310d
I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question. The one really pertinent question is: based on the 14 Amendment, could a state have barred Jeff Davis from being a Senator or an Elector, but NOT have barred him from being president? Yes or no. If a state could NOT have barred Davis from the presidency, then Trump can be on the ballot in CO and every other state. If a state could have barred Davis from the presidency, as well as from the Senate and from being an Elector, then CO CAN bar Trump from being on the ballot, and every other state can decide for itself whether to put him on the ballots or not, because the Constitution specifically states that states regulate federal elections.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ballot/index.html
310d
1 edit
@moonbus saidI think for the sake of order over chaos it was probably the right decision. If every state can debar a candidate from the ballot you might as well do away with presidential elections as they are and just have a truly open POTUS election where the candidate with the most votes wins.
I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question. The one really pertinent question is: based on the 14 Amendment, could a state have barred Jeff Davis from being a Senator or an Elector, but NOT have barred him from being president? Yes or no. If a state could N ...[text shortened]... ions.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/08/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-trump-ballot/index.html
Actually that is how it should be anyway rather than this gerrymandered system the US has now, whereby unpopulated rural states can swing the election on a minority vote.
310d
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidBut we have a Constitutional Amendment that exactly dictates how people can make themselves ineligible to run. There shouldn't be any "wiggle room" to make it different based on what state it is. The Amendment is clear.
I think for the sake of order over chaos it was probably the right decision. If every state can debar a candidate from the ballot you might as well do away with presidential elections as they are and just have a truly open POTUS election where the candidate with the most votes wins.
Actually that how it should be anyway rather than this gerrymandered system the US has now.
Every bit of confusion on this is fabricated by Trump loyalists.
310d
2 edits
@suzianne saidAgreed. Trump’s council was slitting hairs over whether the president is an officer and presidency is an office. The language of the amendment is so bloody obvious. The reason why Senators and Electors were mentioned at all is that Senators have a SEAT not an office, and an Elector has neither a seat, like a Senator, nor an office, like the president. I was just gritting my teeth through the whole procedure. If an insurrectionist can’t VOTE for a president, as an Elector, it can only mean the authors of the amendment meant that an insurrectionist cannot BE president.
But we have a Constitutional Amendment that exactly dictates how people can make themselves ineligible to run. There shouldn't be any "wiggle room" to make it different based on what state it is. The Amendment is clear.
Every bit of confusion on this is fabricated by Trump loyalists.
310d
@kevcvs57 saidEach state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.
I think for the sake of order over chaos it was probably the right decision. If every state can debar a candidate from the ballot you might as well do away with presidential elections as they are and just have a truly open POTUS election where the candidate with the most votes wins.
Actually that is how it should be anyway rather than this gerrymandered system the US has now, whereby unpopulated rural states can swing the election on a minority vote.
310d
1 edit
@moonbus saidI think the justices were concerned that the decision of one state would impact all states elections for president, who may decide to include that candidate on the ballot. Colorado's decision potentially disenfranchises the voters in other states.
Each state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.
310d
@moonbus saidWas Trump an insurrectionist? Just curious.
Agreed. Trump’s council was slitting hairs over whether the president is an officer and presidency is an office. The language of the amendment is so bloody obvious. The reason why Senators and Electors were mentioned at all is that Senators have a SEAT not an office, and an Elector has neither a seat, like a Senator, nor an office, like the president. I was just gritting my t ...[text shortened]... or, it can only mean the authors of the amendment meant that an insurrectionist cannot BE president.
310d
@moonbus saidMoonbus says states control a federal electoin for President where I make my decision, on my own, without State interference, to vote in the federal election. Your comment is not exactly correct. A state by your logic cluld tell me that I cannot vote in a federal election.
Each state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.
310d
@wildgrass saidThat makes sense.
I think the justices were concerned that the decision of one state would impact all states elections for president, who may decide to include that candidate on the ballot. Colorado's decision potentially disenfranchises the voters in other states.
Trump accused Biden of being an "insurrectionist" over Colorado removing Trump from the ballot, and then accused him of "weaponizing" the DOJ to do do.
If red states fall in line with Trump's accusations, they could remove Biden from ballots.
It was ultimately the right decision.
310d
1 edit
@moonbus saidI’m not convinced that would work though, how many states could Biden be debarred from because of the bogus ‘money for influence’. fiasco
Each state can decide for itself whether to execute people. And after the SCOTUStipped Roe, it effectively said each state can decide about abortions. It would be consistent to rule that each state determines who qualifies for the ballot in that state, and the Constitution already states that states regulate elections, including for federal offices.
I know trumps an insurrectionist wannabe dictator and you probably do too, but he hasn’t been found guilty of it yet, or has he
I think the whole electoral system in the US is a disenfranchising farce.
We need to think about why the non trump judges seemed to go along with the decision.
The more important decision is the one regarding immunity for ex presidents regardless of crimes committed whilst in office, if he can swing that one the US is even more doomed than it is now.
310d
2 edits
@wildgrass saidThe disenfranchisement is entirely Trump's doing; Trump is the one who tried to disenfranchise all the people who voted for Biden in 2020. A man who tried to overturn an election should not be in office.
I think the justices were concerned that the decision of one state would impact all states elections for president, who may decide to include that candidate on the ballot. Colorado's decision potentially disenfranchises the voters in other states.
Secondly, no one is disenfranchised if the candidate is barred because he is not 35 yrs old or older, not a resident for a certain period of time, and/or not a natural born citizen. So, no one is disenfranchised if a candidate falls afoul of the 14th Amendment clause.
310d
@kevcvs57 saidThe 14th Amendment specifies one specific ground for disqualification, and money for influence isn't it.
I’m not convinced that would work though, how many states could Biden be debarred from because of the bogus ‘money for influence’. fiasco
I know trumps an insurrectionist wannabe dictator and you probably do too, but he hasn’t been found guilty of it yet, or has he
I think the whole electoral system in the US is a disenfranchising farce.
We need to think about why the ...[text shortened]... imes committed whilst in office, if he can swing that one the US is even more doomed than it is now.
We need to think about why the non trump judges seemed to go along with the decision.?WHAT????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Because they are learned in the purpose and in the application of the Consititution. They can only see it the way it is, all buttoned up, it will be a 9-0 decision. What does your sentence here mean, what are you sahyng or implying? You seem to be saying that the judges appointed by Trump will vote in his favor because he appointed smart constitutional lawyers,,,,or what, I am confused myself by your statements. And are you suggesting that thel liberal judges sjhould have cast legal deliberations aside and made their one objective be that of sticking it to Trump?
You then have no respect for SCOTUS. Sad.
@moonbus saidThe reason the didn't bother to ask was they knew all the answers before they walked up to the bench. Do you actually think these lawyers enlightened the judges with anything that they did not know all ready? hahaha
I listened to nearly all of the live stream yesterday, and I am mightily disappointed in the Supreme Court. Not one justice asked the one really pertinent question.