Current Events > Trump Trials General Part 9

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/f2bc3472.jpg
Yep, nobody saw this coming.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Well, you see, this one FAVORS Trump, while the other one HURTS Trump, so our completely, totally, not-at-all in the bag for Trump SCOTUS just HAD to do it this way

As an aside, I am inclined to think that Roberts was the primary author of this one. It doesn't read at all like a Thomas or Alito opinion. Maybe Goresuch instead of Roberts, but I'm also not familiar enough with Kavanaugh's writing to rule that out.

SCOTUS can move fast, when they want to help Republicans.

Tbh, it looks like I'm alone here, but I think this is the right call. Giving individual states the power to remove candidates from the ballot like that would just lead to chaos. We were already seeing Republicans starting bad-faith efforts to remove Biden from the ballot in their states because of some extremely twisted logic comparing the "border crisis" to an insurrection against the country.

And it was a unanimous decision anyway. The liberal justices agreed with the conservative ones on this.

Read in another thread it was a 9-0 decision..is that true?

If so, even the Dem justices voted to overrule

Humble_Novice posted...

If only more people held their noses and voted for HRC.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a5ea2eb3.jpg

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Tbh, it looks like I'm alone here, but I think this is the right call. Giving individual states the power to remove candidates from the ballot like that would just lead to chaos. We were already seeing Republicans starting bad-faith efforts to remove Biden from the ballot in their states because of some extremely twisted logic comparing the "border crisis" to an insurrection against the country.

And it was a unanimous decision anyway. The liberal justices agreed with the conservative ones on this.

My issue is the majority went further than necessary and essentially gave authority for enabling enforcement solely to Congress. I think the Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson concurrence has the right of it.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Tbh, it looks like I'm alone here, but I think this is the right call. Giving individual states the power to remove candidates from the ballot like that would just lead to chaos. We were already seeing Republicans starting bad-faith efforts to remove Biden from the ballot in their states because of some extremely twisted logic comparing the "border crisis" to an insurrection against the country.

Which means they will try it and the SCOTUS will probably side with them then, because...

Father_ posted...

Read in another thread it was a 9-0 decision..is that true?

If so, even the Dem justices voted to overrule

Unanimous in the judgment, with Barrett and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson writing separately to say the majority went beyond what was necessary to address the issue presented.

SCOTUS ruled that Congress can disqualify presidential candidates. Which of course means the GOP led House will now prioritize passing a bill which disqualifies Biden from running.

Block_that_Kick posted...

SCOTUS ruled that Congress can disqualify presidential candidates. Which of course means the GOP led House will now prioritize passing a bill which disqualifies Biden from running.

Which would get immediately rejected by the Senate

Block_that_Kick posted...

SCOTUS ruled that Congress can disqualify presidential candidates. Which of course means the GOP led House will now prioritize passing a bill which disqualifies Biden from running.

If he wasn't incumbent sure

Father_ posted...

Which would get immediately rejected by the Senate

Its about the theatrical performance, not about actually getting anything done.

These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous is the funniest line Ive read in the Kagan/Sotomayor/Jackson concurrence so far. I know this is a very serious case, but you have to find humor somehow.

i like how they quoted from Justice Roberts concurring opinion on Dobbs, where he stated he would not have overturned Roe v. Wade like the others were doing but that he would have ruled in favor of the restrictions sought by Mississippi, basically reiterating that back at the same justices (mostly) who also went way further than the question at hand in that case as well to totally overturn Roe v. Wade.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Tbh, it looks like I'm alone here, but I think this is the right call. Giving individual states the power to remove candidates from the ballot like that would just lead to chaos. We were already seeing Republicans starting bad-faith efforts to remove Biden from the ballot in their states because of some extremely twisted logic comparing the "border crisis" to an insurrection against the country.

And it was a unanimous decision anyway. The liberal justices agreed with the conservative ones on this.

It was the right call. This would've quickly devolved into petty chaos and nonsense, and would've backfired in later elections

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

A sane person would notice all of these people surrounding Trump pleading guilty to crimes and might deduce that he's a criminal himself (if they haven't already deduced that from....everything else).

Hannity's going to do a segment on the Trump Crime Family aaaany minute now. You'll see.

https://Twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1764680015768105013?s=46

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


i doubt this decision has anything to do with whether or not Trump wins in November. No state that mattered would even sniff at the idea of taking him off the ballot. This has all been theatrics

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This decision doesn't decide if Trump gets elected. Voters do.

This decision decides whether or not individual states can try and restrict their citizens from voting for their preferred candidates.

If you cannot see how that could be disastrous for dems and everyone else, you are being incredible short sighted. Imagine if in 2012 southern states could just block Obama from being on the ballot by making up some claim about him. And those citizens couldn't vote for him.

Absolute disaster of a precedent.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


They could say Obama committed war crimes in his first term and that restricts him from being eligible. He did operate strikes but that doesn't make him ineligible for office on his own.

It's creating an entire precedent that will affect every election on the future over 1 dude who's not probably not going to be alive in another 10 years.

A precedent that can snd will he sued by bad actors to restrict entire citizens from being able to vote freely for a candidate of their choosing.

It's a bad precedent to set any way you slice it.

right or wrong, this was always going to be the result

I will say the argument for removing Trump felt pretty weak, legally speaking.

Toonstrack posted...

This decision decides whether or not individual states can try and restrict their citizens from voting for their preferred candidates.

The problem with this, is that is exactly what the Constitution says States can do in plain text. This is the whole reason we don't have a national public election.
Yes, it would have led to insanity, and would have hopefully forced Congress to make a true national election process without electors and State interference bullshit.

I'm mostly sick of "Originalists" on the bench who are happy to find intent the second it suits them, but remain steadfast to the specific words when it will strip people of protections.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No he's not. Sit down with that pessimism.

realnifty1 posted...

The problem with this, is that is exactly what the Constitution says States can do in plain text. This is the whole reason we don't have a national public election.

Can you cite this? I'm not asking in an argumentative sense but im interested to know where it says this. Because that seems to directly violate the first amendment.

Yes, it would have led to insanity, and would have hopefully forced Congress to make a true national election process without electors and State interference bullshit.

So you were betting on this ruling being so catastrophically bad and resulting in so much chaos that SCOTUS would've been forced to amend the constitution?

Toonstrack posted...

Can you cite this? I'm not asking in an argumentative sense but im interested to know where it says this. Because that seems to directly violate the first amendment.

I don't have time to quote it all right now, but may try to later. But, it essentially comes down to the only thing enumerated in the Constitution and subsequent law is that each State will decide on electors to send to the Continental Congress. There are provisions on requirements and disqualifications for whom can be a president, but because national law makes no provision about people actually voting for a president, there are no provisions about how a presidential ballot is run. Already every State has their own organization with differing rules and requirements for being placed on the ballot.

So you were betting on this ruling being so catastrophically bad and resulting in so much chaos that SCOTUS would've been forced to amend the constitution?

Betting? No, the SCOTUS is always self serving and this one doubly so. I'm just continually appalled by the bold faced hypocrisy and that seemingly we will do nothing about until the whole country collapses.

realnifty1 posted...

I don't have time to quote it all right now, but may try to later. But, it essentially comes down to the only thing enumerated in the Constitution and subsequent law is that each State will decide on electors to send to the Continental Congress. There are provisions on requirements and disqualifications for whom can be a president, but because national law makes no provision about people actually voting for a president, there are no provisions about how a presidential ballot is run. Already every State has their own organization with differing rules and requirements for being placed on the ballot.

Theres a difference between having qualifications and being able to restrict citizens from voting for certain people.

Betting? No, the SCOTUS is always self serving and this one doubly so. I'm just continually appalled by the bold faced hypocrisy and that seemingly we will do nothing about until the whole country collapses.

Do you think they made the wrong decision here?

As much as I hate it, they did make the correct decision

Toonstrack posted...

Theres a difference between having qualifications and being able to restrict citizens from voting for certain people.

What part of there is no federal requirement or right that you are able to vote for president at all did you not follow? Also, not being on the ballot does not prevent you from voting for them, it just means they aren't on the ballot. Now if they won without being on the ballot that would probably kick off a whole different legal question.

This is the entirety of what the Constitution has to say on the the mechanics of presidential election:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

It specifically enumerates that the State Legislature is entirely in charge of the manner in which Electors are appointed.

Do you think they made the wrong decision here?

In the strict terms of what the Constitution and Laws prescribe? Absolutely, this is completely legislation from the bench. With the Right having brought complete gridlock to Congress in the past 30 years they have continued to prey upon the unwritten norms that have held this Nation together because they know we are unable to actually pass any laws clarifying things and they have packed the SC enough to get a stamp when needed.

https://Twitter.com/katiephang/status/1764702617328865760?s=46

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY8D3XZaKCU

Out of all the things Trump has slipped out of this looks like the thing that's finally gonna destroy him.

So about three days from now Carroll can start seizing assets.

How quickly will her lawyers start the paperwork? I assume they already have the paperwork drafted and ready to send out at 5:01 p.m.?

tremain07 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY8D3XZaKCU

Out of all the things Trump has slipped out of this looks like the thing that's finally gonna destroy him.

It only took 77 years but its good to see some repercussions.

Trump's brain is mud, he's about to lose everything he's ever had to the state and miss carol, the GOP only has 8 million dollars so even once he puts his daughter in law and toady in charge to start stealing that money for himself it won't be nearly enough as donors see this already and have refused to donate to the GOP knowing that money is going right to Trump.

it's pretty amazing this is all happening in this month alone. Makes you wonder what April will bring for them

Anyone here going to place a starting bid on trump tower or mar lago

I'm gonna have to stop by Carroll Tower if I ever go to New York

CSCA33 posted...

Anyone here going to place a starting bid on trump tower or mar lago

I have it on good authority that Mar A Lago is worth 19 trumpzillion dollars.

CableZL posted...

I'm gonna have to stop by Carroll Tower if I ever go to New York

Yeah!

TomClark posted...

I have it on good authority that Mar A Lago is worth 19 trumpzillion dollars.

Lol

What about his golf course in Scotland, is that off limits being on foreign soil or would the govt there basically work hand in hand with US authorities?

TomClark posted...

I have it on good authority that Mar A Lago is worth 19 trumpzillion dollars.

I'd love if someone bid and used those fake trump bucks as the cash. Of course it would never happen but it's a funny thought.

CSCA33 posted...

What about his golf course in Scotland, is that off limits being on foreign soil or would the govt there basically work hand in hand with US authorities?

Yeah, about that...

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24141169.trump-found-fraudulently-boosted-scots-homes-value-200m/

Donald Trump, his companies and some executives have been found to have fraudulently inflated the valuations of non-existent Scottish golf club properties by up to 200m as part of a scheme to dupe banks and others and borrow more at lower rates, it can be revealed.

It comes as it emerged the Aberdeen club's operating company has run at a deficit since it opened in 2012, and has amassed total losses in the ensuing 11 years of 13.025m.

Hopefully Trump's about to lose that property to Scottish creditors.

Tyranthraxus posted...

You have to say allegedly until there's a conviction. That's the rules. Otherwise they can sue you.

No, it's proven he tried to overturn the election. That was the point of his 63 court cases to overturn the election. Trump himself has said he tried to have it overturned, and multiple CO courts found him to be an insurrectionist.

This is just our mainstream media carrying water for fascists and their arguments as usual.

Kradek posted...

No, it's proven he tried to overturn the election. That was the point of his 63 court cases to overturn the election. Trump himself has said he tried to have it overturned, and multiple CO courts found him to be an insurrectionist.

This is just our mainstream media carrying water for fascists and their arguments as usual.

trying to overturn the results of the election through legal avenues(even if they had no basis like all his court cases) is NOT the same thing as inciting and participating in an insurrection.

edit: it was *part* of it, definitely, because it was part of his lie about the election being stolen. but I feel like legally they'd treat those court challenges separately.

mystic_belmont posted...

I will say the argument for removing Trump felt pretty weak, legally speaking.

Through trial and evidence a CO court found that he was guilty of insurrection and their SC agreed with that.

That's the legal argument and the USSC didn't even say that Trump isn't an insurrectionist, which speaks to them agreeing with him being an insurrectionist, they just don't give a shit and want to protect him.

Trial, evidence, and courts have found Trump to be an insurrectionist and the A14S3 is supposed to apply to preventing insurrectionists from coming back in.

thronedfire2 posted...

trying to overturn the results of the election through legal avenues(even if they had no basis like all his court cases) is NOT the same thing as inciting and participating in an insurrection.

Reread what she said. She said "allegedly" for Trump "trying to overturn an election".

Overturn and insurrection are 2 separate words. Trump himself has said he tried to overturn the election, he went to court 63 times to try and overturn the election, and finally, as stated, courts have found him guilty of insurrection so your argument is invalid anyways.

thronedfire2 posted...

edit: it was *part* of it, definitely, because it was part of his lie about the election being stolen. but I feel like legally they'd treat those court challenges separately.

As stated above, the 2 words are not synonymous and Trump is objectively guilty of both either way.

What Smith's case indicted Trump on was the fake electors scheme, that's the trial we're waiting for. A CO court, which their SC agreed with, found that Trump is an insurrectionist and that there was no insurrection without him. And the USSC didn't say that Trump doesn't qualify as an insurrectionist, they didn't address it at all which means they don't disagree.

So I reiterate, it's just our corporate mainstream media carrying water for fascists and their narratives, per usual.

Kristen Welker in particular is infuriating on how shittily she covers these people.

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1764846974891606378?s=46

Damn it all is there anyway to stop him from just delaying it endlessly?

tremain07 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY8D3XZaKCU

Out of all the things Trump has slipped out of this looks like the thing that's finally gonna destroy him.

Remember, Al Capone went down for tax evasion.