How big

[ionel]

  On 12/20/2023 at 5:24 PM, Paul158 said:

Wouldn't Trump need to be convicted before they could pull the 14th card? Did they forget that key element ?

Expand  

Re read the 14th:  the VP, congress etc need to be convicted but its very specific when it talks about the "President", he/she only needs to be accused, implied, speculated, etc of maybe doing some thing wrong.

[Wrestleknownothing]

  On 12/20/2023 at 6:29 PM, Offthemat said:

Read on down to section 5 and you see:  The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Which they did by writing statute that covers prosecutions and convictions of insurrection.  
 

Dimocrats don’t allow democracy within their party, there’ll be no dimocrat primary election for president.  Will they be stopped before they destroy the country, because they certainly will be afterwards.  Maybe by China.  Maybe by Persia. 

Expand  

Random sentence generator?

[VakAttack]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:07 PM, mspart said:

So based on zero evidence, zero judicial review, and zero convictions, a court can legally say anyone did anything they want to.   That does not sound like perfectly sound legal reasoning.   That sounds like an authoritative and statist kind of thing.   We definitely need more of this sound legal reasoning in our courts today.   This is why the optics look terrible on this.   It is a case where a court can say a person did something with no evidence, or judicial cases making that claim.  They just came up with it out of thin air.   Sound legal reasoning?  Yeah right.

mspart

Expand  

There is not "no evidence."  There's a lot of recorded evidence.  Again, you just don't agree with it or see it the same way as this court did.  I'm sorry that this hurts your feelings.

Edited December 20, 2023 by VakAttack

[mspart]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:03 PM, VakAttack said:

The reasoning is not suspect, you just don't agree that he engaged in an insurrection; if the court feels he did (which apparently they did) it's a perfectly sound legal reasoning.  And now SCOTUS will decide if a conviction is required, which it is not under the strict textual reading of the 14th, but arguably can be if you interpret language more broadly and from other parts of the document and how we interpret things in the modern legal world.  I'm fine with that interpretation, but it flies in the face of how Rs typically demand the document be read (usually in the context of the 2nd Amendment, but generally all throughout).

Expand  

 

So based on zero evidence, zero judicial review, and zero convictions, a court can legally say anyone did anything they want to.   That does not sound like perfectly sound legal reasoning.   That sounds like an authoritative and statist kind of thing.   We definitely need more of this sound legal reasoning in our courts today.   This is why the optics look terrible on this.   It is a case where a court can say a person did something with no evidence, or judicial cases making that claim.  They just came up with it out of thin air.   Sound legal reasoning?  Yeah right.

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

  On 12/20/2023 at 5:24 PM, Paul158 said:

Wouldn't Trump need to be convicted before they could pull the 14th card? Did they forget that key element ?

Expand  

That key element?  Can you point to where that key element is in the 14th?

[Wrestleknownothing]

  On 12/20/2023 at 6:46 PM, 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

Expand  

There are all manner of things decided in courts that are not voted on. That is not anti-democracy in any way.

[mspart]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:08 PM, VakAttack said:

There is not "no evidence."  There's a lot of recorded evidence.  Again, you just don't agree with it or see it the same way as this court did.

Expand  

So you would be happy if a court keeps Biden off the ballot for corruption.   There is ample evidence of it but no case has been made about it.   But any court can just say it because that is sound legal reasoning?

mspart

[ionel]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:08 PM, VakAttack said:

There is not "no evidence."  There's a lot of recorded evidence.  Again, you just don't agree with it or see it the same way as this court did.  I'm sorry that this hurts your feelings.

Expand  

How many courts saw it the other way?

[VakAttack]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:11 PM, mspart said:

So you would be happy if a court keeps Biden off the ballot for corruption.   There is ample evidence of it but no case has been made about it.   But any court can just say it because that is sound legal reasoning?

mspart

Expand  

I've already said I would be fine if SCOTUS interpreted this as needing a conviction and also that I thought this was a loser issue for the Ds.

[mspart]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:10 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

There are all manner of things decided in courts that are not voted on. That is not anti-democracy in any way.

Expand  

It is when there is no remedy readily available.   This was timed such there is very little time to get this reversed.   There is no time for the people to have a say in this.   That is demonstrably not democratic. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:11 PM, ionel said:

How many courts saw it the other way?

Expand  

I don't know, but that happens all the time in our system; that's part of SCOTUS' main function is to make decisions on federal issues where states disagree.

[VakAttack]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:12 PM, mspart said:

It is when there is no remedy readily available.   This was timed such there is very little time to get this reversed.   There is no time for the people to have a say in this.   That is demonstrably not democratic. 

mspart

Expand  

There literally IS a remedy available, that's what Colorado SC just did (although the order is currently stayed until 1/4/24 or SCOTUS rules on it.)

[mspart]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:11 PM, mspart said:

So you would be happy if a court keeps Biden off the ballot for corruption.   There is ample evidence of it but no case has been made about it.   But any court can just say it because that is sound legal reasoning?

mspart

Expand  

 

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:11 PM, VakAttack said:

I've already said I would be fine if SCOTUS interpreted this as needing a conviction and also that I thought this was a loser issue for the Ds.

Expand  

Please answer the question I asked you.   I don't care that you are fine the what SCOTUS does, I asked a very similar question that I would like you to respond to. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

  On 12/20/2023 at 6:33 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Hard to see how that is true at all. A few voters brought the case and won. A Judge agreed. The supreme court of that state agreed. 

Expand  

A key element that a lot of people seem to be forgetting, or conveniently ignoring, it’s that a few registered Republican voters brought the case and won.  

[bnwtwg]

  On 12/20/2023 at 6:53 PM, mspart said:

Trump has not be charged with insurrection other than the rushed impeachment in 2021.   The Senate acquitted him of that.   In no other place has he been anything other than charged or opined to have been a part of an insurrection.   The High court in CO decided that he was part of an insurrection and therefore disqualified.  

I think SCOTUS gets this and asks this very question and and votes to disallow the CO courts ruling.  The optics of this look bad because it is a brazen attempt to keep someone off the ballot and using any explanation for it.   The ruling should hold no water at SCOTUS.   The reasoning is suspect and not legal.   If SCOTUS allows this then it will be a real problem. 

mspart

Expand  

This is a state exercising state rights as voted on by citizens of the state.

Populus -> Governor and state government consituents -> State supreme court.

In Colorado, state supreme court justices are selected through assisted appointment with a governor-controlled judicial nominating commission. Justices are appointed by the governor with the assistance of a commission with a majority of members selected by the governor.

This means that the people entrusted their democratically majority elected officials to determine their state supreme court.  If that sounds familiar it is because that is how the federal supreme court is selected at a nearly 1:1 path.

[mspart]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:13 PM, VakAttack said:

There literally IS a remedy available, that's what Colorado SC just did (although the order is currently stayed until 1/4/24 or SCOTUS rules on it.)

Expand  

Yes, they waited until it was an emergency issue that has very little time to get weighed.   Perhaps the SCOTUS can't take it up in time to allow Trump on the ballot.   But where here do the people of Colorado get a say?   That is democracy.   Democracy is government by the voice of the people.   A republic is where the people vote in representatives that have the time to consider such things.   Did this go before the CO legislature?  No.   So the people either in a democracy or republic did not have a say.   I would be shocked if the SCOTUS allows this as it sets a new precedence that candidates can willy nilly be kept off a ballot if the courts agree.   And now that is judicial political activism.   Something I don't think anyone wants to see.  

mspart

[VakAttack]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:14 PM, mspart said:

 

Please answer the question I asked you.   I don't care that you are fine the what SCOTUS does, I asked a very similar question that I would like you to respond to. 

mspart

Expand  

Allow me to be clear with you, since you seem to be struggling:  I do not think this should have happened.  I think the interpretation requiring a conviction is how it should be interpreted.  I disagree entirely with your characterization of the current Biden situation; there is currently zero direct evidence and very little even circumstantial evidence of anything, whereas we have Trump on video.

[WrestlingRasta]

  On 12/20/2023 at 6:53 PM, mspart said:

The High court in CO decided that he was part of an insurrection  

mspart

Expand  

It was actually the lower court that got the case that decided he engaged in insurrection, then left it up the the Colorado Supreme Court that if engaging in insurrection in his position related to the 14th. 
 

Additionally, he doesn’t not have to be convicted or charged to be disqualified. And there is no process in our government by which the people vote on whether or not a constitutional amendment is being violated. 

[VakAttack]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:19 PM, mspart said:

Yes, they waited until it was an emergency issue that has very little time to get weighed.   Perhaps the SCOTUS can't take it up in time to allow Trump on the ballot.   But where here do the people of Colorado get a say?   That is democracy.   Democracy is government by the voice of the people.   A republic is where the people vote in representatives that have the time to consider such things.   Did this go before the CO legislature?  No.   So the people either in a democracy or republic did not have a say.   I would be shocked if the SCOTUS allows this as it sets a new precedence that candidates can willy nilly be kept off a ballot if the courts agree.   And now that is judicial political activism.   Something I don't think anyone wants to see.  

mspart

Expand  

This is just a fundamental lack of understanding about how our system works; the elected representatives are authorized to act on behalf of their constituents, they are not required to seek approval for every single decision they make.

[ionel]

We don't need courts or a democratic process, one man has spoken.

“I think it’s self evident” that Trump is an insurrectionist, Biden told reporters after stepping from Air Force One in Milwaukee.

“But he certainly supported an insurrection. There’s no question about it. None. Zero,” Biden said. “

[mspart]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:17 PM, bnwtwg said:

This is a state exercising state rights as voted on by citizens of the state.

Populus -> Governor and state government consituents -> State supreme court.

In Colorado, state supreme court justices are selected through assisted appointment with a governor-controlled judicial nominating commission. Justices are appointed by the governor with the assistance of a commission with a majority of members selected by the governor.

This means that the people entrusted their democratically majority elected officials to determine their state supreme court.  If that sounds familiar it is because that is how the federal supreme court is selected at a nearly 1:1 path.

Expand  

This means the people understand that the courts will abide by the law, not make up things to go with what they want to happen.   They made up that Trump was part of an insurrection.   There is no court case that makes that allegation.   So they made up their minds on their own.   That does not comport to democracy and this is a terrible precedent for judicial review. 

I do not want Trump to be President.   But this is a railroading of a candidate that has never happened before in the history of our nation.   Bad precedent to set.  

mspart

[VakAttack]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:23 PM, mspart said:

This means the people understand that the courts will abide by the law, not make up things to go with what they want to happen.   They made up that Trump was part of an insurrection.   There is no court case that makes that allegation.   So they made up their minds on their own.   That does not comport to democracy and this is a terrible precedent for judicial review. 

I do not want Trump to be President.   But this is a railroading of a candidate that has never happened before in the history of our nation.   Bad precedent to set.  

mspart

Expand  

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

[bnwtwg]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:22 PM, VakAttack said:

This is just a fundamental lack of understanding about how our system works; the elected representatives are authorized to act on behalf of their constituents, they are not required to seek approval for every single decision they make.

Expand  

That's literally why we elect them. In business terms, it's reverse delegating a task/decision up to your manager.

[mspart]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:20 PM, VakAttack said:

Allow me to be clear with you, since you seem to be struggling:  I do not think this should have happened.  I think the interpretation requiring a conviction is how it should be interpreted.  I disagree entirely with your characterization of the current Biden situation; there is currently zero direct evidence and very little even circumstantial evidence of anything, whereas we have Trump on video.

Expand  

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

[bnwtwg]

  On 12/20/2023 at 7:23 PM, mspart said:

This means the people understand that the courts will abide by the law, not make up things to go with what they want to happen.   They made up that Trump was part of an insurrection.   There is no court case that makes that allegation.   So they made up their minds on their own.   That does not comport to democracy and this is a terrible precedent for judicial review. 

I do not want Trump to be President.   But this is a railroading of a candidate that has never happened before in the history of our nation.   Bad precedent to set.  

mspart

Expand  

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?