General Discussion

calimary

(88,077 posts)

63. You're not alone in that, my friend.

Reply to dchill (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 5, 2023, 01:25 AM

Nov 2023

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