General Discussion

Chainfire

(17,757 posts)

51. As much as I distrust the SC and loathe Donald Trump, I don't think that he should be removed from the ballot

Sat Nov 4, 2023, 11:56 AM

Nov 2023

until such a time as his crimes have been proven in court. I understand that that does not conform with the meaning of the 14th. I don't want mistakes made that can come back and bite us in the butt. If Joe Biden can not beat Trump in the next election, then we will deserve Trump and the end of Democracy has we have know it. That should be an incentive to pull out all of the stops to defeat Trump and to do it bigly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Luttig just made news, saying that state rulings on whether Trump can be on the ballot WILL hit the SCOTUS, [View all] ancianita Nov 2023 OP

I probably shouldn't say this, but... dchill Nov 2023 #1

You're not alone in that, my friend. calimary Nov 2023 #63

He will be on the ballot superpatriotman Nov 2023 #2

with this current SCOTUS, I fear you are correct Attilatheblond Nov 2023 #21

I would be surprised Zeitghost Nov 2023 #27

Like they did about the 2020 election (they dismissed the appeal) Justice matters. Nov 2023 #33

It'll be 9-0 Polybius Nov 2023 #41

Wouldn't that be something! That was a great interview. 50 Shades Of Blue Nov 2023 #3

The SCOTUS majority will hold Frasier Balzov Nov 2023 #4

Could you elaborate, please? erronis Nov 2023 #6

I doubt it.The case calls for SCOTUS to make a constitutional ruling all states would be bound by. I believe Luttig. ancianita Nov 2023 #7

I believe Luttig, too. ShazzieB Nov 2023 #44

I was grateful they explained it to me BigmanPigman Nov 2023 #5

Me, too. If Trump was paying attention, he'd know not to appeal CO's keeping him off the ballot, and take the one hit ancianita Nov 2023 #8

"Tense" is an understatement BigmanPigman Nov 2023 #9

True. ancianita Nov 2023 #12

The popular vote is meaningless. TwilightZone Nov 2023 #24

That's how the constitution was written jimfields33 Nov 2023 #54

Warmed the cockles of my old cold heart to hear Luttig's praise of Katyal Attilatheblond Nov 2023 #10

I can't wait to see the Cable News Clips post of that conversation. ancianita Nov 2023 #13

If not there, probably availble on the MSNBC website page or Nicole Wallace's show Attilatheblond Nov 2023 #15

I saw! The whole conversation was fantastic, and only brilliant Nicolle would think to bring these two together! ancianita Nov 2023 #17

Here it is! ancianita Nov 2023 #28

Oh please oh please oh please mzmolly Nov 2023 #11

Making a note about this! calimary Nov 2023 #14

Me, too! Any judgment by the two states could happen soon, & any appeals could slowly roll toward SCOTUS by early 2024. ancianita Nov 2023 #16

If it becomes an issue Zeitghost Nov 2023 #29

Agree. It's an historic case that will likely get immediate attention. ancianita Nov 2023 #31

But first he would have to be found guilty of the insurrection before the doc03 Nov 2023 #18

Luttig said that's not necessary, that his very "refusal to accept the election results" violated the Executive clause. ancianita Nov 2023 #19

I hope he is right nt doc03 Nov 2023 #20

He's right. It's SCOTUS getting it right that we have to worry about. ancianita Nov 2023 #23

Luttig was very precise in his wording too. thenelm1 Nov 2023 #35

That was my thought. bamagal62 Nov 2023 #26

He aided and abetted insurrectionists. Captain Zero Nov 2023 #38

That's my opinion, also Mz Pip Nov 2023 #52

no conviction needed, think of the age requirement for Prez, its works the same way Hamlette Nov 2023 #61

Probably likely if a lower court actually bounces him Tomconroy Nov 2023 #22

Not sure I'd call this news... brooklynite Nov 2023 #25

Luttig made the case Kali Nov 2023 #39

It doesn't MAYTER that it's "against the constitution" brooklynite Nov 2023 #42

re: "Seems obvious that any State disqualifying Trump would result in a SC review" thesquanderer Nov 2023 #48

He might not, but other entities might, and a SCOTUS ruling that he'd disqualified will still be upheld across 50 states ancianita Nov 2023 #50

During 19th Century Reconstruction, insurrection was handled quickly and outside the courts or bucolic_frolic Nov 2023 #30

I'd never disagree with Mr Luttig. malthaussen Nov 2023 #32

Neither should anyone, imo. Your SCOTUS read? Well done! Your insightful summary is calming. ancianita Nov 2023 #34

"insurrection or rebellion" moondust Nov 2023 #36

The definition used will be the legal definition, not the dictionary definition. TwilightZone Nov 2023 #43

Is there a relevant legal definition of the word "armed"? thesquanderer Nov 2023 #47

KnR Hekate Nov 2023 #37

And the ruling will be 9-0 Polybius Nov 2023 #40

As a non-lawyer, it would appear to me that there are a lot of people in Congress that this applies to. ashredux Nov 2023 #45

Jack Smith's team of Hulser and Harbach will likely apply it, too, under the "giving aid and comfort" clause of Sec 3 ancianita Nov 2023 #55

Remember when we heard Dip "would never be indicted"? Kid Berwyn Nov 2023 #46

I believe its a tricky gambet for SCOTUS to rule AGAINST the Constitution Historic NY Nov 2023 #49

As much as I distrust the SC and loathe Donald Trump, I don't think that he should be removed from the ballot Chainfire Nov 2023 #51

Luttig and Tribe say the opposite. That there needs by no trial or conviction. Even the states know the 14th, Sec. 3. ancianita Nov 2023 #56

I have read the text, and the legal interpretations, but to me, it seems like there is too big a case for lack of Chainfire Nov 2023 #58

You're thinking the SCOTUS will rule based due process in a trial. These two state cases are about direct violation ancianita Nov 2023 #59

I understand the concept and have a fair understading of the process, but I am not sure about the wisdom. Chainfire Nov 2023 #60

I hear you. Thanks. ancianita Nov 2023 #62

This case was always headed to the SCOTUS LetMyPeopleVote Nov 2023 #53

On the heels of Moore v Harper, Katyal is formidable, & SCOTUS would be inclined to agree with his oral arguments. ancianita Nov 2023 #57