Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[Little Dragon]

Persecution? Please. Do you just accept everything Trump says at face value? Good grief. Have you ever seen a bigger whiner in all your life? I haven't. What a man-baby.

His constant mewling and whining is absolutely pathetic. Whenever I hear that sociopath's voice, it's always going on about what a victim he is. How unacceptable it is for him to face the consequences of his actions. How everyone is out to get him, and how, it's all their fault.

He is so ****ing vile I want to puke. I cannot understand the mind that sees this unalloyed disgrace, as presidential material. I wouldn't trust him to shovel **** from one place to another.

 

[fantome profane]

I look forward to the revenge tour

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying for way too long now.

So many people want fascism, they want authoritarianism. They will clap and cheer for oppression. Just as long as the authoritarian boot is on the neck of somebody else.

I understand that the plan is that if Trump is elected, he wants to but the military on the streets day one. If so, will you applaud that move?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying for way too long now.

So many people want fascism, they want authoritarianism. They will clap and cheer for oppression. Just as long as the authoritarian boot is on the neck of somebody else.

I understand that the plan is that if Trump is elected, he wants to but the military on the streets day one. If so, will you applaud that move?

Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters pose a real threat to our democracy in the United States, in my opinion.

Trump pledges to turn away those who don’t like ‘our religion’

Trump Says He’ll Ban Immigrants Who ‘Don’t Like Our Religion’

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed. The UK operates a separate legal system. English & Welsh law. Which while having a lot in common with the US judicial civil and criminal systems. They are not the same. Different caselaw, different legislation, different procedures, different definitions and etc...
You could have a doctorate in English and Welsh law, but that would not qualify you to be an authority on US law. UK law maybe.

Not just maybe, almost certainly. In fact in the US each state has its own laws and its own bar. If you pass the bar in New York you are not automatically licensed to practice in California. Quick Google search later. I was right, but there are state that have bar reciprocity agreements. Something that I did not know before today. California does not have a bar reciprocity agreement with any state. But they do have a shortened bar exam for lawyers from other states that are still in good standing and have practiced for at least three years:

https://testmaxprep.com/blog/bar-exam/what-is-bar-reciprocity#:~:text=New%20York%20has%20reciprocity%20agreements,WV%2C%20WI%2C%20and%20WY.

At any rate there is no one singular US bar exam.

 

[Sargonski]

Nope, you are still very confused.

When you make a claim about the law you need to find a source that supports you. I did that in regards to mens rea. It disagreed with your interpretation. All you had was your self defeating claim of studying it at Oxford. Though there are many similarities between British law and US law there are differences. So a British education is not worth very much when it comes to the interpretations of certain legal standards. I used a neutral very reliable source. It was from Cornell University. One of the Ivy League schools in case you did not know. It was not a political one. It came from a highly respected law school. That shot down your "when I was at Oxford" claim.

You are the one that made the claim that I did not support some version of mens rea. What version of mens rea do I not support ? You are talking complete nonsense... . what version of Mens rea .. do I not support ??

and I did not claim to study anything at Oxford .. you are hopelessly lost up some creek without a paddle .. spouting made up falsehoods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one that made the claim that I did not support some version of mens rea. What version of mens rea do I not support ? You are talking complete nonsense... . what version of Mens rea .. do I not support ??

and I did not claim to study anything at Oxford .. you are hopelessly lost up some creek without a paddle .. spouting made up falsehoods.

The version that I quoted and linked from Cornell. You know, a US law school that would understand US law better than an English one. And it sure looked as if you made that claim about Oxford. Were you just trying to mislead others?

EDIT: Oh I see, your supposed education was even worse, sorry, it was four pages back:

"Right .. guess that Philosophy of Law Class taught by my Jewish Chess Bro who got PH.D from Oxford didn't sink that one."

So a friend of yours,, who has an English education in English law supposedly taught you about mens rea and you did not stop to think that the British might have different standards for that then the US has. It is still an ignorant fail on your part. You made an appeal to an improper authority.

We are still talking about US law. Not British law.

 

[We Never Know]

This could stir up a **** storm.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

"The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.

The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.
Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes.

The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol riot."

Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot

Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.

www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org

One win for Trump.

Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses effort to block Trump from state's primary ballot​

MSN

 

[Subduction Zone]

One win for Trump.

Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses effort to block Trump from state's primary ballot​

MSN

Actually that vote is about placing him on the primary ballot. When I first read the decision I was a bit confused:

"The court wrote in Wednesday's order that “there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.” "

So I kept reading:

"The court did not address the larger question of whether Trump is eligible to be placed on the general election ballot in this ruling and leaves the door open for future challenges to his eligibility should he win the primary election."

In other words they cannot keep him off of the primary ballot because the is a state issue only. It does not really decide if he is President or not. They can still try to keep him off the state ballot if he wins the nomination.

 

[Revoltingest]

Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters pose a real threat to our democracy in the United States, in my opinion.

Trump pledges to turn away those who don’t like ‘our religion’

Trump Says He’ll Ban Immigrants Who ‘Don’t Like Our Religion’

Trump says "our religion"....which one is it...
Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Judaism, Pentecostal,
Word Of God, Scientology, Wicca, Satanism, Islam?

 

[We Never Know]

Actually that vote is about placing him on the primary ballot. When I first read the decision I was a bit confused:

"The court wrote in Wednesday's order that “there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.” "

So I kept reading:

"The court did not address the larger question of whether Trump is eligible to be placed on the general election ballot in this ruling and leaves the door open for future challenges to his eligibility should he win the primary election."

In other words they cannot keep him off of the primary ballot because the is a state issue only. It does not really decide if he is President or not. They can still try to keep him off the state ballot if he wins the nomination.

Yes primary. I thought that was crystal clear by my post....

"Minnesota Supreme Court dismisses effort to block Trump from state's primary ballot"

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Trump says "our religion"....which one is it...
Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Judaism, Pentecostal,
Word Of God, Scientology, Wicca, Satanism, Islam?

The first article mentioned evangelical Christianity, and considering that he has a strong evangelical Christian voting base, I'd say it was right.

 

[Revoltingest]

The first article mentioned evangelical Christianity, and considering that he has a strong evangelical Christian voting base, I'd say it was right.

Well, so much for the 1st Amendment
& establishment of religion, eh.

 

[Sargonski]

The version that I quoted and linked from Cornell. You know, a US law school that would understand US law better than an English one. And it sure looked as if you made that claim about Oxford. Were you just trying to mislead others?

EDIT: Oh I see, your supposed education was even worse, sorry, it was four pages back:

"Right .. guess that Philosophy of Law Class taught by my Jewish Chess Bro who got PH.D from Oxford didn't sink that one."

So a friend of yours,, who has an English education in English law supposedly taught you about mens rea and you did not stop to think that the British might have different standards for that then the US has. It is still an ignorant fail on your part. You made an appeal to an improper authority.

We are still talking about US law. Not British law.

What a bout of ridiculous illogical nonsense friend. That my Prof got his PH.D from Oxford does not mean he was teaching British law .. but regardless .. this is hopelessly lost Ad Hom fallacy either way .. and deflection from the fact that your claims about mens rea is preposterous falsehood.

What is this alternate version of mens rea you are referring to in this made up alternate strawman fallacy reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a bout of ridiculous illogical nonsense friend. That my Prof got his PH.D from Oxford does not mean he was teaching British law .. but regardless .. this is hopelessly lost Ad Hom fallacy either way .. and deflection from the fact that your claims about mens rea is preposterous falsehood.

What is this alternate version of mens rea you are referring to in this made up alternate strawman fallacy reality.

You still do not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. And no, there was no deflection. I supported my claim about mens rea. You only shouted, claimed to know a false authority, and then ran away.

Find a source that refutes mine. See if you can find one that is apolitical and well respected.

 

[Sargonski]

You still do not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. And no, there was no deflection. I supported my claim about mens rea. You only shouted, claimed to know a false authority, and then ran away.

Find a source that refutes mine. See if you can find one that is apolitical and well respected.

I know well what Ad Hom Fallacy is .. and you continuously deflect ... and make up new false stories ... such as me claiming "false authority" .. something I didn't do .. like your last post .. was something else I didn't do .. and the one before that.

Why would I find a source that refutes your source ? ..why do you want me to refute your source .. whos definition of mens rea I agree with. Your source had a fine definition of mens rea .. not some alternate reality definition you seem to think exists a case of misreading the source just like the last 3 of my posts .. addressing 3 separate strawmen - you make up a new falsehood every post .

Nothing wrong with anyone's definition of mens rea friend .. a deflection on your part .. from the fact that you have not provided "mens rea" for insurrection .. and hence justification for punting Trump off ballot.

No Crime - No Criminal -- The idea that the Capitol Protest was "Insurrection" is 3rd world kangarooland police state totalitarianism .. Friend

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know well what Ad Hom Fallacy is .. and you continuously deflect ... and make up new false stories ... such as me claiming "false authority" .. something I didn't do .. like your last post .. was something else I didn't do .. and the one before that.

No, you really do not. Nor do you know what deflection is because if anything you are guilty of that. I have pointed out how I have supported my claim and how you have not. What do you do? You deflect.

Why would I find a source that refutes your source ? ..why do you want me to refute your source .. whos definition of mens rea I agree with. Your source had a fine definition of mens rea .. not some alternate reality definition you seem to think exists a case of misreading the source just like the last 3 of my posts .. addressing 3 separate strawmen - you make up a new falsehood every post .

Because my sources show you to be wrong. If I am wrong I want to know it. But if you cannot do so then it is far more likely that I am right.

And please, don't use logical fallacies. You have no clue how to use them properly.

Nothing wrong with anyone's definition of mens rea friend .. a deflection on your part .. from the fact that you have not provided "mens rea" for insurrection .. and hence justification for punting Trump off ballot.

There you go again. It is not the definition that you get wrong. It is the interpretation. My source showed that your interpretation was wrong.

No Crime - No Criminal -- The idea that the Capitol Protest was "Insurrection" is 3rd world kangarooland police state totalitarianism .. Friend

And another link that I used showed that people have been denied the right to run based upon the disqualification phrase in the 14th Amendment. They took the cases to court and lost. And one example was of a person that broke no laws at all. This is why you need to both check out the links used against you and supply some of your own. But you probably cannot find any that support your poor arguments. So you just pound on the table and yell.


Proceed to yell again.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The first article mentioned evangelical Christianity, and considering that he has a strong evangelical Christian voting base, I'd say it was right.

It's not our official religion or his religion. His religion is Trumpism.

 

[Sargonski]

No, you really do not. Nor do you know what deflection is because if anything you are guilty of that. I have pointed out how I have supported my claim and how you have not. What do you do? You deflect.


Because my sources show you to be wrong. If I am wrong I want to know it. But if you cannot do so then it is far more likely that I am right.

And please, don't use logical fallacies. You have no clue how to use them properly.


There you go again. It is not the definition that you get wrong. It is the interpretation. My source showed that your interpretation was wrong.

And another link that I used showed that people have been denied the right to run based upon the disqualification phrase in the 14th Amendment. They took the cases to court and lost. And one example was of a person that broke no laws at all. This is why you need to both check out the links used against you and supply some of your own. But you probably cannot find any that support your poor arguments. So you just pound on the table and yell.


Proceed to yell again.

You are the one yelling friend .. all these false accusations one after the other .. building strawmen like no tomorrow.

You say "I supported my claim" -- What claim is that ? What claim did you support friend - you don't even know what claim it is you are claiming to support .. .. running around repeating "I supported my claim " over and over .. is not support for claim friend. and you first have to tell us what claim you are claiming to have supported. we agree on the disqualification based on insurrection .. so why are you pretending this is the issue .. when the issue you are deflecting from is the fact that you have not provided mens rea for insurrection .... thus you have not supported the claim of "insurrection" and thus the 3rd world Kangaroo land label .. as the claim of insurrection is ridiculous nonsense. be it for Trump or any of the protesters currently being violated by totalitarian police state tactics that Stalin would be proud of.

 

[Sargonski]

It's not our official religion or his religion. His religion is Trumpism.

More like the official religion of the Blue Prog Crew is TDS-ism

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one yelling friend .. all these false accusations one after the other .. building strawmen like no tomorrow.

You say "I supported my claim" -- What claim is that ? What claim did you support friend - you don't even know what claim it is you are claiming to support .. .. running around repeating "I supported my claim " over and over .. is not support for claim friend. and you first have to tell us what claim you are claiming to have supported. we agree on the disqualification based on insurrection .. so why are you pretending this is the issue .. when the issue you are deflecting from is the fact that you have not provided mens rea for insurrection .... thus you have not supported the claim of "insurrection" and thus the 3rd world Kangaroo land label .. as the claim of insurrection is ridiculous nonsense. be it for Trump or any of the protesters currently being violated by totalitarian police state tactics that Stalin would be proud of.

No, you have not supported any of your claims. All of your claims are only "because I said so". And making false accusations, like the one about "kangaroo courts"' is yelling. It took quite a while to get you to tone down your Green Ink. Now if you could only start to support your claims properly.