Trump's Troubles

I thought trump’s lawyer was effective even though arguing points I did not agree with (The President/trump was not an officer under the US vs OF the US).

edit: lawyer for CO voters was admonished by Alito and Gorsuch for not answering questions or changing the hypothetical.

edit2: CO lawyers were out lawyered by the insurrection’s lawyer in my layman’s view.

 

Here is an interesting opinion about it.

Opinion: In Trump Supreme Court case, remember Congress already disqualified him | CNN

 

This point sums up his case nicely: Our elected representatives convened, heard from both sides and voted that January 6 was an insurrection and that Donald Trump not only engaged in it but incited it. This was the conclusion of 232 of 435 representatives and 57 of 100 senators.

I have Snell’s book - looking forward to the read.

 

This whole thing is moot. SC isn't going to allow states to ban Trump from being on primary ballots.

 

Makes for an interesting argument. But I don't think this Supreme Court will care.

 

But doesn’t this ignore the second part of the analysis—the a congressional impeachment “trial”? The note to impeach, it seems to me, was a vote akin to an indictment. The impeachment trial, where there were insufficient votes, would weigh more heavily than the first vote. At least that’s how I see that analysis.

 

That’s the whole point, right? Should someone be self-banned from running for the Presidency when, he denies the charges, and there has never been a trial on the charges?

I suppose a hyper-strict construction of the Constitution supports that view — which puts several of the SC’s conservative strict constructionists in a pickle — but it runs against the core of our judicial system of innocence until proven guilty.

 

This will likely end up being something close to a unanimous decision and probably likely for the best. Trump will be allowed on the ballot. SCOTUS will not even address the insurrection issue and just rule that states don't have the right to kick him off.

I say this is for the best because the red states in the future would rule a black guy in a tan suit is an insurrection and keep a Dem off their ballots.

This court will do states' rights rulings when it suits them (Dobbs) and federalism over states when it suits them. Whatever the GOP wants. They likely won't even name a mechanism of how the 14th amendment disqualification clause could be invoked other than maybe congress after the electoral college certification.

That would be setting up a mechanism to say you can't block a candidate for running for a 3rd term and would have to deal with it after he or she wins.

 

Let's see what they do regarding the immunity issue. If they say he has blanket immunity, the next step should be to sandblast the words " equal justice under law" off the front of the scotus building as it would be clear that he above the law. The first Americans did not fight and die in the revolution so anyone could be above the law, not even the orange god.

 

Everyone knew that was coming. Pick and choose States rights as is partisan convenient.

 

Kavanaugh had a disturbing statement about using the law to subvert the will of the voters. We better watch that immunity ruling carefully.

 

Said it previously, regardless of the merits of the case there is no way that the Supreme Court will permit states to remove Trump from the ballot. The only question is what rationale will the court use and whether the decision will be 9-0 or 8-1. My guess is that it will be a 9-0 decision with multiple opinions.

 

There are 18 federal judges in the southern district of FL. How does she get picked to try/delay this case. She has already been overturned once in this trump matter by the 11th when she appointed a “Special Master” to go through (delay trial) the evidence.

 

It's a lottery system but I believe in her district there are only 3 judges.

 

I

I think the hypothetical question for me would be - if Biden were found guilty of sexual assault, then defamation of the woman, and had bragged about sexually assaulting women on video, would Democrats support such a candidate to lead the party?

 

I thought the 25th required cabinet officials to vote (I.e the executive branch). Don’t think that gives states any say in the matter nor is it an election issue; it’s an executive branch function for a SITTING President who becomes incapacitated (either temporarily or permanently).

If the President is permanently incapacitated or there is a dispute as to the Presidents incapacitation (after the cabinet officials vote to remove) then Congress must vote on elevating the VP on a permanent basis. But seems pretty clear this amendment was more in line of actual incapacitation. The thing was conceived after Kennedy Assassination. It’s been invoked 6 times for minor health issues. Not sure if it was discussed for Reagan’s dementia? With Trump it should have been invoked after the insurrection as the guy was basically having a protracted mental health episode and in no way was acting as President (by all accounts Pence fulfilled those duties in the final months after the election). Supposedly it was discussed but never invoked.

 

Have you read the 25A? There is a clearly specified procedure set forth as to how it is invoked, none of which involves the states.