Based on the justices arguments it sounds like they’re going to decide this along party lines.
Another word salad, bullshit bingo so he can wrangle some dollars from the uneducated masses.
No one with their head screwed on listens to him anymore.
I like to think I have my head screwed on and I listen to him.
Mostly for comedic effect though. 😋
The shear volume of people in the US who are listening to him is seriously worrying though.
Exhibit A
...
Any court in a democracy will be reluctant to remove a candidate from a ballot paper. They will set a high bar. I always considered the chance of Trump being removed from the ballot paper to be slim.
Reluctant = good.
High bar? Would opposition to the peaceful transition of power and encouraging violence in order to hold onto power not be a high enough bar?
MSNBC reporting that the justices were quite critical of Colorado's case in the opening hearing. Doesn't look like there will be any point of law that will prevent Trump from running for President.
Looks like they are going to go with the "States can't decide on their own" angle for the 14th Amendment thereby pushing the decision to congress where it dies on party lines..
As I suspected they would.
That's that then , he's on the ballot regardless.
Because if the SCOTUS view is that only congress can invoke the 14th amendment then even if he's convicted via the Jack Smith cases , the GOP House will never vote to have him removed.
States rights but only when it suits us.....
Just like "Strike down Roe , let the States decide" - Roe is struck down , "Let's pass a federal law to ban abortion"
One rule for thee and another for me...
Judgement filed..
Seemed like there was a lot of confidence that the scope of the case would be limited to the question of whether the President was covered in the insurrection clause, but instead the SCOTUS is focusing on the potential consequences of allowing one state to unilaterally strike a candidate from the ballot.
To be fair, I don't think that question is without merit, because if individual states can do that, then you're open to this situation where a few states are deciding presidential elections, and the balance of the whole thing is left in state supreme courts.
That is to say it's a potential problem where you're allowing state courts to unilaterally find on insurrection/rebellion or aiding/abetting same before it's been found in a trial.
Is that the sort of (blatantly illegal) thing Trump was doing with his fake elector scheme?
Taking a few choice states out of the overall count?
Still ,even if one or two states should be judged unable to unilaterally remove a candidate from the ballot then the reason for that should be addressed on it's own merits and not just because the outcome could be unbalancing .
If they were right to do that , then SCOTUS should uphold that -or say why they disagree.
If Colorado was right in its own area of competence then that should apply everywhere else.
If they were wrong then Trump should stay on the ballot.
It's probably not altogether unreasonable that for a National Election that the decision should be made at the national level - Every State is voting for the same person.
I can see the argument that would say that a State can keep someone off the ballot for State wide office or even for House/Senate as they control the entirety of the election for that office , but for President they are but one part of a much larger ballot.
However the issue of leaving it entirely up to Congress is that it becomes utterly politicised so it might be better to allow for a Federal indictment for an appropriate charge to be self-actuating rather than it not carrying weight in a congressional decision.
In the current scenario , if Trump were to be convicted in the Federal case in DC , that in and of itself should be enough to remove him from the ballot and there should not be a requirement for the House and Senate to vote on the decision.
Absent a specific conviction then sure , allow the House/Senate to follow an impeachment style process to activate the 14th amendment.
I don't think it is the same thing. In the fake electors case, Trump's camp tried to pull a switch on slates of electors from specific states. I don't believe they had any defensible legal basis on which to do that, like court approval or whatever.
The Colorado case does have a legitimate court finding to back it up. Now, that finding might be called spurious or unjust, but that's what this supreme court case is parsing through.
For all the new people and old people banging and screaming that Trump is not an adjudicated rapist: why hasn't Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against the judge who wrote precisely that fact?
Hey if it can happen to trump it could happen to anyone
If they can come after Donald Trump for forcibly raping a woman, they can go after anyone for forcibly raping a woman. "THIS IS NOT AMERICA!"
Maybe Harvey Weinstein should take a run at it.
Interesting that Citizen Trump doesn't attack Biden for memory issues... Almost as if he knows he can't afford to!
Instead, he, as usual, claims a report says something it didn't...
Sorry this is probably what f@@ked him not too many on tape making statements like this
As the saying goes in Kerry a shut mouth catches no flies. He is a motor mouth thisvis what cost him 80 odd million
There is also the saying It's often a person's mouth broke their nose.
Actually attacking Carroll (rape according to the judge) was the act that resulted in the verdict against him. Him piling on the bulshít afterwards resulted in the 80 odd million verdict, while the birds of a feather say that he wasn't found guilty of rape or Carroll was just in it for the money.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton: looks like Trump is going to run on his record of banning abortions, doing "nothing" about gun violence, and bragging about leaving the border open:
Least he said in public, now the attack adverts can make it plain and stark: Trump and the GOP don't care enough about the border to pass the bill to solve it.
As for the gun violence remarks, well, given the audience what he said wasn't a suprise and will probably play well with those who think gun ownership is an extension of their being, dead children be damned.
I wonder if Trump has strategists, or if he would even listen to them. Seems to be that pinning his colours on being the “Anti-abortion President” is a sure-fire way of getting the Dem & Independent voters out to vote against him, as was shown in the last mid-terms. He doesn’t really need to mention abortion to keep the MAGA loons on side with him. Hell, some of the more religious ones think he’s literally God-sent.
Interesting that NRA is still chugging along. They had a dubious Bankruptcy claim a couple of years ago, and at least one bank stopped issuing a special NRA credit card they had. It’s a large organisation, so it would take plenty to kill off, but interesting that they still have the means to bring Trump in for a rally. Although they are exactly the kind of group to put extra effort into something like that.
Nancy Pelosi Nikki Haley trying on being Trump in Heels, says Nevada primary was "rigged"
Trump says what he thinks the people in front of him want to hear in that moment and what he thinks will make them like him, again in that moment.
He is utterly transactional and only interested in his immediate personal satisfaction.
Any consistency in what he says is only because his audience like hearing the same things not because it's part of a coherent policy plan.
I couldn't agree more, however I think that there is a real risk that this strategy may work!
The problem with copying Trump is that you kind of have to be Trump for it to work. At best, this will annoy Trump, if he hears about it.
