Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[F1fan]

You have substituted your opinion over Law. According to the Law he is innocent.

No, he is presumed innocent of guilt until the many verdicts coming his way are announced. But we all witnessed what happened. We all saw this guy lose, and we saw him refuse to acknowledge losing. He is still lying about it. He then exploited his supporters in various ways to cause crimes against the USA. Law enforcement has seen this too, thus he has been indicted on dozens of counts. That the trials have not finished yet does not mean he is innocent of the crimes. The public is aware of much of the evidence already, and we can act as jurors deciding on what we know thus far, as so far the evidence is overwhelming that he committed crimes. Some conservatives reject his guilt, and they appear to be disinformed.

Which means the whole argument of using the XIV Amendment is baseless.

That is your opinion as a lawyer? Funny how the Supreme Court hasn't decided yet, yet you know? Funny how actual lawyers are arguing for Trump's disqualification, but you know better? Sorry, I will trust respected lawyers over lay internet nobodies.

Since you think it is so "obvious" he is guilty, go to court. Until then...

Right, don't trust my eyes? Don't trust prosecutors knowing crimes when they have evidence of them? If anyone has vision problems it's you.

 

[F1fan]

@Shaul and @wellwisher, would you two support violence by Trump supporters if the courts deem him disqualified to run again? If not, how do you think Trump suppoters should respond?

 

[Shaul]

It works the way the law says it works. Each State spells out a process.

If someone is under 35 years old, they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.

If someone is not born in the U.S. they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.

If someone commits an insurrection they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.





Why is that so hard to understand.

Age and place of birth are immutables, insurrection is a mutable. Because "soy" and "estoy". That's why.

 

[F1fan]

It works the way the law says it works. Each State spells out a process.

If someone is under 35 years old, they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.

If someone is not born in the U.S. they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.

If someone commits an insurrection they are not eligible to be President. It does not need a criminal conviction.





Why is that so hard to understand.

The difficulty among conservatives is how to define insurrection. I think there is an argument both ways here, but inevitably Trump lied about losing, and he used his office to spread these lies, and one result was Jan 6, and then the many convictions that came from this criminal event. Trump was part of this, and he wanted to go to the Capitol to be a bigger part in the crimant event. Only the secret service stopped him. And we know Trump was happy to see the violence and trespassing by his supporters, and refused to ask them to stop for over three hours. Trump blew off his kids and advisors asking him to ask the rioters to stop. This is very damning for his desire to be on the ballot.

 

[Shaul]

No, he is presumed innocent of guilt until the many verdicts coming his way are announced. But we all witnessed what happened. We all saw this guy lose, and we saw him refuse to acknowledge losing. He is still lying about it. He then exploited his supporters in various ways to cause crimes against the USA. Law enforcement has seen this too, thus he has been indicted on dozens of counts. That the trials have not finished yet does not mean he is innocent of the crimes. The public is aware of much of the evidence already, and we can act as jurors deciding on what we know thus far, as so far the evidence is overwhelming that he committed crimes. Some conservatives reject his guilt, and they appear to be disinformed.

That is your opinion as a lawyer? Funny how the Supreme Court hasn't decided yet, yet you know? Funny how actual lawyers are arguing for Trump's disqualification, but you know better? Sorry, I will trust respected lawyers over lay internet nobodies.

Right, don't trust my eyes? Don't trust prosecutors knowing crimes when they have evidence of them? If anyone has vision problems it's you.

Unless he is convicted, he is eligible to run. You are evincing the point I made. Some are desperate for Trump not to be on the ticket yet claim Trump couldn't possibly win. Your dissonance displays your fear.

 

[F1fan]

You have substituted your opinion over Law. According to the Law he is innocent. Which means the whole argument of using the XIV Amendment is baseless. Since you think it is so "obvious" he is guilty, go to court. Until then...

No, I am defering to what actual lawyers have stated on this matter. I am using their expertise and opinion as a basis for my lack of skill and knowledge.

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

Thus far your opinion ignores the evidence, and ignores expertise. Do you have any lawyers who have argued for Trump not violating the 14th Amendment? Let's see their argument. Yours is irrelevant.

 

[Shaul]

No, I am defering to what actual lawyers have stated on this matter. I am using their expertise and opinion as a basis for my lack of skill and knowledge.

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

www.theatlantic.com

Thus far your opinion ignores the evidence, and ignores expertise. Do you have any lawyers who have argued for Trump not violating the 14th Amendment? Let's see their argument. Yours is irrelevant.

Sorry to break the news to you but the Atlantic magazine isn't legally authoritative.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry to break the news to you but the Atlantic magazine isn't legally authoritative.

The authors are. That is what counts. I see you try to deflect so you can try to ignore their expert opinion. And given you have no response to their expert opinion you must acknowledge THEY have better opinions than you.

So, I reject your irrelevant opinion, and accept their expert opinion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How is it any different than not allowing a 30 year old to be on the ballot? Or not allowing a recent immigrant? Is that denying the people a choice?


Margot Robbie for President!

To be fair she'd do a better job! Then again, so would a curtain rail, pomegranate, wood chippings etc...

 

[F1fan]

Unless he is convicted, he is eligible to run.

Not according to expert opinion, so your non-expert opinion is rejected.

You are evincing the point I made. Some are desperate for Trump not to be on the ticket yet claim Trump couldn't possibly win. Your dissonance displays your fear.

Your opinion is irrelevant. I respect the opinions of experts in law, and you offered no expert counter argument.

 

[PureX]

@Shaul and @wellwisher, would you two support violence by Trump supporters if the courts deem him disqualified to run again? If not, how do you think Trump suppoters should respond?

@Shaul and @wellwisher ... And will they EVER just decide to respect the system and the will of their fellow citizens even if they don't fully agree with them? Or does their selfishness have no limitation? No end-point?

 

[JIMMY12345]

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

Trump must be allowed to run. Its American democracy!. Trouble is I would it call 2024 for a Trump win. He has the money and social media clout to steal it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is that supposed to work if there is no conviction of a crime?

Why do you think that a conviction is needed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Shaul and @wellwisher ... And will they EVER just decide to respect the system and the will of their fellow citizens even if they don't fully agree with them? Or does their selfishness have no limitation? No end-point?

People are respecting the system. A judge would still need to determine if Trump violated the 14th Amendment and then you have to know that it will quickly work its way to the Supreme Court. This is not an attempted lynching.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump must be allowed to run. Its American democracy!. Trouble is I would it call 2024 for a Trump win. He has the money and social media clout to steal it.

Democracies have rules. If it is determined that Trump violated those rules then he cannot run.

 

[PureX]

Unless he is convicted, he is eligible to run. You are evincing the point I made. Some are desperate for Trump not to be on the ticket yet claim Trump couldn't possibly win. Your dissonance displays your fear.

They feel this way for a very good reason. When he loses, and once again the idiot horde can't accept this result, how much more damage and destruction and human suffering will be caused because of him?

In fact, THIS is the reason that he should be disqualified from running again.

 

[F1fan]

Trump must be allowed to run. Its American democracy!. Trouble is I would it call 2024 for a Trump win. He has the money and social media clout to steal it.

You do realize democracy isn’t a free for all, there are laws that govern how democracy is conducted. If it’s determined that Trump is disqualified that is the rule of law

 

[We Never Know]

That is your opinion. Others believe Trump became inelegable on January 6th 2021.

Actually yours is opinion.

Mine is fact. As of now Trump is allowed to run.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually yours is opinion.

Mine is fact. As if now Trump is allowed to run.

As of now he is. Ultimately the courts may decide he is not.

 

[PureX]

Trump has already proven that he has no respect for the electoral process, or for the decision of the voters, or for the office he's seeking. So why is he even running? According to him, the results will be illegitimate whether he wins or loses. And he has no intention of doing the job properly even if he gets it.

These should be reasons enough to disqualify him from running if he's too stupid and selfish to disqualify himself. (Which of course he is.) The disqualification has nothing to do with his being convicted of any crimes. It has to do with respecting the democratic process, and with respecting the freedom and security of the American people.