SCOTUS seems ready to strike down Colorado ballot ruling

[ralliann]

Yet he hasn't been disqualified. And yes you have to prove your age or be found to not be old enough to be president. No one has shown Trump committed an insurrection. Just saying the word and making a claim isn't good enough.

They are talking nonsense.

 

[A2SG]

Yet he hasn't been disqualified. And yes you have to prove your age or be found to not be old enough to be president. No one has shown Trump committed an insurrection. Just saying the word and making a claim isn't good enough.

Well, to be fair...Trump was impeached by the House for inciting an insurrection. And the Senate voted 57-43 to convict him of insurrection. Granted, that was ten votes shy of the threshold to remove him from office, but it's not exactly an exoneration, either.

I'll admit the Senate vote didn't carry, but it can be said that a majority of Congress did believe Trump engaged in insurrection (if not a full two-thirds majority in the Senate).

Would that disqualify Trump from the ballot? I don't know...that wasn't the question the SCOTUS answered.

-- A2SG, be nice if someone had asked, though.....

 

[Arcangl86]

Well, to be fair...Trump was impeached by the House for inciting an insurrection. And the Senate voted 57-43 to convict him of insurrection. Granted, that was ten votes shy of the threshold to remove him from office, but it's not exactly an exoneration, either.

I'll admit the Senate vote didn't carry, but it can be said that a majority of Congress did believe Trump engaged in insurrection (if not a full two-thirds majority in the Senate).

Would that disqualify Trump from the ballot? I don't know...that wasn't the question the SCOTUS answered.

-- A2SG, be nice if someone had asked, though.....

Actually, the SCOTUS did answer that question, which was why the concurrence was so blistering. According to the majority, Trump cannot be disqualified for office because Congress has to do it, and they can only do it through passing legislation.

 

[durangodawood]

So if I understand this ruling: all these people who argued you need a criminal conviction of "insurrection" or similar for a candidate to be disqualified are.... wrong.

You just need an act of legislation by congress.

Do I have this right?

 

[ralliann]

So if I understand this ruling: all these people who argued you need a criminal conviction of "insurrection" or similar for a candidate to be disqualified are.... wrong.

Why?

You just need an act of legislation by congress.

An act of legislation? Make law?

Do I have this right?

Isn't legislation in this case, enacting law? And would this law directly focus on political crimes ?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Ah....no. As has been explained frequenty here, disqualification of a candidate for office does not require a conviction in court. In any case, this is a mute point as the SCOTUS did not rule on whether Trump participated in an insurrection.

The bolded is the CREW opinion, a far left activist organization who filed most of these lawsuits, speaking for the faction that wishes to remove him from the ballot, disenfranchising that base, instead of beat him at the ballot box. That is not a legal ruling. The Supreme Court merely found the states do not have the power to remove federal candidates from the ballot.

In Trump v Anderson, the majority writes, for instance, that “the Constitution empowers [only] Congress to prescribe how [Section 3 disqualification] determinations should be made” through “appropriate legislation.” The three-justice concurrence interprets this language broadly, writing that the majority “foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under [Section 3]” by “shut[ting] the door on other potential means of federal enforcement” apart from federal legislation, presumably including the House and Senate’s power to take this step.

Since no such legislation is currently on the books , Trump cannot under this reading of the majority opinion currently be disqualified from federal office by anyone.

So of course, Raskin and others in the far left immediately trotted out rehashed legislation in an attempt to bar him after election, assuming he is the nominee.

 

[durangodawood]

Why?

Because thats what the supreme court ruling stated. Its congress who decides when a candidate is disqualified, through legislation.

Isn't legislation in this case, enacting law? And would this law directly focus on political crimes ?

The legislation could require a criminal conviction. Or it might not. Thats up to congress, apparently. Seems to keep the door open for a very politicized outcome, moreso that even the most ideologically driven set of state supreme court justices would likely deliver.

 

[durangodawood]

....The Supreme Court merely found the states do not have the power to remove federal candidates from the ballot.
.....

Did the supreme court require a criminal conviction for insurrection disqualification? As far as I can tell it just required a legislative act by congress.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Because thats what the supreme court ruling stated. Its congress who decides when a candidate is disqualified, through legislation.

The legislation could require a criminal conviction. Or it might not. Thats up to congress, apparently. Seems to keep the door open for a very politicized outcome, moreso that even the most ideologically driven set of state supreme court justices would likely deliver.

Exactly. This is an invitation to craft legislation specifically to prevent the current candidate from taking office if elected, instead of a general guideline. That will be a problem.

 

[wing2000]

Exactly. This is an invitation to craft legislation specifically to prevent the current candidate from taking office if elected, instead of a general guideline. That will be a problem.

I agree that is a risk.
Although, there is near zero chance the current Congress will pass anything.

 

[ralliann]

The legislation could require a criminal conviction.

Law already does....INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Or it might not.

No it won't because law already requires no crimial penalties on INNOCENT people.
You guys are scary people....

 

[wing2000]

Law already does....INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

No it won't because law already requires no crimial penalties on INNOCENT people.
You guys are scary people....

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[ralliann]

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Yep, you have advocated people can be penalized for crimes without due process. Thank God....It was a liberal justice at the hearings which brought this up, in commenting on the findings of the Colorado court. You people are scary people. You talk about it as though it does not exist as a part and parcel of our rights....

 

[ralliann]

Exactly. This is an invitation to craft legislation specifically to prevent the current candidate from taking office if elected, instead of a general guideline. That will be a problem.

Just another niche to erode our rights. It is already being done in other areas, now being debated here. So far, it aint gonna happen. The Supreme court unanimously appeared concerned about DUE PROCESS. They are not gonna allow that to be wiped out by any legislative/ judicial body. They are to uphold it...

 

[durangodawood]

Law already does....INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

No it won't because law already requires no crimial penalties on INNOCENT people.
You guys are scary people....

Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.

Its the same as impeachment is supposed to work. Thrown out of office with no criminal trial, precisely as the constitution allows. Maybe thats "scary", but its not my idea. Its how our constitution works.

 

[Arcangl86]

Just another niche to erode our rights. It is already being done in other areas, now being debated here. So far, it aint gonna happen. The Supreme court unanimously appeared concerned about DUE PROCESS. They are not gonna allow that to be wiped out by any legislative/ judicial body. They are to uphold it...

Due process was not mentioned a single time in the opinion. The case was decided on federalism principles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yep, you have advocated people can be penalized for crimes without due process.

I know someone else *JUST* wrote this but it bears repeating:

Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.

and a few more times:

Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.
Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.
Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.
Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.
Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.

Thank God....It was a liberal justice at the hearings which brought this up, in commenting on the findings of the Colorado court. You people are scary people. You talk about it as though it does not exist as a part and parcel of our rights....

Colorodo did not charge Trump with a crime and he was never at risk of fine or incarceration because (repeat after me)

Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.

Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.


Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.









Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.



So don't forget...

Spoiler

"Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty. "

 

[ralliann]

Disqualification from holding office is not a criminal penalty.

Its the same as impeachment is supposed to work. Thrown out of office with no criminal trial, precisely as the constitution allows. Maybe thats "scary", but its not my idea. Its how our constitution works.

Political crimes, with political office. All you are arguing for is lacking due process concerning EVERYONE'S right to vote.

 

[ralliann]

Due process was not mentioned a single time in the opinion. The case was decided on federalism principles.

Right because they were not determining insurrection GEESH!
These things were brought up concerning the Colorado decision. You guys really care so little about rights, innocent before guilt determined with rights intact. No wonder the Dems have not charged the guy for insurrection. You all allow this.....No biggie to you, it is all good.
The supreme court decision was not about insurrection!

 

[durangodawood]

Political crimes, with political office. All you are arguing for is lacking due process concerning EVERYONE'S right to vote.

I'm not arguing that it should be this way.

I'm arguing that the constitution, as interpreted by our current supreme court, says it IS this way.