╌>

Judge Sides With Trump In Crucial Ruling For 2024

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  7 months ago  •  116 comments

By:   Jordan Andrews

Judge Sides With Trump In Crucial Ruling For 2024
Each and every one of these ridiculous cases have LOST because they are all un-Constitutional left-wing fantasies orchestrated by monied allies of the Biden campaign seeking to turn the election over to the courts and deny the American people the right to choose their next president.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A judge in Michigan dismissed a legal challenge aiming to  disqualify  Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot using the 14th Amendment’s insurrection provision.

The judge ruled that the  decision  on Trump’s eligibility should be made by elected representatives in Congress, deeming it a “political question” not meant for the courts to decide.

“Earlier today, the state court in Michigan dismissed the remaining 14th Amendment challenges to President Trump’s ballot eligibility for 2024,” stated the Trump campaign’s Steven Cheung.  (Trending: Court Hands Down Crucial 2nd Amendment Ruling)


“Each and every one of these ridiculous cases have LOST because they are all un-Constitutional left-wing fantasies orchestrated by monied allies of the Biden campaign seeking to turn the election over to the courts and deny the American people the right to choose their next president.”

“While the Trump Campaign welcomes these dismissals in Michigan and anticipates the future dismissals of the other 14th Amendment cases, we are most focused on once again winning the great state of Michigan and the re-election of President Trump next year.”

The 14th Amendment’s Section 3 disqualifies individuals who supported insurrection, originally targeting former Confederate officials.

Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and other states have been dismissed, with ongoing ambiguity surrounding the application of the Amendment.

“Neither the Constitution nor Congress, in the one hundred fifty years since that amendment was passed, has clarified how this works,” CNN’s Elie Honig said.

“The problem is, you can’t just make it up now and apply it retroactively. Some scholars argue it’s ‘self-executing.’ What does that even mean? Clearly, someone has to enforce it. Why do you think we’re having legal debates in Colorado right now?”

Despite these legal challenges, Trump has remained a favorite for the presidency in 2024.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    7 months ago

As Jill Stein and possibly Joe Manchin emerging as third-party candidates, the left will continue to seek other nefarious means to stop Donald Trump.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1  George  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    7 months ago

The way Biden is going, a bucket a warm spit will beat him in November, Haley emerges as the top choice.

Marquette Law Poll previews 2024 presidential race | News | wkow.com

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @1.1    7 months ago

I agree with that.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    7 months ago

heh, I'm wondering just how many public outbursts trump has left before the inevitable.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2    7 months ago

People are allowed to defend themselves in a democracy.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @1.2    7 months ago

So you are more worried about his saying mean things.  Nothing illegal about that (including hurting your feelings).  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    7 months ago

It's hilarious how every time the former 'president' turd opens his mouth, he is giving the prosecution all they need.

With that turd, every rant is a confession.

Keep talking you monumental turd!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    7 months ago
... the left will continue to seek other nefarious means to stop Donald Trump.

If there were constitutional grounds that make Trump ineligible to run, would that not be a very good thing for the GOP and the nation?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3    7 months ago

There aren't and it wouldn't.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    7 months ago

Do you want Trump as the GOP nominee rather than Haley?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.2    7 months ago

You know my preferences.

DeSantis is my first choice.  Do I prefer Trump to Haley?  I do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.3    7 months ago

Then why would you NOT think having DeSantis or Haley would be better for the GOP and the nation per my question @1.3??

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.3.5  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.2    7 months ago

Either one can beat old, slow, Joe.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.4    7 months ago

I think DeSantis is young, has all the right positions and can give us two terms. Thus, I prefer him to Trump.

Haley would be very good on foreign policy but is a moderate and the country has been pushed way too far to the left. We need a correction.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.6    7 months ago

Again, Vic, why would you NOT think having DeSantis or Haley would be better for the GOP and the nation per my question @1.3??

Seems you actually do think it would be better to NOT have Trump as the nominee but you are talking in circles.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.7    7 months ago

I just answered it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.9  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    7 months ago

You then contradicted your answer @1.3.1.   And that is okay, but let's clear this up.

My question @1.3:

If there were constitutional grounds that make Trump ineligible to run, would that not be a very good thing for the GOP and the nation?

Seems you would answer 'yes' (good for the GOP and the nation).   If Trump were constitutionally ineligible to run, then the GOP could nominate DeSantis or Haley.   You have stated that this would be preferable to you.   So, in your opinion, it would indeed be good for the GOP and the nation, right?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.9    7 months ago

There is no contradiction.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.10    7 months ago

Fascinating.

Okay, Vic, I am concluding that you believe it is better for the GOP and the nation for Trump to NOT be the GOP nominee and to have, instead, DeSantis or Haley as the nominee (in that order).

Correct me if I got any of that wrong.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.11    7 months ago
Correct me if I got any of that wrong.

I believe that the best thing for the nation is preferably:

DeSantis

Trump

Haley

in that order.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.10    7 months ago

same old same old.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.13    7 months ago

Notice that they don't realize that judges are overturning "gag orders" and the obtuse use of the 14th Amendment on Trump.

They still can't see how unjust it all is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.15  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.12    7 months ago

If Trump were indeed constitutionally ineligible to run, then your first pick becomes the most likely nominee (currently).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.14    7 months ago
Notice that they don't realize that judges are overturning "gag orders" and the obtuse use of the 14th Amendment on Trump.

To be clear, you are not trying to include me (per context) in your 'they' are you?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.3.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.12    7 months ago

Have you noticed that you are answering variations of the same question over and over? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.17    7 months ago

Wrong.   He stated @1.3.1 that it would not be a very good thing for the GOP and the nation if Trump were not the nominee.   But then he stated he prefers DeSantis as the nominee.   (A position he has stated in the past.)

Logically, preferring DeSantis as the nominee means that he would indeed think it was good for the GOP and the nation to have DeSantis rather than Trump as the nominee.

I asked questions to clear this up.   That is the proper thing to do rather than simply take one's interpretation and run with it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.3.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.18    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.3.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.19    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.3.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.3.20    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.3.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.19    7 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.23  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.3.22    7 months ago

You know you just can't get away with that.

[removed]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.3.24  bugsy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.3.22    7 months ago

[r][emoved]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.3.25  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.23    7 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.17    7 months ago

You mean like people coming onto any article and asking about Trump no matter what the conversation is about?

I think some democrats thought all these coordinated trials would poison the public towards Donald Trump. Then there were a few democrats that noticed that Trump's support kept growing and they said "ah, we tricked Republicans into nominating Trump and the rematch will have the same results." Those sharpies are now getting awfully scared and suddenly want Biden replaced.

Then we have the ultimate elitists who are totally blind to the most corrupt Attorney General in the history of the country and demand that Donald Trump be prosecuted for something that nobody ever gets prosecuted for by people who vowed to take him down.

Yes, Jeremy, I get it. If Donald Trump is the nominee, I will vote for him, and I won't even bother to stay up and watch the election results. What we are witnessing today is not just a fringe group on the left. The entire democrat party is deeply rooted in this ideology.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.27  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.26    7 months ago
You mean like people coming onto any article and asking about Trump no matter what the conversation is about?

Title of the seed:  "Judge Sides With Trump In Crucial Ruling For 2024"

Trump included in the opening thread by the seeder:

Vic@1As Jill Stein and possibly Joe Manchin emerging as third-party candidates, the left will continue to seek other nefarious means to stop Donald Trump

Trump is front and center in US politics given he is the leader (by multiple double digits) for the GOP nomination and has a shot at becoming the next PotUS.   All this while facing felony charges for his actions as PotUS (Big Lie) and afterwards (docs).

Of course he will be mentioned in most every seed dealing with news and politics.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.28  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.9    7 months ago

1.3 If there were constitutional grounds that make Trump ineligible to run, would that not be a very good thing for the GOP and the nation?

Response to 1.3 There aren't and it wouldn't.  That means there are no constitutional grounds and it would not be a very good thing for the Nation

1.3.2 Totally separate question if you don't try to  combine the two. Do you want Trump as the GOP nominee rather than Haley?

Response to 1.3.2 DeSantis is my first choice.  Do I prefer Trump to Haley?  I do.

That would mean DeSantis, Trump and Haley, in that order.

Very simple.  Really doesn't need the half dozen follow up questions unless there are other motives than just understanding the answers.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.29  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.18    7 months ago
Logically, preferring DeSantis as the nominee means that he would indeed think it was good for the GOP and the nation to have DeSantis rather than Trump as the nominee.

Maybe he would like to have the people pick the next President and not have the courts involved in who people can and can't vote for. Maybe that is more important than who the next president is

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.30  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.28    7 months ago
There aren't [constitutional grounds that make Trump ineligible to run] ...

I accepted that opinion and moved on.   

... and it wouldn't [be a very good thing for the GOP and the nation (if Trump was ineligible)]

This is the part I questioned because this would seem to contradict what Vic has repeatedly publicly stated on this forum.   Vic has stated for well over a year that he wants DeSantis to be the nominee over Trump.   And while he has stated that he will vote for Trump if the nominee, if Trump were ineligible then Vic's choice would likely be the nominee.    

Why would Vic think that his choice now enabled to be the nominee is not good for the GOP and the nation?

A very natural question to ask so I asked it.   If you could not see that, now you should be able to.


Really doesn't need the half dozen follow up questions ...

I replied to Vic's replies until my question was at least partially answered.    Then I stopped.    And then you, et. al. started up with your dishonest meta.


GOP loyalists are in a quandary today because their likely nominee is Trump.   Clearly it would be more comfortable to have a nominee who is not under indictment for felonies based on his actions while PotUS where he was the only PotUS in the history of our nation to attempt to steal a presidential election through fraud, lying, coercion and incitement.

But that is not the reality so GOP loyalists are forced to defend their potential nominee.   A perfect culture for cognitive dissonance and we see it daily in posts.   Instead of directly answering questions we see vague language, smoke screens, deflection, strawman arguments, etc.   

You, et. al. routinely do not directly answer probative questions about the GOP and its likely nominee because you know that you have no good answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.31  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.29    7 months ago
Maybe he would like to have the people pick the next President and not have the courts involved in who people can and can't vote for. Maybe that is more important than who the next president is

The law and the CotUS are always involved in elections.

The hypothetical was a finding that Trump constitutionally is ineligible.   Not a court ruling, but a finding of constitutional law; a legal determination.

By the same token, it would require a legal forum to determine if an individual born outside of the USA is constitutionally eligible to run for PotUS.   

This is not a court artificially messing with an election, it is the rule of law and abiding by our Constitution.

Once a candidate is legally eligible, the people then decide.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.32  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.30    7 months ago
But that is not the reality so GOP loyalists are forced to defend their potential nominee.

Actually they don't need to defend much of anything. If they would rather vote for Trump than Biden I assume it is because they think Trump( baggage and all) would be a better president than Biden, . 

You, et. al. cannot directly face probative questions about the GOP and its likely nominee because you know that you have no good answer.

Telling me all about me again, somehow I am not surprised.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.33  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.31    7 months ago
The hypothetical was a finding that Trump constitutionally is ineligible.   Not a court ruling, but a finding of constitutional law; a legal determination.

And who would make that determination?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.34  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.33    7 months ago
And who would make that determination?

As I just wrote in my post, a court of law.   That is how our system works.   A finding of constitutional law is determined by a formal legal process.   Just like a finding of guilt for a crime is determined by a formal legal process.

If there was a question about the eligibility of an individual born outside of the USA , who do you think would provide the answer?

Who do you think should provide the answer?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.35  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.32    7 months ago

What kind of hubris does it take to demand that others 'defend' their personal choices?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.36  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.35    7 months ago

If you cannot stand to have your opinions challenged or questioned then you should not participate in a news forum.   

Differing opinions and challenges / debate on same is the core of forums like this.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.37  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.34    7 months ago

So I say maybe he doesn't like the courts involved and you say "Not a court ruling, but a finding of constitutional law".  Then I ask who makes that determination and you say the courts.  Kinda semantics don't you think?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.38  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.36    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.39  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.37    7 months ago
  Kinda semantics don't you think?

Bingo.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.40  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.35    7 months ago

Maybe people that have trouble understanding there is such a thing as a different perspective and sometimes they might consider accepting it. [ deleted. ]256

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.41  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.37    7 months ago

I was emphasizing that this is not about some rogue court making a ruling but rather a finding of constitutional law.

In other words, I was emphasizing that the hypothetical was that Trump really truly is not eligible.

So, if Trump really, truly is not eligible to run for PotUS, then that clears the way for others like DeSantis.


Now, let's go back to your complaint:

RDTC@1.3.29Maybe he would like to have the people pick the next President and not have the courts involved in who people can and can't vote for. Maybe that is more important than who the next president is

Do you object to the constitution and the law determining who is eligible to be PotUS?    Or do you think we should ignore the CotUS and simply have the people decide via a vote — if they vote then the individual is ipso facto eligible?    (That would give Arnold Schwarzenegger a shot at the presidency.)

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.42  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.39    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.43  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.36    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.44  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.38    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.45  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.36    7 months ago

Trump is the candidate Democrats want. Go MAGA!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.46  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.14    7 months ago

"They still can't see how unjust it all is"

What the former 'president' has done to Democracy - that statement says it all.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.47  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.26    7 months ago

"coordinated trials'

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.48  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.3.45    7 months ago
Trump is the candidate Democrats want.

Then it makes no sense for Democrats to prevent him from running.

Sounds like Democratic "smarts" to me!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.49  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.32    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.50  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.41    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.51  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @1.3.45    7 months ago

Remember you said that when he becomes your next president

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.52  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.49    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.53  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.52    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.54  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.41    7 months ago
I was emphasizing that this is not about some rogue court making a ruling but rather a finding of constitutional law.

Exactly where did I suggest some rogue court would make a ruling?  What exactly is a rogue court?  It  seems anyone that loses a ruling might accuse the court they lost in to be rogue, including the supreme court which is constantly being accused of being biased.  In which case can all courts be considered rogue depending on the circumstances?  In this case which court decisions would be acceptable and which ones not acceptable because it is a rogue court?  If there is a big concern about a rogue court making this decision should any court make the decision at all?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.55  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.54    7 months ago

Yes, rogue courts is something invented by people who didn't like a decision.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.56  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.54    7 months ago
Exactly where did I suggest some rogue court would make a ruling?

One need not use specific words for someone to intentionally offer clarifying language.   You wrote:

RDTC @1.3.25Maybe he would like to have the people pick the next President and not have the courts involved in who people can and can't vote for.

Seems to me there are two obvious scenarios here:   

  1. Courts ethically ruling on eligibility per a thoughtful, legal process to determine the correct interpretation.
  2. A rogue court making a political (or otherwise) biased ruling

Thus I set out to clearly show that I am not talking about a rogue court but rather a legitimate, thoughtful ruling that (hypothetically) determined Trump was—in actual constitutional fact— ineligible.

What exactly is a rogue court? 

Do the math yourself.   


Yet again, the hypothetical is about Trump actually, constitutionally NOT being eligible to run for PotUS.

  • Under that hypothetical, would that be good for the GOP?   
  • Under that hypothetical, would that be good for the nation?

I say yes to both.   It is good for the GOP because the GOP will not be saddled with Trump as their nominee.   They can then nominate someone who is at least a somewhat decent human being, younger, unincumbered with the wrongdoings of his past, etc.

It is good for the nation, because Trump should be held accountable for the horrible precedent he set via his Big Lie.   His actions should not be condoned and they certainly should not be rewarded by nominating him or, worse, electing him.   It damages the nation by allowing such a horrible precedent since that simply encourages others to act in a similar fashion.

Do you have an opinion to offer on these questions with supporting reasoning?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.57  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.56    7 months ago
Do you have an opinion to offer on these questions with supporting reasoning?

Not really but I will give you my thoughts, take them or leave them.

First I do not have a problem with valid things going through the courts.  What I do have an issue with is the current state of the use of the courts as a way to overturn legislature or issues that people don't like.  I am not sure if this falls under that category or not, it seems like it may be a shot in the dark in hopes something will happen.

  •  Under that hypothetical, would that be good for the GOP? 

In the short term if you consider what is best for the GOP and assume winning the presidency is what would be good for the GOP then the person with the greatest chance of winning would be what the GOP would consider best for them.  Whether that is Trump or not seems to be anyone's guess.  In my opinion in the long term it would be best for the GOP if Donald did not run or was not allowed to run.

  • Under that hypothetical, would that be good for the nation?

I have made it very clear that I am not at a point where I am considering who would be best for the country, especially if the choice is between Joe and Donald.  In this case I think the hypothetical is silly for anyone that is not saying they don't want Donald under any circumstances, full stop.  I have no clue or opinion if that would be best for the country or not.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.58  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.55    7 months ago
Yes, rogue courts is something invented by people who didn't like a decision.

That is why I believe way too many things are being brought to the courts by people that don't like what their elected representatives do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.59  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.57    7 months ago
What I do have an issue with is the current state of the use of the courts as a way to overturn legislature or issues that people don't like. 

Yes, the courts should not be abused.   Ergo my position that this hypothetical Trump illegitimacy would be a true, constitutional fact rather than something that resulted from abuse (as in a rogue court).

In the short term if you consider what is best for the GOP and assume winning the presidency is what would be good for the GOP then the person with the greatest chance of winning would be what the GOP would consider best for them. 

The polls suggest that might well be Haley.   Trump could win the presidency, but then the GOP is stuck with that miserable traitor for another four years.   Haley winning gives the GOP a chance to start recovering from the damage from Trump since 2016.

I have no clue or opinion if that [Trump NOT being eligible to run for PotUS] would be best for the country or not.

Fascinating.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.3.60  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.3    7 months ago
If there were constitutional grounds that make Trump ineligible to run, would that not be a very good thing for the GOP and the nation?

Yes.  Undoubtedly.

I don't think this is going to qualify, though.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.61  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.60    7 months ago
I don't think this is going to qualify, though.

I do not either.   It was a long-shot to begin with and even if valid, the SoSs would be in a political quandary to effect this.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.62  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.59    7 months ago
Fascinating.

I think you meant 

spock-fascinating.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.3.63  bugsy  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.3.28    7 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.3.64  Right Down the Center  replied to  bugsy @1.3.63    7 months ago

Good point

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.65  A. Macarthur  replied to  TᵢG @1.3    7 months ago

There are Constitutional grounds. The judge agreed that Trump was guilty but she lacked the courage to follow the Constitution which could not be more clear!

The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says American officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.”

The judge made the ridiculous excuse that Trump was “not an American official” albeit his culpability in the insurrection. 

Equivocate away boys, but the Constitution is clear which is why I posted it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.3.66  Jack_TX  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.65    7 months ago
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says American officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.”

He hasn't been convicted of engaging in insurrection.

It would make things a lot easier if he were, but he hasn't.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.67  A. Macarthur  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.66    7 months ago

DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot 

Anyone care to argue that Trump was not an "American Official" on January 6, 2021 or that he didn't take an oath to support the Constitution?

The 102-page ruling in Colorado offered a searing condemnation of Trump’s conduct, labeling him as an insurrectionist who “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20102%2Dpage%20ruling,direct%20it%20at%20the%20Capitol.%E2%80%9D

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.68  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.67    7 months ago

No trial necessary, eh?

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.69  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.68    7 months ago

Ask the judge instead of offering the usual dismissive comment. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.70  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.69    7 months ago

please supply a link to what you quoted.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.71  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.69    7 months ago

I dismissed nothing.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.3.72  Jack_TX  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.67    7 months ago

That's not the same as a conviction.

A decision like that is never going to have any hope of standing.  There is a reason all of these attempts are failing.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.73  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.70    7 months ago

Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.74  A. Macarthur  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.72    7 months ago

The only decisions that have failed are with regard to Trump's appearance on a ballot; 

Whether it's the Colorado case or one filed in another state, the question ultimately is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on Section 3. The group suing in the Michigan case, Free Speech for People, filed an appeal Thursday in state court.

Legal experts said it was significant that Wallace found Trump had engaged in insurrection. She wrote that she agreed with the petitioners' claim that he "incited" the attack.

"It's a stunning holding for a court to conclude that a former president engaged in insurrection against the United States," said Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has followed the case closely. "And there's a good chance that, on appeal, a court bars him from the ballot."

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.75  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.70    7 months ago

I provided a link above and provided a link below at your request. And this is the way we have a discussion so I appreciate your having asked for a link.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.76  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.75    7 months ago

Thanks for the link.

The issue I have is that the judge said all of that but provided no proof .

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.77  A. Macarthur  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.72    7 months ago

In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact "engage in insurrection" on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys' arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. 

Trump’s lawyers thus admitted Trump’s culpability by trying to assert he was engaging in free speech. But advocating insurrection IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT! A real bonehead fuck up by his lawyers to use a wrong interpretation of the Constitution as a “defense”!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.78  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.76    7 months ago

No; you do not have that issue; this was a "bench trial" during which the defendant-Trump's lawyers, stupidly offered a defense that claimed Trump's incitement of an insurrection was merely his "first amendment right of free speech"! Among the EXCEPTIONS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THAT IT DOES NOT protect personal expression that incites or directly causes violence.

Consequently, Trump's lawyers asserted that his defense was essentially an "expression that incites or directly causes violence". Thus, the judge had every right to conclude that "Trump was an insurrectionist who 'actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters,”'and  'acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol'."

It's on the record.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.79  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.78    7 months ago

it is one judge's opinion.

Meh.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.80  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.79    7 months ago

I just explained it. It's her decision based on Trump's lawyers assertion that he had the first amendment right to incite insurrection. An either ignorance of the First Amendment restriction, or, a stupid attempt to think a judge wouldn't know any better, TRUMP'S LAWYERS SAID HE HAD INTENT TO INCITE INSURRECTION! And whether or not he felt it was his right, makes no difference. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.81  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.80    7 months ago

one persons opinion

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.82  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.81    7 months ago

See ya'. YOUR'S is one person's opinion. I gave you the respect and the time and the effort to specifically respond to you … my bad.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.83  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.82    7 months ago

Yes, I have an opinion, just like the judge.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.84  TᵢG  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.65    7 months ago
The judge made the ridiculous excuse that Trump was “not an American official” albeit his culpability in the insurrection. 

I agree, it is strange that she would find that he engaged in an insurrection but that she was not sure if it applies to presidents.   Bizarre.   How can anyone question whether or not the PotUS is an "office, civil or military, under the United States"??

Seems to me that this is the easier factor on which to rule and that intention to incite an insurrection is more difficult to ascertain.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.3.85  Jack_TX  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.77    7 months ago
In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact "engage in insurrection" on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys' arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. 

Engaging in an insurrection is a crime.  Given that Trump hasn't ever been charged with said crime, it would be exceedingly difficult to justify abridgment of his Constitutional rights.

Despite three years of investigation, the DOJ never brought charges for insurrection, sedition, treason, or any of the other myriad of crimes that might have been possible outcomes.  Had they done so, this would be a very different situation.

Trump’s lawyers thus admitted Trump’s culpability by trying to assert he was engaging in free speech.

I doubt it very much.

But advocating insurrection IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

Obviously.  Now stop shouting.

A real bonehead fuck up by his lawyers to use a wrong interpretation of the Constitution as a “defense”!

They had one job... to keep him on the ballot... which they did.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.3.86  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.26    7 months ago
You mean like people coming onto any article and asking about Trump no matter what the conversation is about?

deleted 

I think some democrats thought all these coordinated trials would poison the public towards Donald Trump. 

I don't think they are capable of coordinating blinking and breathing at the same time let alone something like that.  

Then we have the ultimate elitists who are totally blind to the most corrupt Attorney General in the history of the country and demand that Donald Trump be prosecuted for something that nobody ever gets prosecuted for by people who vowed to take him down.

They've been blind to a lot lately.  The mentality of "get Trump" has eliminated any chance of objectivity and critical thinking.  And, as you stated, these are the same people who will take a simple article and inject Trump into it.  Like everybody is as easily distracted as they are.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
1.3.87  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.83    7 months ago

 The difference is, your opinion is wrong! I explained to you that trumps attorneys admitted obit in advertently, that he was culpable for inciting violence in the insurrection.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.88  Texan1211  replied to  A. Macarthur @1.3.87    7 months ago

Sure.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    7 months ago

The former 'president' is doing that just fine all by his lonesome.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    7 months ago

Trump's quixotic quest to regain power is failing, well, quixotically...

I guess getting his butt whooped once was not enough humiliation.

He just keeps coming back for more! Him and his MAGA Hat simps! original

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2    7 months ago

Keep posing pictures.

In the real-world Biden is losing.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.1  George  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    7 months ago

To Haley by 10 points currently.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @2.1.1    7 months ago

Any Republican should be able to destroy him. Democrats think this will be a rerun of 2020. They forgot that Biden reigned over the nation for almost 3 years.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    7 months ago

The people thought they were getting a moderate voice of reason with Biden.

The problem is, it turned out that geriatric Joe is simply a figurehead, a puppet being manipulated by the radical far left element of the progressive Democrat party.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.3    7 months ago

The other thing that Carter, Obama and Biden all had in common:  All three originally campaigned as "moderates."

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    7 months ago

And like Clinton and Obama, Biden will win his second term...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.5    7 months ago

oh are people going to vote against their own best interests?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    7 months ago

Unknowingly, they have done this for many decades.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.9  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    7 months ago

91 felony criminal indictments before the court. 91 felony criminal indictments. Take one to trial. Poll the jury. Trump still will have 90 felony criminal indictments before the court. He is unelectable...

If you support Trump, say so. If not, what in the hell is your prob?

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.9    7 months ago
He is unelectable...

Then why on earth are Democrats so fucking SCARED of him?

Why are many Democrats urging other Democrats to run against Biden for the Democratic Party nomination?

I am not interested in the stupid memes, please refrain from replying to me with them, as they are totally senseless. Use your words.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2.1.9    7 months ago

It is funny that you think Joe is mentally capable enough to drive, especially since walking or riding a bike is so challenging for him.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.1.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    7 months ago

[removed

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.3    7 months ago
The people thought they were getting a moderate voice of reason with Biden.

This is very true.

The problem is, it turned out that geriatric Joe is simply a figurehead, a puppet being manipulated by the radical far left element of the progressive Democrat party.

This is very probable.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.14  JBB  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.13    7 months ago

No Jack, it is not...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.14    7 months ago

Somebody is pulling Biden's strings.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @2.1.14    7 months ago
No Jack, it is not...

Which one?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2    7 months ago

[deleted]

 
 

Who is online

afrayedknot


41 visitors