Judge Sides With Trump In Crucial Ruling For 2024
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
Who is online
596 visitors
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.
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
I agree with that.
heh, I'm wondering just how many public outbursts trump has left before the inevitable.
People are allowed to defend themselves in a democracy.
So you are more worried about his saying mean things. Nothing illegal about that (including hurting your feelings).
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!
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?
There aren't and it wouldn't.
Do you want Trump as the GOP nominee rather than Haley?
You know my preferences.
DeSantis is my first choice. Do I prefer Trump to Haley? I do.
Then why would you NOT think having DeSantis or Haley would be better for the GOP and the nation per my question @1.3??
Either one can beat old, slow, Joe.
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.
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.
I just answered it.
You then contradicted your answer @1.3.1. And that is okay, but let's clear this up.
My question @1.3:
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?
There is no contradiction.
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.
I believe that the best thing for the nation is preferably:
DeSantis
Trump
Haley
in that order.
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.
If Trump were indeed constitutionally ineligible to run, then your first pick becomes the most likely nominee (currently).
To be clear, you are not trying to include me (per context) in your 'they' are you?
Have you noticed that you are answering variations of the same question over and over?
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.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[removed]
[r][emoved]
[removed]
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.
Title of the seed: "Judge Sides With Trump In Crucial Ruling For 2024"
Trump included in the opening thread by the seeder:
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.
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.
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
I accepted that opinion and moved on.
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.
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.
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.
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, .
Telling me all about me again, somehow I am not surprised.
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?
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.
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?
Maybe people that have trouble understanding there is such a thing as a different perspective and sometimes they might consider accepting it. [ deleted. ]
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:
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.)
[deleted]
Trump is the candidate Democrats want. Go MAGA!
"They still can't see how unjust it all is"
What the former 'president' has done to Democracy - that statement says it all.
"coordinated trials'
[deleted]
Remember you said that when he becomes your next president
[deleted]
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?
One need not use specific words for someone to intentionally offer clarifying language. You wrote:
Seems to me there are two obvious scenarios here:
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.
Do the math yourself.
Yet again, the hypothetical is about Trump actually, constitutionally NOT being eligible to run for PotUS.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Fascinating.
Yes. Undoubtedly.
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.
I think you meant
[Deleted]
Good point
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.
He hasn't been convicted of engaging in insurrection.
It would make things a lot easier if he were, but he hasn't.
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
Ask the judge instead of offering the usual dismissive comment.
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.
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.”
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."
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.
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”!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I doubt it very much.
Obviously. Now stop shouting.
They had one job... to keep him on the ballot... which they did.
deleted
I don't think they are capable of coordinating blinking and breathing at the same time let alone something like that.
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.
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.
The former 'president' is doing that just fine all by his lonesome.
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!
Keep posing pictures.
In the real-world Biden is losing.
To Haley by 10 points currently.
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.
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.
The other thing that Carter, Obama and Biden all had in common: All three originally campaigned as "moderates."
And like Clinton and Obama, Biden will win his second term...
Unknowingly, they have done this for many decades.
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?
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.
[removed]
This is very true.
This is very probable.
No Jack, it is not...
Which one?
[deleted]