How big

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Dude, the courts didn't make anything up, the allegations were made by citizens, WTF are you even doing right now?

There are lots of allegations made by lots of people against lots of people.   There is nothing legal regarding this case that Trump was involved in an insurrection.   Name the court case.   There is none.   So the CO supremes made the decision that Trump did this with no underlying court cases to show evidence that he did.   It is just as bad of reasoning as Biden and corruption which you just said should not happen.   There are lots of people alleging it and that seems to be your threshold here.    That's what I'm doing right now. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

There you have said it.  Bad thing to do to Biden.   There is a lot of evidence but no court case.   Nothing legally done about it, just like Trump.   Trump was not found on video in the capitol that day.   He made a speech, told them to peacefully march on the capitol (that is on video too).    If it is bad to do to Biden, it is bad to do to Trump.  

But according to you, a court could keep Biden off the court for this corruption and it would be perfectly rational legal reasoning to do so.   Bullocks to that. 

mspart

Dude, are you drunk?

[VakAttack]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

There are lots of allegations made by lots of people against lots of people.   There is nothing legal regarding this case that Trump was involved in an insurrection.   Name the court case.   There is none.   So the CO supremes made the decision that Trump did this with no underlying court cases to show evidence that he did.   It is just as bad of reasoning as Biden and corruption which you just said should not happen.   There are lots of people alleging it and that seems to be your threshold here.    That's what I'm doing right now. 

mspart

You have no idea what you're talking at about at this point and are just digging your heels in and rambling.  All of this has been explained, multiple times.

[mspart]

8 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

You know what else was a bad precedent? Leading an insurrection on January 6. That does not comport to democracy and is a terrible precedent - just ask Brazil.

 

Let me ask you: do you feel that the above is an opinion or a fact? If the former, then is your rhetoric any different? If the latter, then why are we wasting our time since literally no one in this forum is a credentialed legal scholar?

I think it is the opinion of many people that Trump led an insurrection.   It is my opinion that he did not.  He is on video saying that they should peacefully let Congress hear their voices.   He did not tell them to break down doors.   He did not tell them to go in with weapons (which they didn't), he did not tell them to kill anyone (which they didn't), and he did not tell them to overthrow the government that is his government (which they didn't).   So no, I do not think it was an insurrection and I don't think Trump led the activities that happened after his speech.  And there has been no court case trying to establish that.  

You don't have to be a credentialed legal scholar to know a hose job when you see one.   Again, would it be permissible to keep Biden off the ballot due to merely someone's allegation of corruption?    I think you would say No and I would say the same.   But it is different when the name is Trump.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

We didn’t even make it two full pages before “but what about Biden” was invoked. 
 

You may want to look at the initial case, prior to it reaching the Supreme Court of Colorado, where the lower court found, through evidence and testimony, that he did in fact engage in insurrection.  The Colorado Supreme Court did not make this finding. They agreed with the finding of the lower court, that heard the case, and found that his office of president is relative to the 14th amendment. 
 

It helps to know the facts if you are going to dig in so deeply. 
 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[mspart]

Just now, VakAttack said:

You have no idea what you're talking at about at this point and are just digging your heels in and rambling.  All of this has been explained, multiple times.

Ok, so then you agree Biden could be kept off the ballot say in TX, or AL, or OK etc and that would be perfectly sound legal reasoning.  

That is a one for one example of what has happened to Trump, which you call perfectly sound legal reasoning.  What are the consequences down the line if such a sound legal reasoning such as this CO decision is allowed to stand?

4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

We didn’t even make it two full pages before “but what about Biden” was invoked. 

Yeah, because it is the same thing.   There are allegations against Biden corruption man.   There are only allegations against Trump.   They are in the same boat and if this CO decision stands, watch out!   It will not be the last time this year that an attempt  is made to keep someone off the ballot.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

Just now, mspart said:

Ok, so then you agree Biden could be kept off the ballot say in TX, or AL, or OK etc and that would be perfectly sound legal reasoning.  

That is a one for one example of what has happened to Trump, which you call perfectly sound legal reasoning.  What are the consequences down the line if such a sound legal reasoning such as this CO decision is allowed to stand?

Yeah, because it is the same thing.   There are allegations against Biden corruption man.   There are only allegations against Trump.   They are in the same boat and if this CO decision stands, watch out!   It will not be the last time this year that an attempt  is made to keep someone off the ballot.  

mspart

It’s not even close to the same things. Not in any way shape or form, past the word allegations.  
 

You can dig in and say “but Biden” all you want but it doesn’t change the facts.  Never will. 

[mspart]

Ok, everyone knows where I stand.   The CO decision is wrong and I hope SCOTUS reverses it.   Not just for Trump and CO, but for the country as the precedent will be set and  there will be other attempts to keep the "bad" guy whether Trump or anyone else off the ballot.  

I again say that I don't want Trump as President, but what is happening to him is unprecedented in our country and this CO case is a very strange attempt indeed. 

OK, I have said enough here.    I will pause for a time before responding to anyone else on this. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

Ok, so then you agree Biden could be kept off the ballot say in TX, or AL, or OK etc and that would be perfectly sound legal reasoning.  

That is a one for one example of what has happened to Trump, which you call perfectly sound legal reasoning.  What are the consequences down the line if such a sound legal reasoning such as this CO decision is allowed to stand?

Yeah, because it is the same thing.   There are allegations against Biden corruption man.   There are only allegations against Trump.   They are in the same boat and if this CO decision stands, watch out!   It will not be the last time this year that an attempt  is made to keep someone off the ballot.  

mspart

I just said that they should not have done this to Trump.  Separately, I disagreed with your characterization of the Biden case and the evidence therein.  Thirdly (and this is new) it's not the same thing, even under the current allegations, Biden isn't accused of insurrection or rebellion.  Stop talking definitively if you don't know what you're talking about.

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

This may be how SCOTUS seeks to go around this, but that is not a textualist reading of the 14th.  A conviction is not required under the textualist reading.

What the Ds are doing this cycle is basically almost a mirror image of what the Rs did in 2020 (and what most political incumbent parties do).  No primary debates for any incumbent president since 1976, I believe.  And then you have what's happening in the Rs this year where they're just not requiring that Trump even participate.

That is the 14th Amendment.  Section 5 to be specific.  What textualist would only read three fifths of an Amendment to guide his decision?

Edited December 20, 2023 by Offthemat

[bnwtwg]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Ok, everyone knows where I stand.   The CO decision is wrong and I hope SCOTUS reverses it.   Not just for Trump and CO, but for the country as the precedent will be set and  there will be other attempts to keep the "bad" guy whether Trump or anyone else off the ballot.  

I again say that I don't want Trump as President, but what is happening to him is unprecedented in our country and this CO case is a very strange attempt indeed. 

OK, I have said enough here.    I will pause for a time before responding to anyone else on this. 

mspart

In the event the federal supreme court does not reverse the decision, in a one word answer ("yes" or "no") will your opinion change?

[Offthemat]

43 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Random sentence generator?

I don’t understand your question.  You may not realize that the sentence is Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  

[VakAttack]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

That is the 14th Amendment.  Section 5 to be specific.  What textualist would only three fifths of an Amendment to guide his decision?

Because, textually speaking, Section 5 isn't specifically exhaustive in terms of remedy, i.e. it doesn't say "the only way this can be enforced is through Congressional legislation" just that Congress has the power to enforce this thru further legislation.

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Because, textually speaking, Section 5 isn't specifically exhaustive in terms of remedy, i.e. it doesn't say "the only way this can be enforced is through Congressional legislation" just that Congress has the power to enforce this thru further legislation.

A textualist would read that as:  Congress (not the court) shall have the power (unless so legislated by Congress)

[VakAttack]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

A textualist would read that as:  Congress (not the court) shall have the power (unless so legislated by Congress)

That is NOT how a textualist would read it.  First of all, Congress doesn't "enforce" anything, the court enforces the laws Congress passes.   You're literally adding language, the opposite of what textualists and originalists do.  These theories of legal interpretation focus on the language in print.

[WrestlingRasta]

The question of the enforcement clause has already been in front of SCOTUS, and was found that if the states are not adhering, then congress shall have the power to enforce. They did not find that Congress and only Congress can enforce. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

5 minutes ago, mspart said:

As you noted, it is a few people that did this.   That is not democracy, that is judicial rule.   Democracy is people voting.  Did the people of CO vote to keep Trump off the ballot?   The answer to that is NO.   But that would be democracy. 

mspart

The US as a democracy is a myth. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic. McConnell only said something so stupid as to get the heat off of himself from holding the other moron responsible for this in the first place. Its a constitutional issue. It is not voted on by the people it is agreed upon from the jump. The only thing that is needed is an instance, done. A case brought. Done. A judge to agree. Done. Then it goes to a higher court. Done. and so on. 

We don't vote to hold someone accountable for individual violations of first or second amendment let alone the constant violation of the emoluments clause by a certain someone. Civil rights. They are all done through the courts. 

You may not realize it but you are 'moving the goal posts' by suggesting this. If you do realize it you should know its a dishonest way of addressing an issue. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Great thread. Lots of good points. Fun conversation. 

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

That is NOT how a textualist would read it.  First of all, Congress doesn't "enforce" anything, the court enforces the laws Congress passes.   You're literally adding language, the opposite of what textualists and originalists do.  These theories of legal interpretation focus on the language in print.

No.  It gives Congress the power to write a statute that would be enforced by the executive and judicial branches.  The court is not given the power to act independent a conviction of the statute. 

[Offthemat]

This case has more holes than a Swiss cheese.  Is it any indication that of eight dimocrat judges involved, the vote is split 4-4?  Maybe 4.5-3.5. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Offthemat

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

eight dimocrat judges involved, the vote is split 4-4?

Which makes me happy to see. An indication of law people judging a case on the merits of law and not a political party. 

[Offthemat]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Which makes me happy to see. An indication of law people judging a case on the merits of law and not a political party. 

Maybe.  Maybe it indicates how difficult it is to get a straight deal. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

That's an insurrectionist!!!   Look at the weapon he is wielding.   And look at the other hoodlums with guns galore.   Yep, this was an insurrection. 

msaprt

You can't yell 'fire' in a public place and not be held accountable if it causes people to be harmed. 

He invited people to a place. Told them they had to fight(his words). Was told, in real time, that people were there with weapons. Urged them to go to the capital building. Watched on live tv for three hours without so much as a word. Then said, 'I love you' to the people that broke through windows, tried to break through a barricaded door to the house floor, and beat up capitol police. I'm sorry that you can't or won't see the facts. But he yelled 'FIRE!' Its a shame he's never met any consequences until now. We may not have a need for this conversation if he understand the 'find out' part but maybe he will this time.

Free speech is not absolute. You cannot encourage someone to commit a violent act. You become, somewhat, responsible for the outcome if it is attempted let alone carried out. 

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

You can't yell 'fire' in a public place and not be held accountable if it causes people to be harmed. 

He invited people to a place. Told them they had to fight(his words). Was told, in real time, that people were there with weapons. Urged them to go to the capital building. Watched on live tv for three hours without so much as a word. Then said, 'I love you' to the people that broke through windows, tried to break through a barricaded door to the house floor, and beat up capitol police. I'm sorry that you can't or won't see the facts. But he yelled 'FIRE!' Its a shame he's never met any consequences until now. We may not have a need for this conversation if he understand the 'find out' part but maybe he will this time.

Free speech is not absolute. You cannot encourage someone to commit a violent act. You become, somewhat, responsible for the outcome if it is attempted let alone carried out. 

So, where’s the conviction?

[Ohio Elite]

Part of me wants Colorado to win this...

Then the red states take Biden off the ballot..

Then..... nevermind I don't want to know.