Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision today?

[Lord of Planar]

He may not be an insurecrionist but he sure as hell did nothing to stop them.

Bullshit. I have seen the accounts where he pleads for them to be peaceful. Your favorite media lied and omitted the facts which does not make your account correct.

He watched, likely in glee, as his supporters attacked the Capitol.

Bullshit. Another lie.

He sat back, watched and did nothing, even as others begged him to act, knowing full well every elected federal official was in that building. He watched and did nothing despite having the power, authority, and opportunity to act. Call that what you will but it certainly is not in keeping with his oath of office and responsibilities. If that is how you view someone worthy of the office of the Presidency then you certainly have your man.

Wow.

Do you listen to the madcow?

 

[Lord of Planar]

A primary ballot for a federal election.



"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

It's hard to imagine how it could be any clearer.

The left likes to make things up as the go. just look at how the supreme court had to stop in with Florida when they tried to change their own laws during the vote count.

 

[Visbek]

Who wants to be a SC justice who votes to remove a candidate from a national political contest.?

I agree that I don't think anyone would want to be in that position. That doesn't mean the decision is correct, or consistent with the judicial philosophies nominally espoused by many of the justices.

What's he been convicted of? You don't like due process?

Sigh.

Getting DQed from office is not a criminal punishment, thus no due process is required -- though Trump got it anyway.

§3 of 14A has historically been enforced numerous times without any conviction. Again:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

And if you read this ruling, you'll see the SCOTUS holds this view as well. In the majority view, all that's required to DQ a candidate for P/VP is that Congress engages in an unspecified process to block or remove them.

You call that cowardice. I call that letting our political system take its course.

Hello? While I concur that we can't expect the SCOTUS to make wildly unpopular decisions, at least officially it isn't supposed to be making political decisions. It's supposed to make legal decisions.

In this case, adhering to the Constitution and issuing a legally sound ruling required the kind of backbone that the court just doesn't have.

 

[Visbek]

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

It's hard to imagine how it could be any clearer.

Or.... Not.

The Reconstruction Amendments are held to be self-executing. Meaning legislation is not required for the amendment to have force. That's why there is no law dictating due process; it's not necessary.

As a reminder, "shall" is not the same thing as "must" or "has exclusive ability." The ruling itself reinforces this, as it allows states to bar insurrectionists from state-wide elections, despite a lack of federal legislation.

Both of these points are backed up by the ruling, as it does not say "Trump is eligible because Congress never passed legislation to enforce §3." They said "Only Congress can DQ a candidate for national office."

 

[Lord of Planar]

I agree that I don't think anyone would want to be in that position. That doesn't mean the decision is correct, or consistent with the judicial philosophies nominally espoused by many of the justices.


Sigh.

Getting DQed from office is not a criminal punishment, thus no due process is required -- though Trump got it anyway.

§3 of 14A has historically been enforced numerous times without any conviction. Again:

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

And if you read this ruling, you'll see the SCOTUS holds this view as well. In the majority view, all that's required to DQ a candidate for P/VP is that Congress engages in an unspecified process to block or remove them.


Hello? While I concur that we can't expect the SCOTUS to make wildly unpopular decisions, at least officially it isn't supposed to be making political decisions. It's supposed to make legal decisions.

In this case, adhering to the Constitution and issuing a legally sound ruling required the kind of backbone that the court just doesn't have.

How many of those disqualifications were regarding a state entity denying a federal position?

 

[Callen]

Bullshit. I have seen the accounts where he pleads for them to be peaceful. Your favorite media lied and omitted the facts which does not make your account correct.

He had the power and authority to call in the NG. Once he saw what was happening he should have acted to protect the Capitol and the elected official inside. He chose not to, he chose to let them riot. He had a sworn obligation to protect the Capitol and he chose not to. Why did he not call in the NG? It was a deriliction of his duty as CIC and a violation of his oath of office. Like I said, if that is your expectations of a President then you gave the right guy.

 

[Visbek]

The decision that liberals wanted would have taken us well down the road to Russia or Pakistan

Russia and Pakistan do not allow individual provinces to DQ candidates for office.

And the current ruling DOES allow Congress to DQ a candidate for office, as long as they vote that the candidate engaged in insurrection.

Note: I am am NOT shouting BS as to T. Rump, only that he is entitled to the same due process as the rest of us.

1) Being DQed from office is not a criminal punishment. It's an eligibility requirement. No due process is required.

2) Historically, §3 applied to former Confederates, despite almost none being convicted of a crime. Notice how the US didn't turn into a totalitarian state in the 1870s? (https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/)

3) Trump did in fact get due process here. The CO court had hearings, in which Trump had a dozen attorneys, was allowed to present evidence, allowed to make its arguments, and allowed to challenge the appeal.

4) The SCOTUS ruling at no point stated that any criminal conviction or due process is required. It exclusively stated that "Congress has the exclusive power to DQ candidates for national office." And it didn't require Congress to undergo any specific process; all they have to do is vote on it.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The SCOTUS ended the debate. A person who attempted a self coup and fomented an insurrection can now run for office by their edict. There's not really much left to discuss other than what a horrible idea that is.

This is exactly what is wrong with the SC decision, and why 4 justices including ACB wrote of their disagreements.

It will now be virtually impossible to ever invoke 14/3 in the future.

"Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office. What it does today, the Court should have left undone."

 

[noonereal]

How about the vote?

Then what is the point?

Good God

The idea is to not allow someone to underpin our country.

 

[Absentglare]

This is exactly what is wrong with the SC decision, and why 4 justices including ACB wrote of their disagreements.

It will now be virtually impossible to ever invoke 14/3 in the future.

People are applauding the outcome without really taking responsibility for how ridiculous the ruling is.

It renders section 3 of the fourteenth amendment essentially unenforceable. It takes the determination of whether someone has committed an insurrection out of the fact-based legal arena and purely into the political arena. Section 3 of the 14th amendment was intended to secure loyalty to the country among elected officials, it is intended to be a check on political power that seeks to tear the United States apart.

The allegations against Trump are incredibly serious, using violence against the United States in pursuit of political aims is a serious accusation and it needs to be addressed. Nobody is even arguing that Trump is innocent, SCOTUS has now left that completely open.

 

[Absentglare]

I think the real underlying thing here is, people feel like Trump ought to be on the ballot because he has so many supporters. Like we need to make sure they are heard.

But precisely the problem is that Trump tried to prevent Biden voter’s voices from being heard. He tried to take that away from us, that constitutional right to a free and fair election. Trump used violence and intimidation against the United States in order to cheat. It is unconscionable.

 

[Str8shooter]

The SCOTUS ended the debate. A person who attempted a self coup and fomented an insurrection can now run for office by their edict. There's not really much left to discuss other than what a horrible idea that is.

Well, nothing more than the lack of charges and evidence of your assertion. If there were actual evidence, charges would have been filed.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

He may not be an insurecrionist but he sure as hell did nothing to stop them. He watched, likely in glee, as his supporters attacked the Capitol. He sat back, watched and did nothing, even as others begged him to act, knowing full well every elected federal official was in that building. He watched and did nothing despite having the power, authority, and opportunity to act. Call that what you will but it certainly is not in keeping with his oath of office and responsibilities. If that is how you view someone worthy of the office of the Presidency then you certainly have your man.

He is an insurrectionist. That much is certain.

The fact that he failed to call in the national guard says it all.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Bullshit. I have seen the accounts where he pleads for them to be peaceful. Your favorite media lied and omitted the facts which does not make your account correct.

Nonsense.

He could have sent the national guard in. He did not.

Bullshit. Another lie.

Wow.

Do you listen to the madcow?

Defending Trump is a bad look.

 

[Callen]

He could have sent the national guard in. He did not

Not only could he have, as CIC he had an obligation to do so.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Well, nothing more than the lack of charges and evidence of your assertion. If there were actual evidence, charges would have been filed.

There is no lack of evidence.

Trump's actions on 1/6/21 are evidence.

Stop defending his traitor ass. It's a bad look.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Not only could he have, as CIC he had an obligation to do so.

Correct. He let the terrorists attack the capitol. That is another act of insurrection.

 

[Helix]

This is exactly what is wrong with the SC decision, and why 4 justices including ACB wrote of their disagreements.

It will now be virtually impossible to ever invoke 14/3 in the future.

Yep. They intentionally misinterpreted it, and now it's about as done as it would be if it were formally amended. They put a bar in the spokes, and that bike won't ride again.

 

[Helix]

Well, nothing more than the lack of charges and evidence of your assertion. If there were actual evidence, charges would have been filed.

I'm done talking about it on the terms of people who support this person. I'll discuss it on my terms and when I feel like it. I'm still disgusted, and I don't owe you any response other than this one. Have a good day.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Well, nothing more than the lack of charges and evidence of your assertion. If there were actual evidence, charges would have been filed.

Under the 14th Amendment, NO CONVICTION IN REQUIRED.

 

[GIJane]

Go bait/troll elsewhere.


Trump sent his terrorist group to attack the capitol. Trump is owned by Russia (he is compromised) and poses a threat to national security.

Trump told Pence to stop the certification vote.

Trump is a traitor.

I am no more a troll than you are. All I've seen is you repeat what Biden's handlers and the MSM parrot.

 

[molten_dragon]

I think it was the right decision. Unless it's a case of open and undenied rebellion like the civil war was, I think a criminal conviction under some portion of 18 USC chapter 115 should be required for someone to be removed from the ballot.

I think Trump incited insurrection on 1/6, but he denies it and has not (yet, hopefully) been convicted for any such crime. Until he is his name should stay on the ballot.

 

[StillBallin75]

I don't give a shit one way or the other, I just find it interesting how blatantly obvious it is that the right wing's position on "States rights" is "federalism for thee but not for me"

 

[Zyphlin]

Too many things surrounding the presidency are based on tradition and gentlemen's agreements. A rogue psychopath can do all sorts of things with the office while we all stand there gaping and saying, "Wait, he can't do that!"

Indeed, we must ignore the system to save it from a guy whose bad because he wants to break the system!

I did not expect to see that user name connected to that thought process. Kind of shocked.

We have an abundant amount of checks and balances. So many I’ll note that the transition happened as scheduled and even the “insurrection” / “mob riot” in question didn’t even delay a congressional action 12 hours. The act that there is some sort of existential threat here that some are doing is ludicrous and not legitimately based in reality.

Can trump damage our system? Sure thing, by disregarding it and breaking it down. Know what else can damage our system? Other people ALSO trying to disregard it or break it down. Both sides want to imagine that their ends justify their means and that their holy cause is ACTUALLY just. The ends don’t justify the means, and breaking our system is next just.

 

[Josh Fitzgerald SpaceX]

Three out of four voters agree. Put him on the ballot.
So we must be right.

I agree with the decision. It is a victory for DEMOCRACY.