news Maine blocks Trump from running

[VOSS]

7 minutes ago, bad guy said:

So Biden can only win with state courts interfering in the people's right to choose who they want? What a disastrous candidate then.

 

 

OT: Now the Supreme Court is gonna have to address this and let's just say it won't be in their favor

Trump isn’t eligible to run for president per the fourteenth amendment. State courts are following the constitution.

Edited December 29, 2023 by VOSS

[Hector]

What a great way to end the year  Next year will still be even more of a sh*tshow though. 

[SignificantOther]

This is more significant than Colorado because it could potentially cost Trump one electoral vote. 

[Communion]

Nikki Haley realizing she can now win 2 out of 50 Republican primaries next year.

 

[SuperCiC1]

He started an insurrection, failed to stop that insurrection, and made numerous attempts to change the votes in places he clearly lost. This is just what the Constitution tells us to do to a TRAITOR.

[nadiamendell]

This reeks of desperation and the fact that it's looking like the only way Biden can win is by states removing Trump from the ballot really says all it needs to say about Biden as a candidate. Pathetic. 

[Happylittlepunk]

This stuff isn’t going to work imo. If they want trump to lose then pick a good candidate with good policy and stop playing around. All this just makes delusional republicans think the government is trying to block trump as much as possible and makes Biden look bad by saying that democrats need to court system in order to win. 

[Breathe On Moi]

2 hours ago, Distantconstellation said:

Its already been an instant and it still hasnt been smacked down. So now what?

I really just sat here and chuckled at his so deeply, this was good 

[Nova_23]

Let’s make it fair. Biden next. One republican and one democrat removed from the ballot 

[50thStateofMind]

11 minutes ago, nadiamendell said:

This reeks of desperation and the fact that it's looking like the only way Biden can win is by states removing Trump from the ballot really says all it needs to say about Biden as a candidate. Pathetic. 

it really doesnʻt say ANYTHING about Biden since it quite literally has nothing to do with him, but go off...

[bad guy]

2 hours ago, VOSS said:

Trump isn’t eligible to run for president per the fourteenth amendment. State courts are following the constitution.

Regardless of what you think his role was in January 6th applying it to what the 14th Amendment states is legally kinda vague. Democratic state courts are testing this sure, but many constitutional law lawyers are advising against this because 1.) He hasn’t even been convicted yet (due process) and 2.) the line about insurrection is specifically about the Civil War and barring Confederates from gaining power in the new Union. He doesn’t need to be convicted to be excluded necessarily but him not being convicted with anything is even more reason for courts not to go through with this. It’s a gamble.

 

Since there has been no trial yet for Trump’s role on January 6th and therefore zero evidence/conviction (and no not just tweets that can easily be argued in court by Trump’s lawyers to mean something else) that he was 100% responsible for those people showing up to Capitol, it isn’t as simple as “following the Constitution”. The line in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically says “engaged”, which could be interpreted as having to actually lead an insurrection physically. Again, it can be interpreted various ways which is why the Supreme Court will more than likely shoot this down. If he was actually convicted then this would make more sense. Otherwise it comes off as partisan political theater and further vindicates that the system is “rigged” to his already emboldened supporters. Holding Trump accountable is only done through the outcomes of his court cases, not by state courts meddling in a primary process.
 

TL;DR: Law is exhausting and convoluted. But the way to beat Trump is by having an actual electable candidate running against him. Like you can’t tell me these states would be pulling this if Joe Biden wasn’t on the ballot.

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by bad guy

[nadiamendell]

17 minutes ago, 50thStateofMind said:

it really doesnʻt say ANYTHING about Biden since it quite literally has nothing to do with him, but go off...

Nowhere in my post did I state that this event had anything to do with him.  I said the fact that this could be the ONLY way Biden wins DOES say quite a bit about him, actually. 

[VOSS]

23 minutes ago, bad guy said:

Regardless of what you think his role was in January 6th applying it to what the 14th Amendment states is legally kinda vague. Democratic state courts are testing this sure, but many constitutional law lawyers are advising against this because 1.) He hasn’t even been convicted yet (due process) and 2.) the line about insurrection is specifically about the Civil War and barring Confederates from gaining power in the new Union. He doesn’t need to be convicted to be excluded necessarily but him not being convicted with anything is even more reason for courts not to go through with this. It’s a gamble.

 

Since there has been no trial yet for Trump’s role on January 6th and therefore zero evidence/conviction (and no not just tweets that can easily be argued in court by Trump’s lawyers to mean something else) that he was 100% responsible for those people showing up to Capitol, it isn’t as simple as “following the Constitution”. The line in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically says “engaged”, which could be interpreted as having to actually lead an insurrection physically. Again, it can be interpreted various ways which is why the Supreme Court will more than likely shoot this down. If he was actually convicted then this would make more sense. Otherwise it comes off as partisan political theater and further vindicates that the system is “rigged” to his already emboldened supporters. Holding Trump accountable is only done through the outcomes of his court cases, not by state courts meddling in a primary process.
 

TL;DR: Law is exhausting and convoluted. But the way to beat Trump is by having an actual electable candidate running against him. Like you can’t tell me these states would be pulling this if Joe Biden wasn’t on the ballot.

 

Your argument is political, not legal. At the end of the day the fourteenth amendment will mean whatever SCOTUS says it means. From my perspective it’s clear that Trump is ineligible to run.

Edited December 29, 2023 by VOSS

[spree]

it looks desperate, but we all know Trump is guilty.  The GOP knows he's guilty, too, but are afraid to be outspoken about it.  Very few of them are, and then they quit the whole party, like Mitt Romney.  It will probably all backfire, cuz it would be shocking if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of CO and thus the nation.  But at the end of the day, we all knows he's guilty so why not at least try?  It's political maneuvering, but it's also something that should be done.  Maybe the timing is off tho.  Wasn't he on recorded tape asking GA to find votes?  That's evidence right there.  

[RoseBud]

7 hours ago, VOSS said:

Trump isn’t eligible to run for president per the fourteenth amendment. State courts are following the constitution.

  Here you go !    It's actually quite simple.

[Hurem]

Trump is winning the elections because Dems couldn’t have chosen a worse candidate than Biden.

[karron0624]

10 hours ago, Happylittlepunk said:

This stuff isn’t going to work imo. If they want trump to lose then pick a good candidate with good policy and stop playing around. All this just makes delusional republicans think the government is trying to block trump as much as possible and makes Biden look bad by saying that democrats need to court system in order to win. 

Or we can stop pushing this narrative and just let the court system do its job? Republicans were literally warned this could happen right after Jan 6, and it is not our fault that to this day MAGA voters still think the election was stolen. Lets also not pretend that if this were on the other foot, Biden would not be banned in every single republican state in order to “uphold the rule of law.”

[karron0624]

10 hours ago, bad guy said:

Regardless of what you think his role was in January 6th applying it to what the 14th Amendment states is legally kinda vague. Democratic state courts are testing this sure, but many constitutional law lawyers are advising against this because 1.) He hasn’t even been convicted yet (due process) and 2.) the line about insurrection is specifically about the Civil War and barring Confederates from gaining power in the new Union. He doesn’t need to be convicted to be excluded necessarily but him not being convicted with anything is even more reason for courts not to go through with this. It’s a gamble.

 

Since there has been no trial yet for Trump’s role on January 6th and therefore zero evidence/conviction (and no not just tweets that can easily be argued in court by Trump’s lawyers to mean something else) that he was 100% responsible for those people showing up to Capitol, it isn’t as simple as “following the Constitution”. The line in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically says “engaged”, which could be interpreted as having to actually lead an insurrection physically. Again, it can be interpreted various ways which is why the Supreme Court will more than likely shoot this down. If he was actually convicted then this would make more sense. Otherwise it comes off as partisan political theater and further vindicates that the system is “rigged” to his already emboldened supporters. Holding Trump accountable is only done through the outcomes of his court cases, not by state courts meddling in a primary process.
 

TL;DR: Law is exhausting and convoluted. But the way to beat Trump is by having an actual electable candidate running against him. Like you can’t tell me these states would be pulling this if Joe Biden wasn’t on the ballot.

 

The Supreme Court has to be careful with the conviction language though, because that also impacts laws regarding administrative law, immigration law, health and insurance law, etc. (as laws in each of those sections have been interpreted to ban certain members without the need of conviction, using similar language as used in the 14th amendment.) what most likely happens is that the Supreme court develops a process, or remands to congress/the states to develop a process, and does not use this “conviction” term everyone is throwing out, as to read the need for a conviction into this goes against the plain meaning of the text (so three conservative justices would already be backing down on their own interpretation of the constitution) and has the potential to reverse soo many decisions accidentally.

 

[SuperCiC1]

13 hours ago, bad guy said:

Regardless of what you think his role was in January 6th applying it to what the 14th Amendment states is legally kinda vague. Democratic state courts are testing this sure, but many constitutional law lawyers are advising against this because 1.) He hasn’t even been convicted yet (due process) and 2.) the line about insurrection is specifically about the Civil War and barring Confederates from gaining power in the new Union. He doesn’t need to be convicted to be excluded necessarily but him not being convicted with anything is even more reason for courts not to go through with this. It’s a gamble.

 

Since there has been no trial yet for Trump’s role on January 6th and therefore zero evidence/conviction (and no not just tweets that can easily be argued in court by Trump’s lawyers to mean something else) that he was 100% responsible for those people showing up to Capitol, it isn’t as simple as “following the Constitution”. The line in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically says “engaged”, which could be interpreted as having to actually lead an insurrection physically. Again, it can be interpreted various ways which is why the Supreme Court will more than likely shoot this down. If he was actually convicted then this would make more sense. Otherwise it comes off as partisan political theater and further vindicates that the system is “rigged” to his already emboldened supporters. Holding Trump accountable is only done through the outcomes of his court cases, not by state courts meddling in a primary process.
 

TL;DR: Law is exhausting and convoluted. But the way to beat Trump is by having an actual electable candidate running against him. Like you can’t tell me these states would be pulling this if Joe Biden wasn’t on the ballot.

 

He didn't just send tweets he called dozens of officials telling them to throw the election and hid out somewhere not doing anything while the attempted insurrection was happening. It sounds like you are deep into the delusional Trump side.