2024

[Shirley]

zsn, Gutter might, might, have his shortcomings, but calling him a rube seems harsh!

[DCHawk1]

This is an insane person.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/sta ... 1066496219

[jfish26]

I don’t believe the substantive things are unrelated.

I also don’t believe Putin’s birthday had fuck-all to do with Israel.

[Sparko]

If you are trying to draw Russia into your conflict, or flatter Putin, the date was nice. The conflict has drawn attention away from Ukraine and I am sure there are some pieces we don't yet see in open sources.

[jfish26]

There's no quicker route to a civil war than a bunch of democrats removing a republican from ballots in states across the country. It's an awful precedence, and nothing I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime

Whah!!! Cry me a river.

Seeing a cult-leader try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our nation's ~ 240 year history because he's too much of a pussy to admit he lost by whipping up his sore loser cult members is nothing we thought we'd ever see in our lifetimes, either.

Play insurrectionist games, win insurrectionist prizes.

Must be a natural-born citizen of the United States Check

Must be at least 35 years old Check

Must have been a resident of the United States for 14 years Check

Must not have attempted an insurrection Fail

And this is what the petitioners - which include registered-R Trump voters!* - need to (and will) hammer home.

This is not asking the Court to do anything more discretionary than the Court would be doing if presented evidence that Colorado is excluding Obama from the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen, or Biden from the ballot because he is 34 years old.

This is not "if SITUATION, then COURT must approve."

I believe the way things sit is that the Court may not question the Colorado courts' finding that Trump participated in an insurrection, but may - or might not - inquire as to whether what the Colorado courts found Trump to have done was with the bounds of having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States" for purposes of the disqualification clause.

Courts have found funny things before, and of course we are aware of the Court's composition.

However, wherever the bar is, standing idly by (most charitably-described) while your supporters, at your urging, stormed the Capitol building to interrupt the mechanisms providing for a peaceful transfer of power pursuant to the Constitution and applicable law, while (1) knowing you lost and (2) being concurrently engaged in knowingly-frivolous (and at-least-allegedly-criminal) legal maneuverings to the same end (while later confirming your bad intent by calling the stormers "political prisoners" and so on)...if all of that is lower than the legal bar (which legal bar was established to cover seemingly just this sort of situation), then we're in some trouble!

But again, I would not personally be outraged (or even surprised) if the Court charts some sort of middle path, by (for example) saying,

We agree with Petitioners that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically disqualifies (from the Presidency or any other office of the United States) a former President who, subsequent to taking the Presidential Oath, engaged in an insurrection or rebellion in the nature of the events of January 6, 2021.

However, we do not find that the proceedings before us established the former President's culpability for such actions to a standard meriting a conclusive finding of disqualification.+

Particularly as there are multiple pending proceedings to which the former President is directly a party, and which pertain directly to the former President's role in the events of January 6, 2021, we find the relief granted by the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado to be premature.

* “As a longtime Republican who voted for him, I believe Donald Trump disqualified himself from running in 2024 by spreading lies, vilifying election workers, and fomenting an attack on the Capitol,” Republican activist Krista Kafer said in a statement.

https://www.courthousenews.com/republic ... ry-ballot/

+ I believe I saw mention that the standard the Colorado courts applied when considering whether Trump engaged in an insurrection was a "clear and convincing" standard, not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I personally would not agree that the bar here is the higher, criminal culpability standard - because saying "you can't be President" is not the same thing as "go to jail"** - but that's certainly a tasty offramp for a Court that doesn't want to appear to have decided anything.

** Of course, it sort of IS, here.

[Sparko]

Start an insurrection and find out. SIFO.

[jfish26]

Alex Wagner looks at an exchange from 1866, highlighted in the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, between Senators Reverdy Johnson and Lot Morrill about whether the 14th Amendment they were drafting would apply to presidents and vice presidents. In sum, yes it does.

Original records leave no question that the 14th Amendment applies to Trump

Were I a betting man, I would bet on the first substantive question out of Kagan's, Sotomayor's or Brown-Jackson's mouth being, "Counselor, is it your position that the disqualification clause covers all offices of the United States, civil or military, except for the offices of President and Vice President?"

[zsn]

zsn, Gutter might, might, have his shortcomings, but calling him a rube seems harsh!

Good point! However, Gutter is exempt from the definition since he doesn’t give money. At least I’m hoping that is not one of his shortcomings.

[twocoach]

There's no quicker route to a civil war than a bunch of democrats removing a republican from ballots in states across the country. It's an awful precedence, and nothing I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime

Gee, you'd think that participating in the insurrection that led to him not meeting the Constitutional criteria to run for office would be the tripping point. You know, being such ardent supporters of the Constitution and all...

The job of the Colorado State Supreme Court Justices is to uphold the laws of their state Constitution. Oh and the 6 citizens who filed the petition in Colorado to have Trump removed? Four Republicans and two unaffiliated voters.

[jfish26]

There's no quicker route to a civil war than a bunch of democrats removing a republican from ballots in states across the country. It's an awful precedence, and nothing I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime

Gee, you'd think that participating in the insurrection that led to him not meeting the Constitutional criteria to run for office would be the tripping point. You know, being such ardent supporters of the Constitution and all...

Color me blue, but I happen to think armed rioters incapacitating Congress because a guy who lost an election fancies himself king and needs to retain (or regain) the office so as to avoid facing consequences for his myriad crimes, is the closest thing we've had to a civil war since...you know.

[twocoach]

There's no quicker route to a civil war than a bunch of democrats removing a republican from ballots in states across the country. It's an awful precedence, and nothing I ever thought I'd see in my lifetime

Gee, you'd think that participating in the insurrection that led to him not meeting the Constitutional criteria to run for office would be the tripping point. You know, being such ardent supporters of the Constitution and all...

Color me blue, but I happen to think armed rioters incapacitating Congress because a guy who lost an election fancies himself king and needs to retain (or regain) the office so as to avoid facing consequences for his myriad crimes, is the closest thing we've had to a civil war since...you know.

Precisely how I felt when I stood in my kitchen watching Jan 6th unfold live on my TV.

[jfish26]

Gee, you'd think that participating in the insurrection that led to him not meeting the Constitutional criteria to run for office would be the tripping point. You know, being such ardent supporters of the Constitution and all...

Color me blue, but I happen to think armed rioters incapacitating Congress because a guy who lost an election fancies himself king and needs to retain (or regain) the office so as to avoid facing consequences for his myriad crimes, is the closest thing we've had to a civil war since...you know.

Precisely how I felt when I stood in my kitchen watching Jan 6th unfold live on my TV.

"It didn't even work" is not a defense!

[jfish26]

Gee, you'd think that participating in the insurrection that led to him not meeting the Constitutional criteria to run for office would be the tripping point. You know, being such ardent supporters of the Constitution and all...

Color me blue, but I happen to think armed rioters incapacitating Congress because a guy who lost an election fancies himself king and needs to retain (or regain) the office so as to avoid facing consequences for his myriad crimes, is the closest thing we've had to a civil war since...you know.

Precisely how I felt when I stood in my kitchen watching Jan 6th unfold live on my TV.

It's going to take a long, long, long time to sort out the individual and collective psychological effects from just how goddamn weird the last five years have been.

[MICHHAWK]

my life never changes. regardless of who is in the office.

[jfish26]

my life never changes. regardless of who is in the office.

I'm not even talking about that. Not really. But between Covid and, you know, an attempted coup, it's just a lot.

[MICHHAWK]

the china fungus messed up portions of two hockey seasons. that sucked.

[KUTradition]

my life never changes. regardless of who is in the office.

sounds pretty fucking boring

[MICHHAWK]

it's called being an adult. that is steering the boat. rather than letting the boat steer me.

[MICHHAWK]

"i'm in charge of myself."

a concept no one under 40 seems to grasp.

[twocoach]

my life never changes. regardless of who is in the office.

You're an educated, selfish white male so that doesn't surprise me.