OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Neither does shingles but there's shots for that.
Guess there is for republicans too but those are illegal.
TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
Guess there is for republicans too but those are illegal.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
In red states though …Neither does shingles but there's shots for that.
Guess there is for republicans too but those are illegal.
H G Griffin
Well-Known Member
Offmymeds
Well-Known Member
It would be nice if Cannon makes such another egregious error that she gets removed.
printer
Well-Known Member
Raskin predicts Supreme Court will allow Trump to be on Colorado ballot
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor, said he believes the Supreme Court will allow former President Trump to be on the Colorado ballot, but it may be up to Congress to decide.
Colorado’s high court kicked Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment in a 4-3 ruling Tuesday, affirming he engaged in insurrection by enraging his supporters and directing them to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The controversial decision will likely head to the Supreme Court, where Raskin told The Washington Post he thinks the argument to keep Trump on the ballot lies in the text of the amendment.
Raskin said he agreed with the Colorado court’s ruling that Jan. 6 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it.
The Maryland lawmaker predicts the Supreme Court will “gather around the idea that this is not a fit matter for the court to decide and it’s really up to Congress.”
“I suspect that is where Trump’s supporters will congregate,” he added.
Raskin, who served as the impeachment manager for Trump’s second impeachment, was referring to a line in the third section of the 14th Amendment, which states “Congress may by a vote of two-third of each House, remove such disability.”
The Colorado ruling argues that inciting an insurrection is subject to traditional judicial decision-making, Raskin noted.
He said he believes the conservative justices will “undoubtedly argue” that the two-third requirement for overruling disqualification “indicates that it’s within congressional control exclusively.”
“I assume that they are going to figure out what they think their best target is and then focus on that,” he told the Post. “A kitchen-sink approach doesn’t help them too much here.”
A kitchen-sink approach, he added, risks the justices “flailing about, just trying to throw a bunch of Hail Marys”
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4371190-raskin-supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot/
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor, said he believes the Supreme Court will allow former President Trump to be on the Colorado ballot, but it may be up to Congress to decide.
Colorado’s high court kicked Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot under the 14th Amendment in a 4-3 ruling Tuesday, affirming he engaged in insurrection by enraging his supporters and directing them to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The controversial decision will likely head to the Supreme Court, where Raskin told The Washington Post he thinks the argument to keep Trump on the ballot lies in the text of the amendment.
Raskin said he agreed with the Colorado court’s ruling that Jan. 6 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it.
The Maryland lawmaker predicts the Supreme Court will “gather around the idea that this is not a fit matter for the court to decide and it’s really up to Congress.”
“I suspect that is where Trump’s supporters will congregate,” he added.
Raskin, who served as the impeachment manager for Trump’s second impeachment, was referring to a line in the third section of the 14th Amendment, which states “Congress may by a vote of two-third of each House, remove such disability.”
The Colorado ruling argues that inciting an insurrection is subject to traditional judicial decision-making, Raskin noted.
He said he believes the conservative justices will “undoubtedly argue” that the two-third requirement for overruling disqualification “indicates that it’s within congressional control exclusively.”
“I assume that they are going to figure out what they think their best target is and then focus on that,” he told the Post. “A kitchen-sink approach doesn’t help them too much here.”
A kitchen-sink approach, he added, risks the justices “flailing about, just trying to throw a bunch of Hail Marys”
thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4371190-raskin-supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot/
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
Following Colorado, 16 more US states have filed lawsuits to keep Donald Trump out of the election
Lawsuits have been filed in 16 US states to keep Donald Trump out of the Republican Party primaries for the 2024 presidential election.
The lawsuits have been filed in Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York and other states. In Arizona and Michigan, courts initially dismissed the lawsuits but approved them after appeals.
Trump's opponents are demanding that the former president not be allowed to run, citing a constitutional amendment. This provision prohibits officials from holding public office if they participated in a rebellion (in Trump's case, it is the storming of the Capitol in January 2021).
Lawsuits have been filed in 16 US states to keep Donald Trump out of the Republican Party primaries for the 2024 presidential election.
The lawsuits have been filed in Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York and other states. In Arizona and Michigan, courts initially dismissed the lawsuits but approved them after appeals.
Trump's opponents are demanding that the former president not be allowed to run, citing a constitutional amendment. This provision prohibits officials from holding public office if they participated in a rebellion (in Trump's case, it is the storming of the Capitol in January 2021).
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
thought it was up to congress to put him back on, not SCOTUS, according to the amendment? I could be wrong
EhCndGrower
Well-Known Member
You gotta love this little detail for the reason why they kick the orange one off the ballot in their decision.
In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court quoted Neil Gorsuch, who was a Colorado judge when he blocked a presidential candidate from the state ballot in 2012. In the 2012 ruling, Gorsuch noted that the independent candidate, Abdul Hassan, was born in Guyana, which excluded him from running for president and that Colorado has the right to set its own ballot rules.
"One of the things that you'll find in this ruling is some reliance is based on writings of Neil Gorsuch -- Justice Gorsuch -- and what he had to say about protecting ballots from people who did not belong on them," Nicolais told CBS News after Tuesday's Colorado Supreme Court decision. "So I think there's actually a very good chance we can win at the U.S. Supreme Court level."
www.newsweek.com
In its decision, the Colorado Supreme Court quoted Neil Gorsuch, who was a Colorado judge when he blocked a presidential candidate from the state ballot in 2012. In the 2012 ruling, Gorsuch noted that the independent candidate, Abdul Hassan, was born in Guyana, which excluded him from running for president and that Colorado has the right to set its own ballot rules.
"One of the things that you'll find in this ruling is some reliance is based on writings of Neil Gorsuch -- Justice Gorsuch -- and what he had to say about protecting ballots from people who did not belong on them," Nicolais told CBS News after Tuesday's Colorado Supreme Court decision. "So I think there's actually a very good chance we can win at the U.S. Supreme Court level."
Supreme Court boxed into corner over Donald Trump decision
Donald Trump has been removed from the Colorado ballot, but the U.S. Supreme Court may be able to save his candidacy.
www.newsweek.com
printer
Well-Known Member
No, you are right. But with three "My judges" you never know (yet).
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
true, plus we don't know what the other states will do as well...
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Closed Sunday for sermon
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
trust red states to have blue laws
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This is Dershowitz's reasoning on the matter.
"It's as clear as could be that the 14th amendment could only be implemented by Congress, not by state legislatures"
I think he's referring to the section 5 of the 14th:
"Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
To me, the language of section 3 makes it clear that, just like the age and citizenship requirements that are spelled out in the Constitution, no person who held an office and made an oath to support the Constitution and then "engaged in insurrection" may hold office ever again -- UNLESS Congress removes that disqualification. The Colorado legislature did not take a role in this, so I have no idea what Dershowitz is referring to but the wording is clear. There is no need for Congress to implement the 14th, the Constitution clearly spells out the few qualifications a president must meet and Trump is as disqualified as any 25 year old is to hold the office of president. To the Supreme Court of Colorado, it was also clear to them.
Then again, the right wing SCOTUS also ruled that corporations are people, so who knows how they will see this issue.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
yeah Dersh from what i'm hearing is talking about sec: 5 not section 3.....
for some reason i got a strange feeling that SCOTUS won't take this up for some reason, cause simple in section 3 it doesn't say SCOTUS, it says CONGRESS, and both houses for that matter.....kinda like a reverse impeachment...then again like you said we are dealing with a Right Wing Scotus, so who knows what they're gonna do.......
im kinda itching since this ruling what the other states are gonna do now? could get interesting...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Ho Ho Ho
Merry Christmas and a Happy Sue Year!
Group sues Oregon Secretary of State Griffin-Valade to keep Trump off ballot
The national advocacy group trying to block former President Donald Trump from appearing on primary ballots sued in the Oregon Supreme Court.
www.opb.org
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
whoa!....welp here we go.....Ho Ho Ho
Merry Christmas and a Happy Sue Year!
Group sues Oregon Secretary of State Griffin-Valade to keep Trump off ballot
The national advocacy group trying to block former President Donald Trump from appearing on primary ballots sued in the Oregon Supreme Court.www.opb.org
Merry Christmas and Happy Sue Year.....
this is gonna be great, i'm gonna have to get some more popcorn....
Come on Oregon
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Goddamn, That Man is really, really stupid. It's as if a toddler morphed into the body of a 70-plus year old billionaire.
Mr. Trump said his nominees had abandoned him, blaming his losses on the justices’ eagerness to participate in Washington social life and to assert their independence from the charge that “they’re my puppets.”
He added: “And now the only way they can get out of that because they hate that it’s not good in the social circuit. And the only way they get out is to rule against Trump. So let’s rule against Trump. And they do that.”
www.nytimes.com
Anyway, Trump's record on rulings from this right of far right court should not give his sect much confidence in "his judges" throwing away reason and finding for him regardless of the facts or what the law says. OK, so, small comfort that but I'll take it.
Mr. Trump said his nominees had abandoned him, blaming his losses on the justices’ eagerness to participate in Washington social life and to assert their independence from the charge that “they’re my puppets.”
He added: “And now the only way they can get out of that because they hate that it’s not good in the social circuit. And the only way they get out is to rule against Trump. So let’s rule against Trump. And they do that.”
New Trump Cases Shadowed by Rocky Relationship With Supreme Court
Though he appointed three justices, his administration had the worst track record before the justices since at least the 1930s.
Anyway, Trump's record on rulings from this right of far right court should not give his sect much confidence in "his judges" throwing away reason and finding for him regardless of the facts or what the law says. OK, so, small comfort that but I'll take it.
