|
Post by Marshall on Dec 20, 2023 19:15:09 GMT -5
The 14th Amendment was written into law to keep Confederates from running for office. I doubt most were convicted of crimes or even tried.
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Dec 20, 2023 19:19:29 GMT -5
The 14th Amendment was written into law to keep Confederates from running for office. I doubt most were convicted of crimes or even tried.
Well, double jeopardy — there you go.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 20, 2023 19:44:07 GMT -5
The 14th Amendment was written into law to keep Confederates from running for office. I doubt most were convicted of crimes or even tried. And from what I understand, "office" applies to a whole bunch of elected offices, but "President" isn't one of them. Many legal scholars I've heard believe that's deliberate. Which is why many feel this is silly and won't stand.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Dec 20, 2023 19:47:40 GMT -5
Schrödinger's candidate. Either Trump continues to lie to the world that he won in 2020 or he indeed won and is not eligible to be elected a third time.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 20, 2023 19:55:04 GMT -5
This Court is widely regarded as a conservative one (with even three of the justices appointed by Trump himself). If, by some chance, this Court rules in favor of Colorado and lays the groundwork for keeping Trump off the ballot, it won't be regarded as a political partisan hatchet job, at least outside Trump's very hardest of hard core (15%?). This Court has the most Republican cred of any Court within my short memory. And as such, a decision to dump Trump might well come to be greeted by most in this country with relief (not anger). The Republican party has several viable candidates that reflect the core beliefs and values most in the party can happily live with, with at least a couple of them having a pretty darn good chance of beating Biden (a primary Republican value). And all of these alternatives would be more interested in governing a nation rather than wasting everyone's time by pursuing a personal vendetta; an idiot tour of revenge led by a walking, talking poisonous spleen. I'm hoping the Court comes to feel the same. Sure, the law is the law and Constitution is the Constitution, but emotion and personal belief can, and does, do a little coloring on the side when the issue is gray. Legal support can be, and is, found for contending positions, even widely contrary ones. I hope a majority of the Justices look deep inside their robes and decide to do this suffering nation a really big favor. With Trump gone, I would vote for Nikki Haley right now just out of gratitude. (an easy enough thing to say here in North Dakota, as even a gerbil would beat Biden here by twenty points. So if my vote makes the margin 20.0000000001% instead of 20%, no harm, no foul.) At least Haley is smart and capable. Given the chance, I believe she will take the job seriously and be a responsible president. Trump has never been truly Republican, that's just the vehicle. But regardless, if Chevron gets overturned in June by Trump's Supreme Court and Trump is not permitted on Presidential ballots, I suspect the country will get a real insurrection that will make the Minneapolis BLM riots look like child's play. I really hope the Left realizes they've overshot the usefulness of being totalitarian and come to their senses.
|
|
|
Post by james on Dec 20, 2023 23:36:42 GMT -5
Ian Millhiser wrote one of the interesting but not too brain paralyzing articles about the Colorado decision for Vox. I would also be interested to read what Teri Kanefield might think about the matter but she hasn't written much yet. www.vox.com/scotus/2023/12/20/24009521/supreme-court-donald-trump-colorado-ballot-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment-anderson-griswold
(For bonus wonkery, linked in the Millhiser article, a piece from August by Zack Beauchamp discussed the frequently referred to NYT article by Federalist Society chaps, University of Chicago professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas professor Michael Stokes Paulsen on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its application to Trump, which I hadn't navigated the NYT paywall to read previously).www.vox.com/23828477/trump-2024-14th-amendment-bannedAlso, I now know more than I knew I needed or expected to about the case in re Griffin (1869). I dare say I'll have forgotten it in a couple of days.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Dec 21, 2023 7:25:50 GMT -5
James, those links are helpful. I can see that I underestimated the due process argument that Trump can make. I don't think it should be accepted but it's not frivolous.
Millhiser's piece made me realize that the Supremes could easily decide the case on a procedural point. They may want to do that.
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,390
|
Post by Tamarack on Dec 21, 2023 8:51:55 GMT -5
Another interesting view of this case: www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-0013279It is worthy to note that Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe agree on the main point but have disagreed on related points. It is also worthy to note that the Colorado Supreme Court opinion was 120 pages long, and is now being argued in sound bites and social media posts.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Dec 21, 2023 9:17:34 GMT -5
What a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Dec 21, 2023 9:20:51 GMT -5
Tamarack, that link didn't work for me but here's a slightly different one. www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792I found that worth reading for a couple of reasons. One is that Judge Luttig is a conservative. Another is that he has done his homework and knows what he's talking about. That distinguishes him from most people who have commented on this ruling. Including me. I didn't read all 120 pages. Nobody's paying me to do that any more.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Dec 21, 2023 9:36:10 GMT -5
Que sera sera.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 21, 2023 17:42:44 GMT -5
Just to get rid of a candidate who can't win anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 21, 2023 19:02:52 GMT -5
The scary thing, John, is that he wasn't supposed to be able to win the first time, either. And now his adherents are stickier than ever, and less likely to listen to anybody but him and his enablers--especially willing to dismiss, say, judges and juries that might find him guilty of various crimes. Trump knows that the name of the game is leverage--he was, after all, a minority-popular-vote President.
The legal and political arguments over whether he is Constitutionally eligible are neither simple nor trivial, and the people who will be untangling them are not always disinterested or trustworthy--right up to the members of the Supreme Court, which harbors at least two legal-world outliers and a couple of cagey opportunists.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 9, 2024 6:47:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 9, 2024 9:08:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 9, 2024 9:21:48 GMT -5
Antinomian? (What's that?)
I don't agree with the name calling, but I do agree that the attempts to disqualify Trump only feed into his martyr syndrome. It fires up his base. Keeps his name in the news. Yes he's a bum, in my opinion. But stop trying to kick him when he's down. It's playing the game by his rules.
Stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 9, 2024 9:38:38 GMT -5
I think it's bullshit analysis and the name-calling is juvenile. From a legal standpoint, the Colorado court's analysis was sensible. Their decision got reversed because the U. S. Supremes concluded--properly, in my view--that state courts shouldn't be allowed to enforce the legal provision. The Supremes had to offer a somewhat contorted rationale to reach that sensible result.
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,390
|
Post by Tamarack on Mar 9, 2024 10:31:30 GMT -5
Juvenile name-calling of people who are wrestling with difficult legal issues. The 4-3 split on the Colorado Supreme Court is illustrative of the difficulty of the issues.
It should be noted that in each state where the issue was raised, the secretaries of state either succinctly stated they did not have the authority to disqualify a presidential candidate, or stayed their own decisions pending action by the courts. None of the arrogance they are accused of.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 9, 2024 12:34:49 GMT -5
Hmm. Strong on rant, strong on mere assertion, weak on analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 9, 2024 13:48:24 GMT -5
Juvenile name-calling of people who, . . . , That's what the Trump legacy is.
|
|