If he stays on the ballot and wins, then he is charged with insurrection, do you think he should be able to pardon himself?
Supreme Court Will Please Everybody & Nobody at Same Time
- Thread starter West Dundee Hawkeye
- Start date
But Donald Trump will be on the ballot upon the order of the Supreme Court. The fact that it is so predictable is very telling. They will also say he has immunity from the crimes he is charged with while in office. That will leave the documents case and his pet judge will delay that until after the election.
6-3. Note that I’m not saying it’s the right or wrong decision. I’m not a lawyer. I’m just saying it’s predictable.
Let’s say an ideological split. Which is based on political beliefs. Let’s put it this way, do you think Clarence Thomas would have ruled the same way in 2000 of the votes were the other way?
Speaking of abortion, if Democrats are on the ball, they’ll get abortion on the ballot in all swing states. I see they got it on the ballot in Florida.
President can pardon anyone to my understanding so I assume he could. If they were going to charge him with Insurrection they would have by now unless they intend to wait until October and start a case they know can't be finished before the election to try and set up this scenario. To be clear, I don't want trump in the Whitehouse again, but what Colorado and Maryland have tried to do is an embarrassment to our country.
You previously said "The Supreme Court is simply an extension of the RNC at this point."
How would characterize the 3 in your 6-3 split?
I said that the court was ideologically divided based on political considerations. Divided means there are two sides. I specifically said that I’m not enough a legal eagle to say which side is correct.
Do you also feel that the 3 are simply an extension of the DNC at this point?
Sorry. I’m working and it’s been busy. For sure. I said the federal court system is politicized. I trust neither side to rule on a political question and not view it primarily through a partisan lens. Voting with their political party.
Could liberals cut out the hyperbolic shit? It makes their case against the orange turd so much weaker than it has to be. Stop giving the opposition ammunition you dolts.
Look. If you’re looking for a place not filled with hyperbolic nonsense you need to GTF off the internet, particularly message boards and social media. And I’m just checking, is it only liberals that are hyperbolic? Did Joe Biden really “open the borders”.
Head in sand. Again, another person just dismissing how easy it is to see Clarence Thomas is paid off. Incredible how people choose not to see the obvious.
How about this:
This is actually a much more significant attack on democracy than anything that happened on Jan 6.
Denying people the opportunity to vote for a candidate without justification (there is none here) has significant and tangible impact to the election process.
When a bunch of right wing lunatics marched into the capital saying they wanted to stop Congress from certifying the election...they failed. There was zero impact on any vote that was cast, who was sworn in, or anyone's right to choose who they wanted.
If red states start declaring Biden guilty of corruption and taking him off the ballot, there will be no doubt it will be an entirely political move and just as much an attack on democracy as this is.
This is actually a much more significant attack on democracy than anything that happened on Jan 6.
Denying people the opportunity to vote for a candidate without justification (there is none here) has significant and tangible impact to the election process.
When a bunch of right wing lunatics marched into the capital saying they wanted to stop Congress from certifying the election...they failed. There was zero impact on any vote that was cast, who was sworn in, or anyone's right to choose who they wanted.
If red states start declaring Biden guilty of corruption and taking him off the ballot, there will be no doubt it will be an entirely political move and just as much an attack on democracy as this is.
I think the Supreme Court will rule that any candidate CONVICTED of insurrection in federal court is ineligible. Which would make the federal case even more huge.
They're his justices. If they don't vote for him in this case he'll be very unhappy with them. So disloyal. They will make many, many people angry. People who are willing to fight for America, and save it from communist marxist judges.
Whatever makes you clowns feel better that you vote with people who played with their own shit in our Capitol. You’re all terrible Americans.
Well, no president has ever tried to pardon themselves before, so it's very much an open question.
For me, I sincerely hope we could agree that POTUS could not do this - if they could, you're effectively saying they're above the law.
Objectively you can't point out a single flaw in anything I said. Pointing out the obvious, you're a hypocrite. Not a very smart one at that.
I don't think they will give him immunity from crimes. They know that precedent would allow Biden to just do whatever the f*** he wants.
They will put him back on the ballot though.
There is a pretty solid case that can be made that Trump took part in an insurrection.
Now I think the courts may rule that the person has to be convicted of the crime first for the 14th amendment to apply to them. But you can't say there is no justification here.
Objectively your first paragraph was exactly what I posted in my reply. It’s the consistent mental gymnastics Trump voters have been doing for 3 years. Hypocritically you only care about a couple of the Amendments to the Constitution. Typical Republican voter.
I think there is a slightly greater than 50% probability of more than 6 votes for trump, but that a 50/50 shot that no single opinion commands a majority of five votes.
Having taken a quick spin thru the cert petition, some random thoughts on some of the main arguments cited/foreshadowed in the petition:
1. Individual voters lack standing to bring this type of proceeding — honestly individual voters probably should not be able to enforce this. And via a civil action bench trial before an elected state court judge no less. I suspect 1 and 2 are going to merge together and there may be five votes between them. As some of the justices are fond of noting, most constitutional disputes eventually boil down to “who decides?” And I’m pretty sure the answer’s not going to be private litigants or even federal or state judges.
2. No state court jurisdiction/reserved for congress. I think this will be a big theme, and is a little different from the “due process” line of argument that I don’t think much of (since even a state court bench trial is a fair bit of process). If it lies with congress, which I think it does in their ability to recognize electors, the due process will be what congress says it is. And, bonus, what congress decides will be an unreviewable political question.
3. Not an officer - the more intriguing question is, if 1/2 are a majority, will they address anything else? If they do, I actually think this argument has some legs, given (1) text doesn’t reference president, a strange omission given descending order of the textual listing, (2) officer interpreted limited in appointment clause, and (3) “democracy canon” of sorts in favor of letting voters pick their president.
4. Different oath - this sounds like a real loser and embarrassingly so. (“Support” for officers v “preserve protect and defend” for president)
5. Need for conviction - I tend to think it’s a loser (engaged in v convicted of) but not clear cut given criminal insurrection offense predated constitutional amendment by just a few years.
6. Not engaged in insurrection. Hard call, I don’t think they get to the issue. But the clear original meaning obviously Was the civil war, and 1/6 (whatever it was) was fairly arguably not that, and again, if you’re going to dq a lead candidate for president it ought to be a high standard. But again if they say anything and the state has won the other issues, it’ll be a remand for further consideration in light of standards, guidance, etc.
Will be interesting to see if this or aca draws more eyeballs to scotus blog on opinion day.
Having taken a quick spin thru the cert petition, some random thoughts on some of the main arguments cited/foreshadowed in the petition:
1. Individual voters lack standing to bring this type of proceeding — honestly individual voters probably should not be able to enforce this. And via a civil action bench trial before an elected state court judge no less. I suspect 1 and 2 are going to merge together and there may be five votes between them. As some of the justices are fond of noting, most constitutional disputes eventually boil down to “who decides?” And I’m pretty sure the answer’s not going to be private litigants or even federal or state judges.
2. No state court jurisdiction/reserved for congress. I think this will be a big theme, and is a little different from the “due process” line of argument that I don’t think much of (since even a state court bench trial is a fair bit of process). If it lies with congress, which I think it does in their ability to recognize electors, the due process will be what congress says it is. And, bonus, what congress decides will be an unreviewable political question.
3. Not an officer - the more intriguing question is, if 1/2 are a majority, will they address anything else? If they do, I actually think this argument has some legs, given (1) text doesn’t reference president, a strange omission given descending order of the textual listing, (2) officer interpreted limited in appointment clause, and (3) “democracy canon” of sorts in favor of letting voters pick their president.
4. Different oath - this sounds like a real loser and embarrassingly so. (“Support” for officers v “preserve protect and defend” for president)
5. Need for conviction - I tend to think it’s a loser (engaged in v convicted of) but not clear cut given criminal insurrection offense predated constitutional amendment by just a few years.
6. Not engaged in insurrection. Hard call, I don’t think they get to the issue. But the clear original meaning obviously Was the civil war, and 1/6 (whatever it was) was fairly arguably not that, and again, if you’re going to dq a lead candidate for president it ought to be a high standard. But again if they say anything and the state has won the other issues, it’ll be a remand for further consideration in light of standards, guidance, etc.
Will be interesting to see if this or aca draws more eyeballs to scotus blog on opinion day.
The Republican Party can select their candidate however the hell they want. They can use the highest bowling score if they so choose. Theres nothing in the Constitution that says they have to have a primary or a caucus. There’s nothing that says they even have to have an open process. Thats why the democrats can get away with having their Super Delegates select their candidate.
Similar threads
