I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
The disqualification doesn't require a conviction of anything. The Colorado Court asked a couple of questions and then followed the law. Did Trump meet any of the elements laid out in the amendment and its clauses which described the disqualification? Is the legal ballot for federal elections in the state of Colorado their jurisdiction? What do you think the answer is to those questions?
Yes. They are establishing precedent. Part of that is arguing the case before the Supreme Court of the US. This is the American process.
Do you have any expert legal analysis you could point to that concurs with yours that can better back up your opinion?
Seems to be quite a few experts who see it the other way. Including the three justices with dissenting opinions. All three appointed by the most liberal governors we've had in Colorado, btw. Here's a quote from one:
"I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom,”
J Michael Luttig, a conservative former judge who testified before the House January 6 committee and has written with the Harvard professor Laurence Tribe on the 14th amendment, called the Colorado ruling "historic", "masterful" and "brilliant".
"It will be a test of America's commitment to its democracy, to its constitution and to the rule of law,” Luttig told MSNBC, adding: "Arguably, when it is decided by the supreme court, it will be the single most important constitutional decision in all of our history.
“… It is an unassailable ... decision that the former president is disqualified from the presidency because he conducted, engaged in or aided or supported an insurrection or rebellion against the United States constitution.”
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Do you have any expert legal analysis you could point to that concurs with yours that can better back up your opinion?
Seems to be quite a few experts who see it the other way. Including the three justices with dissenting opinions. All three appointed by the most liberal governors we've had in Colorado, btw. Here's a quote from one:
"I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom,”
Jonathan Turley's analysis (skip ahead to 1:30):
Justice Gorsuch may concur.
His opinion regarding 14th amendment disqualification in Colorado in 2012;
Quote
We affirm. We discern no reversible error in the magistrate judge's disposition and see little we might usefully add to the extensive and thoughtful opinion he issued. To be sure, Mr. Hassan contends the magistrate judge overlooked one aspect of his claim. Mr. Hassan insists his challenge to Colorado's enforcement of the natural-born-citizen requirement did not depend exclusively on invalidation of Article II by the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if Article II properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president, Mr. Hassan claims it was still an unlawful act of discrimination for the state to deny him a place on the ballot. But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, 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.
Bold and italics mine. It will be interesting to see if Gorsuch's opinion has evolved now that he's a Trump appointed justice on the SCOTUS.
His opinion regarding 14th amendment disqualification in Colorado in 2012;
Bold and italics mine. It will be interesting to see if Gorsuch's opinion has evolved now that he's a Trump appointed justice on the SCOTUS.
Thanks for adding to and bolding. This will make it easy.
The obvious glaring issue that you skipped over was that the court took away Trump's constitutional right to run for President without any due process. It'd be worth your while to read the dissenting opinion by Justice Samour.
He makes good points. That is, if you gloss over the fact that the court determined without any due process that Trump engaged in insurrection. It's notable that the 14th Amendment doesn't even define what insurrection is or what constitutes engaging it in. Also, keep in mind insurrection is a federal crime that he has not been charged with let alone guilty of.
So, the court subjectively defined it then decided Trump was guilty of it, and then took away his right to run for President. All without any due process.
Did you watch the video I included with my post? Where do you disagree with his analysis?
You should at least read the dissenting opinions of the CO Supreme Court justices. Samour's in particular.
"The decision by the all-Democrat Supreme Court of Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot is among the most undemocratic and unconstitutional rulings that I have ever read in my 60 years of teaching and practicing law." -Alan Dershowitz
Has anyone heard even one elected Democrat speak out against this decision? Just another but perhaps the most glaring example of that party not caring about the Consitution.
So, the court subjectively defined it then decided Trump was guilty of it, and then took away his right to run for President. All without any due process.
Did you watch the video I included with my post? Where do you disagree with his analysis?
You should at least read the dissenting opinions of the CO Supreme Court justices. Samour's in particular.
What exactly do you mean by due process? A jury trial? Can you point out where in the 14th Amendment a trial or conviction is required?
I'm not going to debate the opinions of the CO SCOTUS. I was merely posting an example of a dissenting opinion.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Thanks for adding to and bolding. This will make it easy.
The obvious glaring issue that you skipped over was that the court took away Trump's constitutional right to run for President without any due process. It'd be worth your while to read the dissenting opinion by Justice Samour.
What due process are you talking about? You are repeating that opinion about discovery and documents? The question has been argued in front of two courts now with Trump's legal team representing his interests. .
I read the dissenting opinion. Is that supposed to sway me more than the decision swayed you? The bottom line is that the state courts feel that they have jurisdiction and they took action. The question will be argued in front of the SCOTUS. Maybe this will be an election related court case that Trump will win. So far, he's made lots of claims about elections that he's had exactly zero evidence to support his crazy claims. Maybe the SCOTUS will give him a win in this case.
Let's wait and see rather than getting weird because the courts are being used in Colorado to get a precedent setting case to the SCOTUS. At least this case involves a real scenario rather than a fabricated issue.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
"The decision by the all-Democrat Supreme Court of Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot is among the most undemocratic and unconstitutional rulings that I have ever read in my 60 years of teaching and practicing law." -Alan Dershowitz
Has anyone heard even one elected Democrat speak out against this decision? Just another but perhaps the most glaring example of that party not caring about the Consitution.
This is a bigger example of not caring about the constitution than lying about election results and then trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power to retain lost power using extraconstituional means? Not talking about Trump's legal case is a bigger example than a violent attempt to shutdown congress on Trump's behalf? This is bigger than ignoring Trump suggestions that the Constitution should be suspended?
What exactly do you mean by due process? A jury trial? Can you point out where in the 14th Amendment a trial or conviction is required?
I'm not going to debate the opinions of the CO SCOTUS. I was merely posting an example of a dissenting opinion.
It doesn't point to a conviction being required. That backs up my point. It's vaque. And was written at a time when people succeeded from the country, formed their own military, and took up arms to fight against the US. Actual insurrectionists, who then rejoined our country.
toomuchbaloney
16,104 Posts
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4368856-sen-tillis-introduce-legislation-barring-federal-funds-from-states-misusing-14th-amendment/
"Misusing" vs "using"
Republicans seem to be very sensitive to having the laws or constitution applied to Trump.