The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[F1fan]

No it is in Bidens court. He has the power right now to implement more border security measures. Such as remain in Mexico policy or start building the wall.

Oh, you mean continue building the wall. Trump only managed to get a few hundred miles built. A faster solution is for republicans to vote for the bill that Biden said he would sign.

There are good reasons the republicans didn't vote for the bill. It really did nothing to stop illegal immigration.

It hires more agents to secure entry points. Plus it is not illegal to enter the USA as long as a migrant applies for asylum. There’s a lot of discrimination and disinformation about migrants in the USA. Many conservatives call migrants illegal even if they have applied for asylum, and even those granted asylum. It’s racism.

It allowed the President to override anything in that bill if they wanted to. Here is a link to how Biden has reversed border security as President

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Biden-Admin-Actions-Undermining-Border-Security.pdf

If Trump did it under his admin why does Biden need another law?

We won’t know since republicans sabotaged the vote. The bill allows spending that a president can’t decide to do by himself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your bias is showing

Not in the least. I'm willing to be the bank wouldn't want to give the guy who tried to rob it yesterday the combination to the safe.

The actual evidence that Trump and his cronies tried absolutely everything they could think of to overturn a legitimate election is overwhelming.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nobody is above the law, and the SCOTUS (even all the liberals there) agreed to let democracy (letting the people actually vote for the candidate of their choice) remain in place.
No need to be bitter about that, especially if we don't want to see democracy overthrown.

The law is traitors are ineligible.
The law that Reps and Cons love to harp about, states rights, is individual states get to decide.
Rights for me but not for thee, even if it's for me to align with tyranny amd treason to support a man who fancies himself an autocrat and glorifies them and speaks very highly of them.
Yes, I'm bitter the highest court in the land has said it's ok for a traitor, a man who just a few years ago spread.lies and disinformation to erode democracy amd call into question the legitimacy of an election, and when that failed he worked up his supporters into a riot in hopes they could change the outcome of the election.
If anything Trump should have a date set for his appearance at the gallows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody is above the law, and the SCOTUS (even all the liberals there) agreed to let democracy (letting the people actually vote for the candidate of their choice) remain in place.
No need to be bitter about that, especially if we don't want to see democracy overthrown.

That is not what they really agreed to. They agreed that an individual state could not do it. I was hoping that they would take the responsible position and realize that they were the ones that could make that decision. Taking Trump off of just Colorado would not do any good. Nor would taking him off of Maine, or Illinois, Oregon, or Minnesota. All of those states are unlikely to vote for him at any rate.

 

[Copernicus]

The 14th amendment was always a long shot for succeeding, but the justices all came to agree that state courts should not have the power to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot. Five of the justices broadened the ruling to prevent states from removing any candidate from federal office, even those that are convicted of insurrection apparently. So January 6 rioters are cleared to run for federal office. Four justices opposed making the ruling that broad, but we have three Trump appointees operating under the new standard that Supreme Court justices don't need to recuse even if there is an appearance of conflict of interest. IMO, if the three Trump appointees (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) had recused the Court would have split the Court 3-3 and made a somewhat narrower ruling.

I don't know whether the justices had anything to say about the self-executing aspects of the 14th prohibition after the Civil War. Under this ruling, I suspect that many former Confederate insurrectionists would have felt empowered to run for federal office without having to petition Congress for exemption from the restriction. At this point, I think that section 3 of the 14th is essentially gutted. SCOTUS said that, because Congress could have written laws to enforce it, then Congress should have written laws to enforce it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Biden said he's happy to sign the legislation, once passed. And hurry up about it.

He does not need the legislation. Why won;the act without it, he can. It's just a political attempt to blame the republicans. I guarantee if republicans were in charge the border would be more secure, it was under Trump.

James Lankford, a Republican, crafted the bill a couple of months ago. Republicans got what they want in that bill. So, why won't they vote on it?
Because Dear Leader said so. Because they think it would make Biden look good. So they suddenly don't like it anymore.

What is in the bill?

Sorry, ball's in the Republican's court. They can whine and cry all they want, but they got what they wanted, and rejected it for political reasons. They own it.

What part of "Biden does not need the bill to make the border more secure" do you not understand? Do you have a response to my link that shows all the ways Biden made the border less secure and cna reverse those items? have you researched why some republicans don't want it or just parroting what the dems say?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It’s racism.

Uh huh, it is always racism to you democrats.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh huh, it is always racism to you democrats.

Why did you edit out the part of his post that sowed it was racism?

 

[We Never Know]

I talked about due process and said the Supreme Court would unanimously overturn Colorado. I said this months ago and was raked over the coals here.

The key word is "unanimously", which means the left can't whine and cry blaming republicans and/or a stacked court.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why did you edit out the part of his post that sowed it was racism?

It didn't.

 

[Copernicus]

The respected conservative Judge, J. Michael Luttig, has blasted the hypocrisy of this decision, which he considers activist judicial overreach. Moreover, he is upset that such a conservative Court would back such a decision, which he feels completely eviscerates section 3 of the 14th amendment. Listen to this 5 minute clip of Jake Tapper's interview with Judge Luttig:

 

[Subduction Zone]

It didn't.

You did. This is the part that you edited out:

"It hires more agents to secure entry points. Plus it is not illegal to enter the USA as long as a migrant applies for asylum. There’s a lot of discrimination and disinformation about migrants in the USA. Many conservatives call migrants illegal even if they have applied for asylum, and even those granted asylum. "

If you did not understand it you should have asked questions. The fact that you edited it out indicates that you did understand that it demonstrates racism.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You did. This is the part that you edited out:

"It hires more agents to secure entry points. Plus it is not illegal to enter the USA as long as a migrant applies for asylum. There’s a lot of discrimination and disinformation about migrants in the USA. Many conservatives call migrants illegal even if they have applied for asylum, and even those granted asylum. "

If you did not understand it you should have asked questions. The fact that you edited it out indicates that you did understand that it demonstrates racism.

Your reasoning on both counts is flawed. This quote is a claim not evidence and you have no idea what I was thinking.

It is not racist to call a person in the country illegally an illegal immigrant. It is also not racist to call someone that does not show up for their hearing an illegal immigrant. One more, it is also not racist to me misinformed as to someone's legal status.

Racism needs to be documented with good evidence. All this does is make a claim and far too often the left just claims racism, sexism etc. etc. too easily for their own agenda. For example Trump said some illegal immigrants were criminals. He was called a racist for that. Turns out he was right.

 

[We Never Know]

Your reasoning on both counts is flawed. This quote is a claim not evidence and you have no idea what I was thinking.

It is not racist to call a person in the country illegally an illegal immigrant. It is also not racist to call someone that does not show up for their hearing an illegal immigrant. One more, it is also not racist to me misinformed as to someone's legal status.

Racism needs to be documented with good evidence. All this does is make a claim and far too often the left just claims racism, sexism etc. etc. too easily for their own agenda. For example Trump said some illegal immigrants were criminals. He was called a racist for that. Turns out he was right.

"far too often the left just claims racism, sexism etc. etc. too easily for their own agenda"

Don't forget homophobe, transphobe, etc. But maybe that's part of your etc etc.

 

[F1fan]

Uh huh, it is always racism to you democrats.

Racists have a reason to not see their racism. Thanks for clarifying that it’s republicans and not democrats. You have to wonder why so many conservatives oppose diversity and equality.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Racists have a reason to not see their racism.

So if someone refutes being called a racist then that is evidence they are a racist. Wonderful, dems win no matter what.

Thanks for clarifying that it’s republicans and not democrats. You have to wonder why so many conservatives oppose diversity and equality.

Because as practised is discriminatory. I have seen it first hand in my job. I tried to give one of my staff a raise. The Talent and Diversity group told me I could not because he would be making more money than another person with the same job description and that other person was a minority. The reason I was giving him a raise over the other person was because he was a better employee, had better knowledge and did a higher quality of work. They said I could give them both a raise. You can not believe me but it did happen, so most of us are against diversity and equity because for good reasons.

 

[F1fan]

So if someone refutes being called a racist then that is evidence they are a racist.

No, if someone expresses racism they are racist. Calling migrants "illegals" is one such expression that is racist. Like I said, racists have a reason to ignore their racism.

Wonderful, dems win no matter what.

A claim without evidence. So, we throw it out.

Because as practised is discriminatory. I have seen it first hand in my job. I tried to give one of my staff a raise. The Talent and Diversity group told me I could not because he would be making more money than another person with the same job description and that other person was a minority. The reason I was giving him a raise over the other person was because he was a better employee, had better knowledge and did a higher quality of work. They said I could give them both a raise. You can not believe me but it did happen, so most of us are against diversity and equity because for good reasons.

I find your claims hard to believe. And if they are I am suspicious you have not included the whole story. Businesses and organizations have their own policies for various reasons. Some are good, some aren't. But diversity and equality has been a huge problem in the USA given it's history of slavery and racism, and we have not cured those ills yet. Stats indicate that racism is getting worse, and it correlates to the rise of Trump. The need for diversity and equality is surely in proportion to the increasing racism.

Infographic: U.S. Hate Crimes At New Decade High

This chart shows the total number of hate crime incidents recorded by the FBI.

www.statista.com

 

[We Never Know]

No, if someone expresses racism they are racist. Calling migrants "illegals" is one such expression that is racist. Like I said, racists have a reason to ignore their racism.

A claim without evidence. So, we throw it out.

I find your claims hard to believe. And if they are I am suspicious you have not included the whole story. Businesses and organizations have their own policies for various reasons. Some are good, some aren't. But diversity and equality has been a huge problem in the USA given it's history of slavery and racism, and we have not cured those ills yet. Stats indicate that racism is getting worse, and it correlates to the rise of Trump. The need for diversity and equality is surely in proportion to the increasing racism.

Infographic: U.S. Hate Crimes At New Decade High

This chart shows the total number of hate crime incidents recorded by the FBI.

www.statista.com

From the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services...

"Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted."

What’s the difference between legal and undocumented immigrants? | DSHS

Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their...

www.dshs.wa.gov

 

[F1fan]

From the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services...

"Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa permitted, or otherwise violated the terms under which they were admitted."

What’s the difference between legal and undocumented immigrants? | DSHS

Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation, because they entered the U.S. without inspection, stayed longer than their...

www.dshs.wa.gov

Irrelevant.

The phrase "illegal alien" is respectable. I'm sure conservatives shortened this phrase to one word for it's discriminating and demeaning power, preferring "illegals" as if they are subhuman. Of course conservatives want to dehumanize all migrants, and this is why they are all referred to as "illegals". This is to exploit the emotions of the immature, poorly inflormed, and often racist conservative base. Even migrants who have filed for asylum are demeaned and referred to as illegals. No wonder why republicans keep losing elections.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reasoning on both counts is flawed. This quote is a claim not evidence and you have no idea what I was thinking.

No, they are facts. You could have challenged the facts but you know that they are correct. And to challenge the conclusion from the facts would be far fetched.

It is not racist to call a person in the country illegally an illegal immigrant. It is also not racist to call someone that does not show up for their hearing an illegal immigrant. One more, it is also not racist to me misinformed as to someone's legal status.

That may be. But the refugees are not illegal. There is both US and international law that says once they cross over into a country and turn themselves over to the authorities they are no longer illegal. And that is what these refugees have been doing. They turn themselves in, a hearing is scheduled and then, if the ruling is against them and if they do not leave they are illegal. And 83% of them turn up for all of their hearings. If the ruling is for them they then granted official refugee status and they still are not illega:

11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

You can call the ones that do not show up for hearings "illegal" if it makes you feel better.

Racism needs to be documented with good evidence. All this does is make a claim and far too often the left just claims racism, sexism etc. etc. too easily for their own agenda. For example Trump said some illegal immigrants were criminals. He was called a racist for that. Turns out he was right.

I would say that the posts of many Trump supporters is excellent evidence.