Elector has neither a seat, like a Senator, nor an office, like the president. I was just gritting my t ...[text shortened]... or, it can only mean the authors of the amendment meant that an insurrectionist cannot BE president.
Was Trump an insurrectionist? Just curious.

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
53878
243d

@moonbus said
Each state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.
Moonbus says states control a federal electoin for President where I make my decision, on my own, without State interference, to vote in the federal election. Your comment is not exactly correct. A state by your logic cluld tell me that I cannot vote in a federal election.

rain

Joined
08 Mar 11
Moves
12456
243d

@wildgrass said
I think the justices were concerned that the decision of one state would impact all states elections for president, who may decide to include that candidate on the ballot. Colorado's decision potentially disenfranchises the voters in other states.
That makes sense.

Trump accused Biden of being an "insurrectionist" over Colorado removing Trump from the ballot, and then accused him of "weaponizing" the DOJ to do do.

If red states fall in line with Trump's accusations, they could remove Biden from ballots.

It was ultimately the right decision.

rain

Joined
08 Mar 11
Moves
12456
243d

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-insurrectionist-biden-colorado-disqualify-ballot-1854407

Donald Trump Rages at 'Insurrectionist' Joe Biden

k
Flexible

The wrong side of 60

Joined
22 Dec 11
Moves
37246
243d
1 edit

@moonbus said
Each state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.
I’m not convinced that would work though, how many states could Biden be debarred from because of the bogus ‘money for influence’. fiasco
I know trumps an insurrectionist wannabe dictator and you probably do too, but he hasn’t been found guilty of it yet, or has he
I think the whole electoral system in the US is a disenfranchising farce.
We need to think about why the non trump judges seemed to go along with the decision.
The more important decision is the one regarding immunity for ex presidents regardless of crimes committed whilst in office, if he can swing that one the US is even more doomed than it is now.

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8691
243d
2 edits

@wildgrass said
I think the justices were concerned that the decision of one state would impact all states elections for president, who may decide to include that candidate on the ballot. Colorado's decision potentially disenfranchises the voters in other states.
The disenfranchisement is entirely Trump's doing; Trump is the one who tried to disenfranchise all the people who voted for Biden in 2020. A man who tried to overturn an election should not be in office.

Secondly, no one is disenfranchised if the candidate is barred because he is not 35 yrs old or older, not a resident for a certain period of time, and/or not a natural born citizen. So, no one is disenfranchised if a candidate falls afoul of the 14th Amendment clause.

Über-Nerd

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8691
243d

@kevcvs57 said
I’m not convinced that would work though, how many states could Biden be debarred from because of the bogus ‘money for influence’. fiasco
I know trumps an insurrectionist wannabe dictator and you probably do too, but he hasn’t been found guilty of it yet, or has he
I think the whole electoral system in the US is a disenfranchising farce.
We need to think about why the ...[text shortened]... imes committed whilst in office, if he can swing that one the US is even more doomed than it is now.
The 14th Amendment specifies one specific ground for disqualification, and money for influence isn't it.

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
53878
243d
1 edit

We need to think about why the non trump judges seemed to go along with the decision.
?WHAT????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Because they are learned in the purpose and in the application of the Consititution. They can only see it the way it is, all buttoned up, it will be a 9-0 decision. What does your sentence here mean, what are you sahyng or implying? You seem to be saying that the judges appointed by Trump will vote in his favor because he appointed smart constitutional lawyers,,,,or what, I am confused myself by your statements. And are you suggesting that thel liberal judges sjhould have cast legal deliberations aside and made their one objective be that of sticking it to Trump?
You then have no respect for SCOTUS. Sad.

Lake Como

Joined
27 Jul 10
Moves
53878
242d
1 edit

@moonbus said
I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question.
The reason the didn't bother to ask was they knew all the answers before they walked up to the bench. Do you actually think these lawyers enlightened the judges with anything that they did not know all ready? hahaha

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.