What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518001#Comment_121518001

I feel a massive headache coming on...

“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution," said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.

"Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.

“If they wanted to include in the reach of Section Three, they could have done so by expanding the language of which type of oath would bring an ‘officer’ under the strictures of Section Three.

“They did not do so, and no number of semantical arguments will change this simple fact. As such, Section Three does not apply to President Trump.”

"No number of semantical arguments will change this point we're making via the most mealy-mouthed cowardly semantics you'll ever see."

'support' is not covered by 'preserve, protect and defend'???

The headache is getting worse...

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517822#Comment_121517822

As I understand how this works , SCOTUS will be asked only to rule on the determination of whether of nor the Insurrection act applies to the Office of President - Which is what was sent to the Colorado Supreme Court by the lower court Judge.

I don't think they can decide on whether he's guilty of Insurrection or otherwise , unless there is a challenge on a specific point of law.

SCOTUS cannot rule on evidence or otherwise , they can only rule on matters of the application of law.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518060#Comment_121518060

That makes sense, and if so, then perhaps that cuts off the likelihood of cases against Biden being brought (other than nonsensical lawsuits, which probably are happening now and don't make the news.)

So, it seems there were cases in Minnesota and Michigan, and the Michigan one is being appealed (Court found for Trump keeping him on the ballot), so maybe this new ruling will help with these cases.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-michigan-appeal-c6b66ef9ed85734305ff2dd27023447d

briany

Wonder what DeSantis and Haley are thinking. One thought must be that if Trump is struck off enough ballots, they might stand a chance.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518092#Comment_121518092

I imagine all the GQP candidates will try to hang on till the bitter end. Biden wants TFG on the ballot imo, as he can portray himself as the alternative to chaos. If the SCOTUS amazingly issues a ruling that invalidates TFG from running anywhere, I think the phrase 'the fur's gonna fly' will be an understatement because any of them, especially the more articulate ones like Haley and Christie, would give Biden quite the run for the money.

Oh, and TFG's MAGAts can always write in his name. Won't that be amusing...

briany

@Igotadose

Biden wants TFG on the ballot imo, as he can portray himself as the alternative to chaos

Possible miscalculation. Chaos is the very thing a lot of American voters could want in November 2024, or at least see it as preferable to staid politics of old.

Oh, and TFG's MAGAts can always write in his name. Won't that be amusing...

Yes, but that would be a spoiled ballot if Trump had been struck off and wouldn't count.

MICKEYG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517893#Comment_121517893

No

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517808#Comment_121517808

It doesn't. This is called cherrypicking. You've taken an example from a country where the candidate with the most votes can somehow lose.

Trump incited a coup. He shouldn't be allowed to be a clerk on whatever the US equivalent of the local council is, never mind president.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517905#Comment_121517905

First can you clarify for the sake of openness: do you believe Trump has authoritarian designs; given recent comments, or comments about "Article 2", or indeed his appointments to the SC including those who believe(?) in the Unitary Executive Theory? Seems like your comments operate under the presumption that he's merely Just Another Candidate.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518092#Comment_121518092

What they're thinking is that they're so deep into the Sunk Cost of MAGA, they cannot countenance a path to victory that might amount to "Fúck That Guy" WRT Trump, and that the floating moderate voter isn't apparently as prevalent as the MAGA one.

MICKEYG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517905#Comment_121517905

If you can find qualified judges who behave in this manner and can defend their decisions in a coherent way then I assume you can. I am not sure how you get around it. You rely on honest actors getting to that level of power. If you do get judges making decisions with no legal grounds then the US is in big trouble. In the case of Colorado, the legal reasoning (to my unskilled eyes) looks sound.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518198#Comment_121518198

Yes, to answer my own question:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5dk7z50CQg

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518156#Comment_121518156

They would indeed be spoiled votes which hurts the GOP candidate.

Trumps removal via the 14th Amendment would present a real challenge for whoever gets to be the GOP candidate.

In order to keep the MAGA's in line they'd have to peddle the "Miscarriage of Justice" line and make all kinds of veiled promises to "do something about it , if elected" etc.

That then potentially damages them with the independents who do want Trump.

If they lean away and play the "Time to move on and do what's best" angle , they lose the MAGA's who either don't vote or spoil the votes by writing in Trumps name.

Either way they'll be dancing on the head of a pin trying to alienate as few voters as possible.

Brief_Lives

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518092#Comment_121518092

its very sad actually. Nearly all of Trump's 2024 Republican rivals back him after Colorado ruling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5dk7z50CQg

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518353#Comment_121518353

Sad, but oh so utterly predictable.

Spineless cowards one and all.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518232#Comment_121518232

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518358#Comment_121518358

I suppose to counter my own point: it's not just a belief MAGA votes are more "valuable", but also holding out hope that if they keep their collective tongues rammed up Trump's posterior, they'll get some choice positions at the White House.

Trump had it quite clear that he's petty, impulsive and treats any "disloyalty" as a vendetta to pursue: so on the off chance he wins in 2024, they're presumably keeping themselves safe from repercussions. Trump has overtly said he's gonna get revenge on people.

Brief_Lives

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518358#Comment_121518358

the news anchor made a great comment about the GOP, " they are too scared to fight, so they are too weak to win".

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518396#Comment_121518396

None of them believe they can win but they think that by being involved they help their profile somehow in the hopes of some future opportunity.

It's all just underhanded self-serving cowardice.

AMKC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517848#Comment_121517848

Delighted for trump and hopefully the SCOTUS can make it stick so Trump never even gets whitin 50 Mike's or even more of the White House ever again.

As for actors do WTF,

"This presupposes the belief that the candidate in question isn't a Bad Actor and wannabe dictator by their own words. You can quibble insurrection if you wish, but subversion was the clear intent of Jan 6th onwards. And now, the courts are agreeing"

This is politics ye are talking about people not actors in Hollywood or Bollywood. I am sick if this evertime someone does something there are called an actor on the news etc.

I know there is two definitions for actors but in my opinion the second one is stupid. An actor is a person who plays a part in a film or a series on T.V or in Movies not all this **** when they mention actors not doing that on the news. The managed not doing that 5 to 10 years ago so why niw? It's stupid.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517905#Comment_121517905

How could you get into power if your a bad actor lol unless it's some low down crap TV show.

Actors are people who work in Hollywood or Bollywood to star in a film or a series not this sh-it ye are talking about.

MICKEYG

Just a quick (long) note around judicial appointments. In any jurisdiction someone needs to appoint them and so there is always the risk they will be appointed for political reasons, or the appointee is picked as their previous rulings are in line with the appointers own beliefs.

What should not happen is that judge then deciding to rule in favour of the appointer, or other person or persons, with no reference to law. The whole idea is that the law is sperate to politics and must make its decision independently. Now a judge may lean in one way or another where the law is not clear but they still must back up their decision.

In the Trump case, to say that the Colorado decision is political is incorrect as the judges (some dissenting) gave legal reasonings which I (and others more unqualified than me) deem sound. This will again be challenged at the Supreme Court which may rule differently but again they must explain why.

If the ruling goes "against" you, you can't just say "political interference". You must say "this is wrong on grounds of law as the judge said Y while I think it is X". You may have a case but it is up to the judges to decide.

Where I would be very worried is where a judge clearly makes a decision with no "leaning" but with a clear unsupported bias. When that happens your democracy is under real threat. Remember, democracy is not just about voting, it is about robust institutions, the legal system being one.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518503#Comment_121518503

In the US, most Judicial positions are elected, hence the original OP's rant about politics and judging.

Leroy42

As usual, their claims only show the way they think of these things. They think that everyone must be like them, completely partisan and willing to make and break rules that suit them.

Of course, they are the first to push away any claims that the police are biased against minorities, or that the legal system is. They always retort that the law is applied equally. Until that is, the law doesn't find in their favour then it all must be a political game and is being biased against them.

PropJoe10

Justice Luttig seems to think that the Colorado decision is legally sound, and he's meant to be one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in the country. I cannot see any way that the USSC will want to involve itself in taking the leading GOP candidate off the ballot, though. I reckon this decision is 90% certain to be reversed.

erlichbachman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518503#Comment_121518503

No leaning, and unbiased, are you having a laugh, it’s just as well for the sake of democracy in the US that these judges, which are leaning, and are biased, will be overruled by a higher court.

MICKEYG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518885#Comment_121518885

....who in turn could be leaning and biased?

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121518885#Comment_121518885

A higher court whose make-up has been given a demonstrably conservative bent through the Trump presidency; don't criticise biased courts when the highest one in the country is just as - if not even more - biased on key issues.

Agent Coulson

Kari Lake the next Trump mouthpiece to face defamation lawsuit after judge dismissed her lawyers request to have it thrown out.

Her lawyers basic defence is Lake believes what she say so she can't be found guilty.

https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/kari-lake-courts-lawsuits-2022-election-arizona/article_5cd90e7e-9e95-11ee-9b6e-6bdb759630b9.html

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121519495#Comment_121519495

Perfect Trump VP material.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121519527#Comment_121519527

Hogs the limelight too much for trump's liking I'd reckon

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121519586#Comment_121519586

As base as it sounds, she's pretty, and Trump likes pretty things. He already has the evangelicals, so doesn't need to worry about them.

I wonder what would happen if a president had an affair with the vice-president?

PropJoe10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121519495#Comment_121519495

That's like walking into a bank, saying that everyone's money in the bank belongs to you, walking out with it, and then claiming that the bank can't have it back because you believe the money is yours. So basically, a perfect Trumpian strategy of utter stupidity.