Fogdog
Well-Known Member
We'll see.
Amendment 14 article 3
- Thread starter cannabineer
- Start date
A lot of congress people did more then just speak, gave tours of the buildings ahead of a clearly telegraphed attack, openly pushed known misinformation, contributed to legal defense. Continue to aid and support an insurectionist. Noncompliance with subpoenas. Plenty of actions that could be view as dereliction of duty.
Simply voting against impeachment, j6 committee formation, fall under the umbrella of quantified immunity but many went well beyond that. I would be surprised if Trump is the only one to be disqualified under 14A though your probably right to assume there will not be a full blown house cleaning of congressional Rs
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
No national enema of the American body politic I'm afraid, a real good "cleansing" as they say.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
'You can't have engaged in insurrection': Fmr. GOP gov. asks Supreme Court to keep Trump off ballot
Three former GOP governors have urged the Supreme Court to keep Donald Trump off of the presidential ballot in 2024. One of those governors, former Republican Gov. Marc Racicot of Montana, joins Joy Reid to discuss.
All I can say is whatever it takes to wake up in mid Nov. w/R's defeated and a deep exhale,never thought we'd have to do this all over again and you know their will be many possible curve balls yet to come,so much is up in the air and the narrative can instantly change. Biden's age and health concern me deeply and I hope he can hang in there,an 80 yo w/tons of pressure and responsibility anything can happen concerning that,not to mention we aren't exactly experiencing calm seas internationally speaking either.Not me. Failing to neutralize that man is dangerous in more ways than one.
If Haley takes the nomination, I give her slim chances of taking the election. All the Biden campaign has to do is quote her saying maga things, then unsaying them, then … and never let up on her inconsistency. The Haley talking today is not the Haley of yesteryear, who accepted an appointment to the Shitshow, is not whothefuckever tomorrow’s Haley will be.
A History of Nikki Haley's Biggest Flip Flops on Trump
Nikki Haley is expected to challenge Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination.time.com
“Every time someone criticizes him, he goes and makes a political attack back,” Haley said in 2015. “That’s not who we are as Republicans. That’s not what we do.”
Someone who fails this hard is easy to campaign against.
She’s crooning a message of “making America normal again”, but if maga continues to exert undue influence in Congress, what will she really do?
And if Congress goes blue, will she really assist us Democrats in undoing the policy poison since Reagan?
I trust her as far as I can throw her, and I have a notsogood back.
I'm w/that,where are all the old school R's who are out of gov.,people like W,D. Cheney,former Senators to speak out? I'm hoping that after the conventions this summer that people get SERIOUS. I want to see some bi-partisan mobilization of former pols and presidents to this authoritarian BS want to be king threat to America as we know it along w/a rebuke of the R party's failure to govern/embrace of far right nationalism/and use of conspiracy theory and disinformation all while genuflecting to a autocrat.I want to see partnerships once deemed impossible to confront what America never deemed possible.Round em all up,all the oldies,one last ride to awaken America, is this the "party of Reagan"? is this "Family Values","is this the party that abandoned Nixon for wrongdoing that pales in comparison to this parasite"?. Team up w/the Obama's,the Clinton's this election requires some "firsts" and "gloves off" something w/shock value to repudiate this vile movement that's taken hold of our country.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The convention is a lifetime away with plenty of legal events before that happens. The democrats seem to be betting that Trump won't be disqualified and if he isn't, the logic they use will be really interesting, so will the minority opinion!
The republicans don't have those people anymore, or not enough of them to cover for the rest, or to make any difference in the primaries. Trump brought 10 million new people into the party in 2020, what kind of people do you think they are? The most intensely partisan vote in the primaries and they are Trump supporters. Don't be fooled by the morons they show on TV at his rallies, most who would vote for him are smart enough not to admit it in public these days.
Bush,the Cheney's,Flake,Romney,Kinsinger,the Gens.(Trump's Gens,)Conway,Hutchinson,Esper,and many others can combine w/the likes of the Clinton's and Obama's,and get out there and TELL IT,I'm not after the MAGA zombies,just anybody who can be MOVED by what would be an EXTRAORDINARY effort,a bi-partisan blast from the past,a slash of cold water on the face, never seen in prior pres. elections, would certainly add some juice and cred. and would prob have steam poring out of Trumps ears.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Scalia reaches out from the grave and snatches an excuse away from Donald...
Let's see them rule that presidents are not officers of the United States when the constitution says they are in multiple places.
Trump’s critics hope that Antonin Scalia can sway the Supreme Court in 14th Amendment fight
On a court where conservatives hold a 6-3 supermajority, including three Trump nominees, citing Scalia is no coincidence. The advocates are hoping to convince the justices that they can write off Trump’s arguments in a way that still squares with conservative legal principles.
“Invoking Scalia is kind of an attempt to cite some moral authority for one of the court’s great originalists,” said Notre Dame Law School Professor Derek Muller, an expert on the case. “They’re not just citing anyone.”
Trump claims presidents are not “officers” of the United States – a term used in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment – and so the ban does not apply to him. Instead, he argues, the term “officers” is meant to capture officials who are appointed by the president, take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engage in insurrection.
His opponents, including both liberal groups and a number of former Republican officials, balk at that reading in a series of “friend of the court” briefs filed Wednesday.
The “plain text demands” that the amendment applies to former presidents, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal advocacy organization, told the justices in a brief that cited Scalia. Historically, the group wrote, “officials in every branch of government referred to the president as an officer of the United States.”
Former conservative appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, who has become an outspoken Trump critic, also cited Scalia in a brief to the court this week.
The Scalia concurrence, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and two other conservatives, involved a dispute between the teamsters and a soda distributor. The late justice wrote that all “officers” of the United States must be appointed by the president “except where” the Constitution “provides otherwise.”
Let's see them rule that presidents are not officers of the United States when the constitution says they are in multiple places.
Trump’s critics hope that Antonin Scalia can sway the Supreme Court in 14th Amendment fight
On a court where conservatives hold a 6-3 supermajority, including three Trump nominees, citing Scalia is no coincidence. The advocates are hoping to convince the justices that they can write off Trump’s arguments in a way that still squares with conservative legal principles.
“Invoking Scalia is kind of an attempt to cite some moral authority for one of the court’s great originalists,” said Notre Dame Law School Professor Derek Muller, an expert on the case. “They’re not just citing anyone.”
Trump claims presidents are not “officers” of the United States – a term used in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment – and so the ban does not apply to him. Instead, he argues, the term “officers” is meant to capture officials who are appointed by the president, take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then engage in insurrection.
His opponents, including both liberal groups and a number of former Republican officials, balk at that reading in a series of “friend of the court” briefs filed Wednesday.
The “plain text demands” that the amendment applies to former presidents, the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal advocacy organization, told the justices in a brief that cited Scalia. Historically, the group wrote, “officials in every branch of government referred to the president as an officer of the United States.”
Former conservative appellate judge J. Michael Luttig, who has become an outspoken Trump critic, also cited Scalia in a brief to the court this week.
The Scalia concurrence, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and two other conservatives, involved a dispute between the teamsters and a soda distributor. The late justice wrote that all “officers” of the United States must be appointed by the president “except where” the Constitution “provides otherwise.”
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court Filing PUTS THE SCREWS into Gutless Trump
25 of the world’s greatest Civil War legal scholars have banded together to tell the United States Supreme Court that the drafters of the 14th Amendment in 1868 would be SHOCKED that Trump was not INSTANTLY DISQUALIFIED and banned from the ballot by his actions. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains their key historical arguments and why they should defeat Trump’s half baked theories that a president can’t be disqualified without an act of congress.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
From what I can see there are a lot of smart qualified people submitting briefs to the court and they all address ways that Trump might get away with insurrection. If any of those conservative justices want to let Trump weasel out, they will be up against a mighty headwind of historical, constitutional and legal opinion and findings of legal fact, Trump is an insurrectionist. They will need to craft a majority opinion or a minority one that comports with reality and the plain language of the US constitution and law. It also stands for the future as precedent and should include some fucking provision to protect and defend the US constitution and impose a penalty of some kind for trying to destroy the thing!
The whole Goddamned nation saw the storming of the Capitol and the mayhem live on TV as it happened, or on the news after and periodically ever since. It involved several criminal conspiracies, not just J6 that are currently being prosecuted both federally and by multiple states with a mountain of incriminating evidence and witnesses in all cases. It involved hundreds of people, and thousands who assaulted the Capitol, it was also an inside job, inside the capitol and inside the WH where Trump watched on TV and did nothing to stop it after inciting and organizing it. The justices watched it too and they too were witnesses, just like everybody else. They were not even very far away from the capitol themselves and the mob could have turned on the court too and may the next time, if they allow it.
The whole Goddamned nation saw the storming of the Capitol and the mayhem live on TV as it happened, or on the news after and periodically ever since. It involved several criminal conspiracies, not just J6 that are currently being prosecuted both federally and by multiple states with a mountain of incriminating evidence and witnesses in all cases. It involved hundreds of people, and thousands who assaulted the Capitol, it was also an inside job, inside the capitol and inside the WH where Trump watched on TV and did nothing to stop it after inciting and organizing it. The justices watched it too and they too were witnesses, just like everybody else. They were not even very far away from the capitol themselves and the mob could have turned on the court too and may the next time, if they allow it.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Why my concern?
The US constitution protects Canadians and Canada as much as it protects Americans and America. It's that simple as long as America lives by the rule of law, we and others will be ok.
The US constitution protects Canadians and Canada as much as it protects Americans and America. It's that simple as long as America lives by the rule of law, we and others will be ok.
printer
Well-Known Member
Yeah, without the US beside us we would probably end up just as another Mexico. Without the hot weather.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
If Trump ever got back in power, we would be just as fucked as the Americans maybe more with PP as is stooge.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court to decide if Donald Trump is eligible to run in 2024 Election
(3 Feb 2024)
A case with the potential to disrupt Donald Trump’s drive to return to the White House is putting the Supreme Court uncomfortably at the center of the 2024 presidential campaign.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Those who break the law are law breakers and those who keep to it are law abiding citizens. If they don't like what happens to Trump, or losing an election, so fucking what, that is what you pay taxes for in a liberal democracy and why you have cops and prosecutors.
Trump DISQUALIFICATION Lawyer SPILLS THE BEANS on NEXT STEPS
As we approach the historic SCOTUS oral argument over Trump’s disqualification from office, Jessica Denson is joined by Donald Sherman, VP and Chief Counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group responsible for the landmark victory barring him from the ballot in Colorado. Donald and Jessica discuss CREW’s airtight reply to Trump’s SCOTUS brief promising “chaos and bedlam,” the conservative and scholarly amici who have filed briefs in CREW’s support, and why the pundits are wrong: SCOTUS has every reason to uphold the Constitution and keep an insurrectionist off the ballot.
Trump DISQUALIFICATION Lawyer SPILLS THE BEANS on NEXT STEPS
As we approach the historic SCOTUS oral argument over Trump’s disqualification from office, Jessica Denson is joined by Donald Sherman, VP and Chief Counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group responsible for the landmark victory barring him from the ballot in Colorado. Donald and Jessica discuss CREW’s airtight reply to Trump’s SCOTUS brief promising “chaos and bedlam,” the conservative and scholarly amici who have filed briefs in CREW’s support, and why the pundits are wrong: SCOTUS has every reason to uphold the Constitution and keep an insurrectionist off the ballot.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
This guy and other federalist society members are the biggest obstacle for any conservative justices who wanna let Trump off on the 14th, they are ramming the text of the constitution down their throats while historians are doing the same with the intentions of the framers, their two favorite outs. If they wanna let this asshole run in the election their explanation will sure be an interesting piece of pretzel logic, that will set the country up for a second coup attempt. The minority opinion would burn the hair off yer head and make compete fools of them! For what, Trump? Mitch and their kind of republicans want Donald to be a bad memory ASAP and disqualification and conviction are the obvious solution. Lance the carbuncle on the arse of America.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The main fear is if Trump is disqualified a better GOP candidate could beat Biden and that is a valid concern. We are uncertain of Trump's fate as far as disqualification is concerned and he is facing enormous financial penalties and legal costs that could break him financially. The sucker money is drying up too as his legal woes and expenses mount. He should be out running around loose, if he doesn't fuck up with the judge, especially after being disqualified. He might be convicted this summer, but once the stay is lifted, he will be back in Chutkan's control and custody and that has implications for the election, especially if he is disqualified.
Normally I wouldn't be too concerned about another GOP candidate running against Joe, if Trump were out running around loose and trying to run a write in candidacy and screwing the GOP while attacking their nominee. However, this might not be the case if Trump is disqualified, he could be broke, in a month or be very busy selling properties, or the court will do it for him. The biggest factor however is judge Chutkan with a disqualified Trump under her control leading up to his trial, once the stay is lifted. If he is disqualified by the SCOTUS and wants to run a write in candidacy, she might refuse to allow it or even allow him to speak publicly or online. He is on bail, in lieu of physical custody, but she controls the conditions of his release and if he is disqualified, he will be muzzled or jailed before he is convicted if he opens his mouth pretrial.
That would give the GOP candidate a clear run and Donald couldn't even ask to be written in, others would do it for him though. Would it split the republican ticket? If Trump is not disqualified, he will be the GOP nominee with a probable trial this summer and once convicted will be under Chutkan's control and might be jailed until his appeal comes through during election season.
We will see soon if Trump is disqualified and kicked back to Chutkan on immunity, they appear to have a hard time figuring out if Trump can actually shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it.
Normally I wouldn't be too concerned about another GOP candidate running against Joe, if Trump were out running around loose and trying to run a write in candidacy and screwing the GOP while attacking their nominee. However, this might not be the case if Trump is disqualified, he could be broke, in a month or be very busy selling properties, or the court will do it for him. The biggest factor however is judge Chutkan with a disqualified Trump under her control leading up to his trial, once the stay is lifted. If he is disqualified by the SCOTUS and wants to run a write in candidacy, she might refuse to allow it or even allow him to speak publicly or online. He is on bail, in lieu of physical custody, but she controls the conditions of his release and if he is disqualified, he will be muzzled or jailed before he is convicted if he opens his mouth pretrial.
That would give the GOP candidate a clear run and Donald couldn't even ask to be written in, others would do it for him though. Would it split the republican ticket? If Trump is not disqualified, he will be the GOP nominee with a probable trial this summer and once convicted will be under Chutkan's control and might be jailed until his appeal comes through during election season.
We will see soon if Trump is disqualified and kicked back to Chutkan on immunity, they appear to have a hard time figuring out if Trump can actually shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Optimistically put.