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.”
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Plain language and intention? That's your opinion.
It wasn't the opinion of the original judge or three of the seven Colorado Supeme Court justices. All appointed by Democrat governors, btw.
Don't be shocked if SCOTUS is 9-0 in favor of Trump.
I'll be shocked if it's 8 justices deciding anything about January 6th. Thomas should recuse himself rather than make any judicial decisions about what his wife was planning and participating in on January 6th.
Yes, in my opinion, the language of this amendment is clear and so is the intent. The intention was to keep out of office people who try to break our constitution.
Yes, in my opinion, the language of this amendment is clear and so is the intent. The intention was to keep out of office people who try to break our constitution.
Should someone be disqualified based solely on the claim that he or she participated in an insurrection? All that's necessary is for someone to make a claim? And the accused doesn't have her or his day in court, with the opportunity to defend themselves? Is this really where you want our judicial system to take?
As for the intent. Yes, the intent was clear, that's why it had been used so many times outside of the Civil War era, and it wasn't to "keep out of office people who try to break our constitution." The intent was to punish the Confederates after the Civil War.
Mr. Trump did have his day in court. Actually, there was a 5 day trial in Colorado, where witnesses spoke for each side. The judge, in that trial, found that Trump had committed insurrection.
During the drafting of the 14th amendment, the framers purposely omitted "the" rebellion or insurrection, so as to include insurrectionists past and present.
Perhaps the State of Texas will file a suit to keep Biden off the ballot? They could claim he's breaking our constitution by not defending border. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy by letting terrorists and criminals in.
After the precedent is set, all that's needed is the claim and the clear evidence as it exists in the eyes of a right wing judge.
Mr. Trump did have his day in court. Actually, there was a 5 day trial in Colorado, where witnesses spoke for each side. The judge, in that trial, found that Trump had committed insurrection.
During the drafting of the 14th amendment, the framers purposely omitted "the" rebellion or insurrection, so as to include insurrectionists past and present.
"it appears to the court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the presidential oath.” She said she was reluctant to deem a candidate ineligible "without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section 3.”
And, that same judge did not order that he not be placed on the ballot:
whether Colorado's Secretary of State has the power to block Trump from the ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment "is a pivotal issue and one best reserved for trial.”
The Colorado Supreme Court is a seven-member, non-partisan body that handles appeals from the state's district or municipal and county courts and the state's court of appeals. It's members are first nominated by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, a bi-partisan group of lawyers and non-lawyers chosen from each of the state's Congressional districts. That group interviews applicants and forwards a list of nominees to the governor for vacancies on the court. The governor chooses one. Members of the court must then be retained by voters in elections for terms of 10 years on the court. Judges must retire by age 72.
Out of the seven CO Supreme Court members, SIX had been retained I.e. elected by voters after initial appointment, The lone appointed only Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter appointed in 2020 up for election this year and voted in dissent.
During the drafting of the 14th amendment, the framers purposely omitted "the" rebellion or insurrection, so as to include insurrectionists past and present.
That's some people's opinion.
You think we should take away one's constitutional right to run for office, and others rights to vote for or against him based so much on subjective opinions?
Out of the seven CO Supreme Court members, SIX had been retained I.e. elected by voters after initial appointment, The lone appointed only Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter appointed in 2020 up for election this year and voted in dissent.
And, if the dissenters had all been appointed by Republicans, it would be a talking point of the left.
Responding to :All appointed by Democrat governors, btw.. talking point heard extensively at Fox news and Republican news outlets.
So to satisfy Fox New and conservative new outlets, Democratic governors should not fill the next 3 Supreme Court vacancies. Only Republican governors should fill the next 3 vacancies.
So to satisfy Fox New and conservative new outlets, Democratic governors should not fill the next 3 Supreme Court vacancies. Only Republican governors should fill the next 3 vacancies.
The judge and three of the CO Supreme justices do not believe Trump should be banned from the ballot. That is despite being appointed by Democrats. Arguably the farthest left governors we've had here, Polis and Hickenlooper. The assumption is that is likely that the judge and justices are by no means fans of Trump.
That's all. No deeper meaning to try and figure out.
You think we should take away one's constitutional right to run for office, and others rights to vote for or against him based so much on subjective opinions?
I do not.
Constitutional right to run for office? That's a new one to me.
As far as I know, he' still on the Colorado primary ballot. So Coloradans still have the right to vote for or against him.
I don't know about every state, but all the ballots I've ever seen have a write in option, so Trump voters could just write him in, thus voting for him.
Constitutional right to run for office? That's a new one to me.
As far as I know, he' still on the Colorado primary ballot. So Coloradans still have the right to vote for or against him.
I don't know about every state, but all the ballots I've ever seen have a write in option, so Trump voters could just write him in, thus voting for him.
Yes. The constitution tells us who is qualified to be president.
You don't think he should be on the ballot, but write-ins should be allowed? That sounds like you're not sure if the decision is right, but as long as he's severely disadvantaged its OK with you.
Anyway, if the Colorado decision holds, write-in's will not be counted per the court's ruling. I'm surprised with all the research you've done and opinions that youve shared that you aren't aware of that.
toomuchbaloney
16,104 Posts
I'll be shocked if it's 8 justices deciding anything about January 6th. Thomas should recuse himself rather than make any judicial decisions about what his wife was planning and participating in on January 6th.
Yes, in my opinion, the language of this amendment is clear and so is the intent. The intention was to keep out of office people who try to break our constitution.