quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
TDS as a lifestyle - who knew?

Yea, all those "good" folks afflicted with Trumpism Disinformation Syndrome won't know what to think feel when he's finally convicted and barred per the Rule of Law, which he and they so distain.

Think about this: How is this happening? How could there be so many people who desperately want to believe Trump, spewing massive lies, vitriol and venom?

Naturally, dwelling in reality, many people see and understand the lies, venom, etc., and the beliefs thereof, for exactly what they are, and are upset by it, deplore and loathe the toxic power of it, particularly for the present and projected consequences and durability.

You call that "derangement" TDS. Is that a denial or self-affirmation tool? Does it make you feel better, thinking feeling that way?

Consider this: (if you have an attention span of 7 minutes 30 seconds)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0478bc212d2b05&ei=69

'Relentlessly report what the facts are': Experts on combatting disinformation

Authors Lee McIntyre and Adam Berinsky join Morning Joe to discuss how misinformation is affecting democracy and the impact misinformation can have on the 2024 elections.

Also:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0478bc212d2b05&ei=66

The simple reason why Donald Trump is escalating his Hitlerian rhetoric: MAGA demands more.

(Excerpt)

In his new essay, “Listen to the Cassandras," Reed Galen, who is one of the co-founders of the pro-democracy organization The Lincoln Project, summarizes these failures and surrender:

"Trump’s reality, after all he’s said, done, and what he promises to do in a second White House term, still haven’t awoken enough people from their collective slumber. Republicans have heard MAGA’s siren song and are drawn closer to the rocks. Many voters who’ve managed to strap themselves to the mast have chosen the lotus eater’s life; seeing nothing, hearing nothing, hoping to disappear into their phones and realities of their own creation….It's time to listen to the Cassandras. We must not be a nation who is unwilling to heed warnings. America’s democracy headed for a Thelma and Louise-like trip into the abyss. We’re headed for the cliff, we must apply the brakes while there is still time. When democracies die, there is no soft landing."

=================================================================

In Other Words, barring Trump per the 14th/s3 IS a "soft landing", considering the alternatives.

Bluefish, here's one just for you:

Wishing you a happy Thanksgiving Day.

https://youtu.be/0YrVXRlpG7M?si=qRo8yjaL5MhSU_Ri

=======================================================


But really:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...215475fa4cd6f&ei=160

Doom and gloom was the ultimate goal — and now it is working: Trump wins with voter apathy
Story by Heather Digby Parton • 1d

(excerpt)

Twelve years before that, a young up-and-coming journalist by the name of Chris Hayes wrote a fascinating piece for The New Republic describing his experience as a canvasser for the League of Conservation Voters’ Environmental Victory Project in the race between Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush. His insights from that unique perspective were very astute, ranging from the recognition that most undecided voters don't approach politics rationally, making it very difficult to appeal to them with the usual persuasion strategies, to the fact that a disturbing number of them were "crypto-racist isolationists." Remember, this was 2004, long before MAGA was a twinkle in Donald Trump's eye.

He also found that these folks were very interested in politics although they didn't "enjoy" it and neither did they seem to be able to connect it to their own lives in ways that made sense. Hayes said he saw that the worse things got with the war in Iraq, the better George W. Bush seemed to do with these people. He explained:

I found that the very severity and intractability of the Iraq disaster helped Bush because it induced a kind of fatalism about the possibility of progress. Time after time, undecided voters would agree vociferously with every single critique I offered of Bush’s Iraq policy, but conclude that it really didn’t matter who was elected, since neither candidate would have any chance of making things better.

He noticed that this same logic applied to other issues, such as health care and the deficit. It's not that they didn't believe John Kerry could actually fix things. They didn't believe anyone could. They blamed politicians in general, so "Kerry, by mere dint of being on the ballot, was somehow tainted by Bush’s failures as badly as Bush was."

John Kerry ended up winning Wisconsin that year — by 11, 484 votes. You can see why the state is considered such a perfect petri dish to examine the polarization of American politics and the mind of the swing voter.

=========================

Right-wing pandemonium is drowning out the normal politics these people yearn for. And much like people holding Kerry as responsible as Bush for the debacle of the Iraq war, Biden is being held equally responsible for the nightmare that Trump has created of our political culture over the past six years. This is a feature of right-wing politics and it works like a charm.

It should also have been noted that of all the states in the country, this Wisconsin electorate is not only inundated with national political bedlam, but their state politics are just as crazed. The last few years have featured wild gerrymanders, recalls, radical governance by a legislative minority and more. No wonder they're exhausted.

=================================

As the Post reports of Wisconsin voters, "They long for compromise. They want to feel heard and understood. Most Americans, for instance, desire access to abortion, tighter restrictions on guns and affordable health care. Many wonder why our laws don’t reflect that." There is a reason. Democrats back all those things but Republicans block them. Voters may miss that order or operation, however, because they are tuning out due to the disorienting cacophony of right-wing lunacy.

As David Roberts wrote in this excellent analysis on the platform formerly known as Twitter, this article could have been framed as "the right's quest to make politics toxic & to destroy citizens' trust in basic political & media institutions is working" and that would have made it more clear. But in the end, there's no way to ignore what Trump and his henchmen have done, are currently in the process of implementing in the states, and are planning to do in the future. It would be total malpractice to ignore it. But there's something deeper going on here and clearly has been going on for some time.

Trump may have taken it to another level but for years Republican politicians have been cultivating cynicism about government so that they can carry out their toxic agenda without being held responsible for it. They make politics ugly and uncomfortable so that people will see the whole endeavor as something inherently negative and unworkable. In this polarized environment, all they have to do is convince a small sliver of the electorate that this is the natural order of things and they can win it all. The Democrats and the press can't shirk from exposing the right's craven agenda but they need to ensure that in the process they remind people that it doesn't have to be that way.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...157d9d3e829b13&ei=29

The Trump ruling in Colorado is wrong. The judge all but said so herself.
Story by Quentin Young, Colorado Newsline • 4h

(excerpt)

The ruling in a Colorado case over whether Donald Trump is eligible to be president again came down in his favor on a key point. But the judge gravely erred on that one point, as should be clear to anyone who followed testimony in the case and honestly weighed the relevant constitutional scholarship.

Another tell: Judge Sarah B. Wallace hedged in her ruling, evidently discomfited by her own conclusions.

===============

Wallace’s ruling, issued Friday, makes extraordinary, historic findings. She wrote that Jan. 6 was indeed an insurrection, Trump incited the insurrection, inciting an insurrection counts as having “engaged in insurrection” under Section 3, and the final report of the U.S. House panel that investigated Jan. 6 is trustworthy.

Wallace also determined that Trump long embraced political violence and intended the Jan. 6 mob to engage in violence, and that he knew his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him — the essential grievance of the insurrection — was false.

So Trump should be disqualified, right? No, Wallace said, because she concluded that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the presidency.

Sound absurd? It is. Wrong? Obviously. What happened?

Wallace was led astray by a too-clever parsing of constitutional language and the regrettable influence of minority-opinion scholars.

Common sense says that if anyone should be barred from public office, it's an insurrectionist former president, and if any office should be off limits to an insurrectionist, it's the presidency.

========

Almost apologetically, Wallace wrote, “To be clear, part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three.”

And, about her conclusion that a president is not among the oath-takers subject to the insurrection clause, Wallace ventures implausibly in a footnote that Section 3 contains an “omission” resulting from a possible “oversight.”

The plaintiffs offer a much more persuasive account in an appeal of Wallace’s ruling they filed Monday at the Colorado Supreme Court.

“Both text and history establish that the Presidency is an ‘Office’ under the United States,” they write, substantiating the assertion with ample evidence and basic reading comprehension. “That conclusion also resolves the related question whether former President Trump was an ‘officer of’ the United States for purposes of Section 3. A public ‘officer’ is simply one who holds a public ‘office.'”

No oversight. The president is covered, right there in Section 3’s plain language. And that’s what the justices of the state Supreme Court, if they avoid the misdirection of tortured analysis, will conclude, too.

Judges around the country have blinked in the face of the awful implications of Section 3’s application to Trump. A straightforward understanding of the provision clearly bars Trump from ever holding office again, but the real-world dangers that could result from its enforcement surely weigh on the mind of judges, since Trump has proved willing and able to summon a violent mob of supporters to attack political opponents.

That is all the more reason to deploy the self-defense mechanism at the heart of Section 3. Scant legal means remain by which to protect the Constitution from the cancellation Trump intends for it. Section 3 is a strong shield, crafted precisely to ward off enemies like Trump. It’s left now to the Colorado Supreme Court to wield it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...7594bed1f15aa3&ei=24

NBC Presidential Poll Makes History
Story by Jordan Andrews • 37m

A recent NBC Poll has indicated that former President Donald Trump is leading President Joe Biden in a head-to-head matchup for the first time in the poll’s history.

The November poll showed Trump with 46 percent support, two points higher than Biden’s 44 percent.

The survey also revealed a decline in Biden’s approval rating to the lowest point in his presidency, with only 40 percent of voters approving of him.

Additionally, the poll highlighted that most Biden voters see their vote as “against Donald Trump,” while most Trump supporters view their vote as “for Donald Trump.”

These results suggest a challenging scenario for Biden in the upcoming 2024 elections.

============================================================================================

IOW, the fascist disinformation propaganda machine is working. Fox news is winning hearts and minds on behalf of Trumpism.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...7bae3a4f630838&ei=13

'More emboldened by the day': Trump's holiday attack on court clerk sparks horror
Story by Travis Gettys • 10h

Donald Trump posted a Thanksgiving greeting that immediately devolved into a tirade against court and law enforcement officials he claims are targeting him for political reasons.

The former president offered a holiday message reminiscent of his infamous Nov. 27, 2013, tweet wishing a "Happy Thanksgiving to all -- even the haters and losers!" but this year's greeting ran on at length in an attack on New York attorney general Letitia James, New York Supreme Court justice Arthur Engoron and his clerk, and President Joe Biden.

===============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...24a7a1ac0f3f0c&ei=61

'This is on purpose': Legal experts sickened by Trump's incitement of 'vile' threats
Story by Brad Reed • 43m

https://youtu.be/DjTRVAIpjmc?si=aDWjPPVqWczGiwyt

3 hours ago

DISQUALIFICATION of Trump Case Takes STUNNING Turn before Colorado Supreme Court

It looks to me like this isn't going in Trump's favor.

Whatever happens it is preliminary to get to Fed. Kurt, and on to the Supreme Court.

https://youtu.be/zu1ztblK5HU?si=OkOjMMU0svpQ82n-

update in court case to disqualify Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot

The Legal Breakdown

===============================================

This is also a good legal analysis:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1d21ba2a68697a&ei=17

Legal scholar: “Influential” Colorado Trump ballot challenge could set off chain reaction
Story by Areeba Shah • 1d

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1e1b28df3ea1a&ei=128

2 hours ago

The insurrection clause has waited 150 years for the Trump test.

Section 3 has lain silent and watchful, its potency simmering for 150 years, waiting for the beast it was meant to slay to raise his ugly head.

(Excerpts)

Lawyers who represent the government in federal court face a never-ending supply of 1st and 14th Amendment cases from creative plaintiffs. Most such Constitutional claims don’t stick. They hit a well-oiled wall of federal case law and slid right off.

Applying the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump’s 2024 candidacy presents the opposite scenario. There exists virtually no prior cases to follow. In fact, critics who reject Trump’s disqualification under this clause lean almost entirely on the lack of legal precedent.

Other than Trump, in the history of the United States, a defeated president has never tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. In over 150 years following the 14th Amendment’s adoption, there was never a set of similar facts that could have triggered the insurrectionist clause.

Lack of prior similar cases doesn’t render Section 3 of the 14th Amendment any less potent, or its historical imperative any less compelling. If anything, its application is even more urgent as the same violent insurrectionist forces that tore the nation apart in the Civil War are back at it today.

Lack of precedent is irrelevant

It’s true that despite its passage more than 150 years ago, it has never been used to bar a candidate seeking the presidency, but this is a specious legal argument. Anyone professing an informed opinion on the 14th Amendment also understands the “case and controversy” requirement, which would have made such a case legally impossible in the absence of an insurrectionist actively seeking the presidency.

Written into the Constitution’s early structure, Article III prohibits courts from hearing anything except actual cases and controversies. It requires cases between opposing interests over a dispute that is real, factual, and concrete. So cases cannot be hypothetical. Courts require real cases in controversy in part because ruling on hypotheticals is tantamount to setting policy, a violation of separation of powers as established in 1790.

Trump’s counsel argues that his candidacy can’t be barred based on a Constitutional clause that has been used only a handful of times in 150 years, emphasizing that, “(Challengers) are asking this court to do something that’s never been done in the history of the United States.” It bears repeating that since the 14th Amendment’s adoption in 1866, a defeated president has never fomented a violent insurrection against the U.S. capital to impede the counting of electoral votes, or pressured state officials to violate the Constitution by lying about the election results, nor, before Trump, has any major party candidate seeking the presidency openly embraced political violence against government officials.

So, a similar 14th Amendment challenge could not have been brought prior to Trump because without an actual insurrectionist actually seeking the presidency, there was no Art. III case in controversy.

Multiple cases challenging Trump’s candidacy under the 14th Amendment are winding their way through the courts now. In a recent Colorado case, the presiding judge concluded from the evidence that Trump had, indeed, engaged in insurrection, as that term was originally understood, when he assembled and incited the January 6 mob that attacked the U.S. capital.

Although the judge punted on the applicability of the 14th Amendment, her evidentiary ruling finding insurrection is most significant, because it will both guide the case on appeal, and be referenced as a judicial finding in similar cases.

Originalists on the high court should love this

When the case gets to SCOTUS, the originalist majority should salivate over the chance to illuminate the underlying historical context in which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

Setting aside the amnesty period, the 14th Amendment sought to protect a raw and reeling democracy by prohibiting politically violent agitators- insurrectionists- from holding federal office. Disqualifying insurrectionists from holding federal office was a way to keep wealthy agitators from fomenting some variation of war all over again.

Section 3 meets its intended nemesis

The constitutional disqualification of government officials who violate their oath of office is common sense; if they don’t uphold the Constitution, to what are they sworn? Then, as now, disqualification is key to electing ethical candidates who can be trusted to uphold the Constitution rather than divide the nation for personal gain, which brings us back to Trump.

Orchestration of violence at the U.S. capital on Jan. 6 was, at its core, Trump’s effort to disenfranchise the more than 81 million Americans who voted for Joe Biden, just as secessionists attempted to disenfranchise Lincoln supporters.

Trump’s legal pleadings argue that he is immune from prosecution for official actions he took while in office, and that everything he did, including on Jan. 6, was an official action. A wizard at projection , he calls 14th Amendment challenges “election interference.” He also calls the business fraud case against him election interference; ditto, the election interference case itself. Trump claims that all the various criminal charges against him, including the hush money case, the classified federal documents case, the Jan. 6 insurrection case, and the “find me 11,000 votes” in Georgia case, are election interference. If the war in Ukraine somehow breaks to Biden’s credit, that will be election interference as well.

For now, the nightmare of an ascending and lawless insurrectionist re-taking power by force is real. George Washington warned us that “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men (who) subvert the power of the people and usurp for themselves the reins of government” would be fatal to the nation.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment’s silence for the past 150 years is a testament to its strength, not its weakness. After its adoption, no violent insurrectionist usurper dared seek the presidency, until Trump.

Section 3 has lain silent and watchful, its potency simmering for 150 years, waiting for the beast it was meant to slay to raise his ugly head.

Yippi Phuckin' Kia Yay


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d850f3fa9b9615&ei=29

Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution
Story by Gary Grumbach and Dareh Gregorian •
34m

In a bombshell decision, Colorado's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that former President Donald Trump's candidacy in the state is prohibited on constitutional grounds.

"A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the ruling said. "Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”

The first-of-its kind ruling stems from a lawsuit that focused a little-known provision in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Similar challenges in other states have proven unsuccessful.

The decision from Colorado's high court reverses a lower court's ruling that said Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting a riot on Jan. 6, 2021, but that presidents are not subject to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”

The state Supreme Court agreed that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but rejected the lower court's finding that the president is not an officer of the country that elected him.

Section 3 of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Trump, who has called the efforts to keep him off the ballot “nonsense” and “election interference,” is likely to try to appeal Tuesday’s Colorado ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Courts have ruled against similar efforts to get Trump banned from the ballot in Arizona, Michigan and Minnesota. The plaintiffs challenging Trump’s eligibility in Michigan filed an appeal to that state’s high court on Monday.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

On to the Fed Courts and the Supreme Court. What do you think this S. Ct., majority is going to do.

As of today, you are right and I am wrong.

Folks at the gun show I went to this weekend were taking donations for President Trump to combat ballot attacks. How legit they are, as in associated w President Trump, I do not know

Will Thomas recuse?

Any ethical jurist whose wife was so deeply involved in the effort to overthrow democracy would automatically recuse from anything related, but this is Slappy Thomas, who figures taking millions from billionaires to stay on the Court is perfectly ethical...

Justice Thomas should but will not recuse.

Again, this has set up to make bad law at the Supreme Court.

However, this decision while it stands is persuasive, but not binding, upon other state courts while the matter awaits federal intervention.

Again, today ME is right and the coin is in the tree.

I am very reluctant to predict what SCOTUS will rule on this.

I know what they OUGHT to rule.

The justices ought to know, more than anyone, that this has the potential to shake the very foundations of the nation either way their decision goes. I don't see how they can neutralize this.

There hasn't been a situation like this nor a person like Trump nor Trumpism before, more deserving of precedent decision affirming the 14th/s3. That provision in the constitution is perfect for Trump.

The credibility of SCOTUS is on the line. Whether they support the rule of law or not -- we shall see.

This has little effect in Colorado, Biden crushed him there in 2020 and would in 2024, but it's very important for the effort to keep him off the ballot in other States. A couple where this has been adjudicated have ruled he can appear on the Primary ballot but all left the question of the General Election ballot open.

If the Supremes hold, as they should, that States are in charge of State ballots several States will follow suit, and a few Secretaries of State may rule on their own authority and let Trump sue to try to get on.

quote:

If the Supremes hold, as they should, that States are in charge of State ballots several States will follow suit, and a few Secretaries of State may rule on their own authority and let Trump sue to try to get on.

I don't think that's the way it will go.

That's a chicken chit way out for SCOTUS, and likely be back in additional suits, appealed.

I think they will slam dunk it, one way or the other.

After all, as I understand it, the constitutional provision of the 14th/s3 is not about states' rights. It's a fed issue applicable to all states.

Colorado has standing, SCOTUS has jurisdiction now.

On second thought, without further research, just thinking of possibilities, as far as I know appeals haven't been yet filed, and SCOTUS hasn't said they will even hear the Colorado case appealed.

Suppose they decline to hear the appeals?

That means the CO case stands.

So, Jeffive, in that situation, your scenario makes sense.

Here's a worthy opinion and more info:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...id=socialshare&ei=21

US Supreme Court will uphold Trump disqualification, top legal expert predicts
Story by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement • 1h

A top legal expert predicts the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold Tuesday evening’s Colorado Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision that Donald Trump violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by engaging in insurrection and is disqualified from holding public office, including the presidency. As a result, the court ruled, he is disqualified from the Colorado ballot.

Neal Katyal, the well-known former Acting Solicitor General of the United States who is now a Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, said on MSNBC the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have little choice but to apply their “textualism” method of reading the Constitution to the Colorado case. Textualism requires the text of the Constitution to be not interpreted but applied via a plain reading of the words on the document.

If they do, Katyal said, “Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.”

Katyal is no stranger to the U.S. Supreme Court, In 2017 he broke “the record held by Thurgood Marshall for the minority lawyer with the most oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

MSNBC’s Katie Phang told viewers, “the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump has been disqualified from being included on the GOP primary ballot going into 2024.”

Calling the Colorado ruling a “predictable decision,” he noted that “section three bars insurrectionists from holding public office, that’s part of our Constitution, just like you’ve got to be 35 in order to be president or a natural born citizen.”

“And what the Colorado Supreme Court did today is just read that provision for what it means, which is, if you’re engaged in insurrection, you can’t run for president.”

Noting the court stayed its own decision, knowing it would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Katyal called the 217 page ruling “incredibly persuasive reasoning.” He predicted, “what’s going to happen now is the United States Supreme Court will be asked to hear this case, they will undoubtedly hear the case and make a ruling and that will cover all 50 states, but for now, Donald Trump is not allowed to run in Colorado.”

He also observed the ruling “follows pretty much directly from the text of the Constitution. So you know, someone like Donald Trump who claims to be a strict textualist when it comes to the Constitution has been hoisted on his own petard.”

Phang asked, “do you think then, if they’re intellectually honest, that the members of SCOTUS will not only take up this case, but would be forced to follow the text of section three of the 14th amendment and affirm the decision to not let Donald Trump be on a ballot?”

“I do,” Katyal definitively replied. “When it comes to Donald Trump, it’s important to remember this is the court that ruled against him many times in the 2020 election.”

“It’s the court that ruled against his executive privilege claims over the January 6 committee in an eight-to-one decision last year.”

“So, you know, I think that a fair-minded reading of this provision really compels this result.”

The Colorado Supreme Court, he added, “took pains to say, you know – this is just a quote from the opinion – ‘we’re mindful in our solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.’ And I think that the United States Supreme Court would apply that same standard. Trump will be disqualified from the ballot.”

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

If the Supremes hold, as they should, that States are in charge of State ballots several States will follow suit, and a few Secretaries of State may rule on their own authority and let Trump sue to try to get on.

I don't think that's the way it will go.

That's a chicken chit way out for SCOTUS, and likely be back in additional suits, appealed.

I think they will slam dunk it, one way or the other.

After all, as I understand it, the constitutional provision of the 14th/s3 is not about states' rights. It's a fed issue applicable to all states.

Colorado has standing, SCOTUS has jurisdiction now.

I agree ME. Either the Insurrection Clause applies to President Trump nationally or it does not at all. It is a federal question overlayed upon the states.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

If the Supremes hold, as they should, that States are in charge of State ballots several States will follow suit, and a few Secretaries of State may rule on their own authority and let Trump sue to try to get on.

I don't think that's the way it will go.

That's a chicken chit way out for SCOTUS, and likely be back in additional suits, appealed.

I think they will slam dunk it, one way or the other.

After all, as I understand it, the constitutional provision of the 14th/s3 is not about states' rights. It's a fed issue applicable to all states.

Colorado has standing, SCOTUS has jurisdiction now.

I agree ME. Either the Insurrection Clause applies to President Trump nationally or it does not at all. It is a federal question overlayed upon the states.

The Federal government doesn't hold elections or issue ballots, States do.

The 14th Amendment is a Federal Application; just like the Incorporation Clause.

Either the Insurrection Clause applies to President Trumps acts, or it does not do apply.

The Federal Government through the Insurrection Clause decides who is barred from holding state and federal office.

Colorado cannot say the Insurrection Clause does and Michigan say it does not. That is why we have the Supreme Court. It will resolve this application of the Federal Constitution so amended to the election for President across the states.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The 14th Amendment is a Federal Application; just like the Incorporation Clause.

Either the Insurrection Clause applies to President Trumps acts, or it does not do apply.

The Federal Government through the Insurrection Clause decides who is barred from holding state and federal office.

Colorado cannot say the Insurrection Clause does and Michigan say it does not. That is why we have the Supreme Court. It will resolve this application of the Federal Constitution so amended to the election for President across the states.

There is no mechanism for the Federal government to enforce the 14th Amendment, or any other qualification issue with a candidate, until they win an election, when Congress could decline to certify their election.

That's left to the States.

The Fed Courts enforce the 14th Amendment every year. Here of the Bruen case. The Federal Government (judiciary branch) enforcing the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment and incorporated 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court shall decide if the President Trump is barred from the Federal Office of President through the Constitution which has been amended disqualifying “insurrectionist” just like it bars non-native born citizens from the office of President.

The Supreme Court shall say who is qualified under the Federal Constitution, so amended, to be elected president, and who is not.

Either the 14th Amendment, Insured Clause disqualifies and bars President Trump from being President, or it does not. The undercard is fought. Now, we shall have the main event. I personally, would watch the ref.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Fed Courts enforce the 14th Amendment every year. Here of the Bruen case. The Federal Government (judiciary branch) enforcing the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment and incorporated 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court shall decide if the President Trump is barred from the Federal Office of President through the Constitution which has been amended disqualifying “insurrectionist” just like it bars non-native born citizens from the office of President.

The Supreme Court shall say who is qualified under the Federal Constitution, so amended, to be elected president, and who is not.

Either the 14th Amendment, Insured Clause disqualifies and bars President Trump from being President, or it does not. The undercard is fought. Now, we shall have the main event. I personally, would watch the ref.

Kindly cite the cases wherein the Supreme Court has ever barred a non-native-born Candidate.

Ruling a State Law unconstitutional, as in Bruen, is not an uncommon function of the Court.

Outside of access to State ballots I'm not sure how the question would even reach the Court.

Maybe they will give up their pretensions as "textualists" and find that the Insurrection clause of the 14th only applies to Confederates.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...03d569566373263&ei=3

Sen. Tillis to introduce legislation barring federal funds from states ‘misusing’ 14th Amendment
Story by Tara Suter • 6h

This could get even more interesting.

We can project probabilities of what will happen should SCOTUS rule in favor of Trump on the immunity case and the Colorado case. Trump and MAGA will run amuck for a while, claim vindication and such, and lose both houses of congress and the exec branch too. Then good things will start to happen.

OTOH, suppose both cases go unfavorable for Trump. Instead of the GOP and MAGA counting their blessings and saying good riddance to a monster they couldn't or wouldn't get rid of themselves, it will be like a laxative unplugging a constipated dragon. MAGA and Fox will poop all over the country, even more than they already have.

So, merry Christmas and Happy New Year, USA, GOP and MAGA.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...42f3449a0ee22c&ei=48

Ex-FBI official warns of unprecedented violence from Trump's 'hardcore' supporters
Story by Sarah K. Burris • 15h

==============================================

Ty Cobb:
“I think this case will be handled quickly, I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump,” Cobb said in an interview on CNN, adding later, “I do believe it could be 9-0 because I think the law is clear.”

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Fed Courts enforce the 14th Amendment every year. Here of the Bruen case. The Federal Government (judiciary branch) enforcing the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment and incorporated 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court shall decide if the President Trump is barred from the Federal Office of President through the Constitution which has been amended disqualifying “insurrectionist” just like it bars non-native born citizens from the office of President.

The Supreme Court shall say who is qualified under the Federal Constitution, so amended, to be elected president, and who is not.

Either the 14th Amendment, Insured Clause disqualifies and bars President Trump from being President, or it does not. The undercard is fought. Now, we shall have the main event. I personally, would watch the ref.

Kindly cite the cases wherein the Supreme Court has ever barred a non-native-born Candidate.

Ruling a State Law unconstitutional, as in Bruen, is not an uncommon function of the Court.

Outside of access to State ballots I'm not sure how the question would even reach the Court.

Maybe they will give up their pretensions as "textualists" and find that the Insurrection clause of the 14th only applies to Confederates.

They have never had to. The Constitution is clear they cannot stand for election by Federal Law, the Federal Constitution.

The Supreme Court in interpretation the Insurrection Clause is applying federal law, to the Federal Government being who by the Constitution is qualified to seek election to the presidency.

All this has done is allowed this Supreme Court majority to all but write out the Insurrection Clause.

quote:

All this has done is allowed this Supreme Court majority to all but write out the Insurrection Clause.

So, SCOTUS can nullify a portion of the constitution through this case?

That's going to be tricky. Will it hinge on the word "office" or "officer"? Will only the office of POTUS be excluded? Then what about those GOPers in congress who aided in the insurrection - the attempt to thwart an official proceeding? BTW, isn't "office" a derivative word of "official"?

Will they reverse the insurrection ruling of the lower courts?

======================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...dd13626ac0702b&ei=33

(excerpt)

Crucially, the historic decision referenced a previous ruling by Gorsuch, before he became a SCOTUS justice, which found that "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Fed Courts enforce the 14th Amendment every year. Here of the Bruen case. The Federal Government (judiciary branch) enforcing the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment and incorporated 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court shall decide if the President Trump is barred from the Federal Office of President through the Constitution which has been amended disqualifying “insurrectionist” just like it bars non-native born citizens from the office of President.

The Supreme Court shall say who is qualified under the Federal Constitution, so amended, to be elected president, and who is not.

Either the 14th Amendment, Insured Clause disqualifies and bars President Trump from being President, or it does not. The undercard is fought. Now, we shall have the main event. I personally, would watch the ref.

Kindly cite the cases wherein the Supreme Court has ever barred a non-native-born Candidate.

Ruling a State Law unconstitutional, as in Bruen, is not an uncommon function of the Court.

Outside of access to State ballots I'm not sure how the question would even reach the Court.

Maybe they will give up their pretensions as "textualists" and find that the Insurrection clause of the 14th only applies to Confederates.

They have never had to. The Constitution is clear they cannot stand for election by Federal Law, the Federal Constitution.

The Supreme Court in interpretation the Insurrection Clause is applying federal law, to the Federal Government being who by the Constitution is qualified to seek election to the presidency.

All this has done is allowed this Supreme Court majority to all but write out the Insurrection Clause.

Go read the Colorado ruling, they cite several cases where the courts, including the Supreme Court, have affirmed the right of States to enforce various eligibility requirements, including specifically citing an opinion written by Gorsuch: " a state’s
legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally
prohibited from assuming office."

That case was Hassan v Colorado, where the State of Colorado barred a non-native from the Presidential ballot and Gorsuch, on the 10th Circuit, affirmed the State's right to do so.

It does not change the application of the Federal Constitution, so amended, that sets who is qualified to hold the presidency of the United States.

All this has done is strengthen President Trump. The Supreme Court will decide of President Trump’s actions disqualify him nationally based on Federal Law being the Constitution of the United States that declares who is qualified to be elected to that Federal Office.

The state application of elections cannot set aside or ignore, or add qualifications to being elected President. That is the progressive of the Federal Constitution so amended.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It does not change the application of the Federal Constitution, so amended, that sets who is qualified to hold the presidency of the United States.

All this has done is strengthen President Trump. The Supreme Court will decide of President Trump’s actions disqualify him nationally based on Federal Law being the Constitution of the United States that declares who is qualified to be elected to that Federal Office.

The state application of elections cannot set aside or ignore, or add qualifications to being elected President. That is the progressive of the Federal Constitution so amended.

The Colorado Supreme Court did not set aside or ignore anything, it simply applied a textualist interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the case before them, one that agreed with Gorsuch when he was on the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Historically, ALL disqualifications for office have originated in State rulings, it's the only mechanism there is to address it.

You keep saying the Supreme Court will determine it. How? Are they going to break precedent and issue an advisory opinion? Or are they going to break precedent and substitute their own interpretation of State law over that of a State Supreme Court like they did in the 2000 election?

Here's three opinions from people who are more qualified than average:

https://youtu.be/_uX-BRGQoV4?si=tMHMTy1HLrNL5RU7

"A masterful decision': Conservative scholar says Colorado decision will stand the test of time

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary. He was declared ineligible under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. Trump’s attorneys have vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court. Celebrated conservative legal scholar and former federal judge J. Michael Luttig joins to break it all down.

========================================

https://youtu.be/eMBBZS3rhcU?si=wawKMd0NAdm2vWKt

Alan Dershowitz Torches Colorado Supreme Court's Decision To Block Trump From Ballot

========================================

https://youtu.be/3RvwIVsW8tk?si=Rwwoqkq8P_9oLEEU

Joyce Vance: This is a legal decision, not a political one

This portion of the last video starting at 3:30 is especially rich:

https://youtu.be/3RvwIVsW8tk?s...ijKiHW6xfW2d0K&t=210

And it should be borne in mind that this case was brought by Republican voters, with two Independents, to bar Trump from the Republican Primary ballot.

Democrats probably wouldn't have had standing until after the Primary.

And remember the opening post to this thread.

The two very qualified conservative Federalist Society guys opining in detail.

I post a lot of articles and videos. Perhaps you bypass them. I don't mind.

But here's an article that you should read, IMO. It really helps to understand the situation, and provides info otherwise not yet presented.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a0faeaff94fffd&ei=37

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind
Opinion by George T. Conway III • 2h

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I post a lot of articles and videos. Perhaps you bypass them. I don't mind.

But here's an article that you should read, IMO. It really helps to understand the situation, and provides info otherwise not yet presented.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a0faeaff94fffd&ei=37

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind
Opinion by George T. Conway III • 2h

Reading dissents is not a bad way to get a handle on a decision, and Conway's right, these are very weak.

I used to be into such things, more so than now. I have read lots of dissenting opinions over the years, and was more informed as a result.

So, Conway's take on it caught my attention. I think he's correct, as usual.

BTW, I wouldn't bother to read the dissents on this case, but I would read some qualified person's analysis.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...id=socialshare&ei=13

The Supreme Court Did This to Itself
Story by Dahlia Lithwick • 21h

(excerpts)

The Supreme Court is on a collision course with itself, and it’s not clear that the justices even know it.

One of the most striking aspects of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is how much of the 213-page opinion is devoted to institutional humility: Are the issues justiciable? Is this a political question better resolved by the political branches? Is it even appropriate for a court to resolve issues of such enormous national import? While the 4–3 majority of the Colorado court came down with a “yes” on each of these issues, you can’t say they didn’t take them seriously:

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach. We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this case presents several issues of first impression."

Agree or disagree with the conclusions of that court, the deep seriousness of purpose and institutional humility pervading that opinion is palpable. Compare that tone to the self-certainty on display from some of the members of the highest court in the land, who, when caught out in self-dealing and dishonesty, reject any effort to rein them in and persist in declaiming their own infallibility.

For years, some of the most vocal critics of the court’s ethical lapses, its lack of transparency, and its refusals to take seriously its own brokenness and errors, have warned that the day would come when an election would be decided by a body that has refused to clean house and has blamed the press and the academy for the stench of its own illegitimacy. The worry wasn’t that the court would decide the election; that seems almost inevitable. The worry was that the public, grown weary of the stench, would not abide by their decision.

Lavish world cruises, secret deals with moneyed donors, threats to step down unless someone ponied up with a pay raise, fishing trips with parties who have business before the court, an amicus brief industrial complex wholly bought and paid for by billionaire donations, leaked drafts, and secret speeches are not the stuff of constitutional democracy, or infallibility, or finality. When the hyperpolitical supercharged Trump cases catch up with the court—and that is beginning to happen, right now, this week—all that stench will run headlong into the questions about why the husband of the woman who went to the pep rally for the insurrection and the folks who lied to us all about Dobbs are objective enough to decide the outcome of an election. The same people entrusted with the protecting the reputation of the court have blundered into being wholly responsible for protecting democracy. Not one thing suggests they will take the latter any more seriously than they took the former.

Judge J. Michael Luttig, agrees w you ME and not me. I have a lot of respect for Judge (retired) Luttig.

The Supreme Court is going to have to make a difficult decision.