Ask Me Help Desk - SCOTUS full of Trump

SCOTUS full of Trump

Starting in January the Supreme Court will have to deal with Trump no matter how they have tried to avoid it. How about some Constitutional crisis to open the year ?!!

3 major cases are coming up that will have to be decided before the primary season begins in February -March.

The first one Inspector Javert Jack Smith has asked SCOTUS to decide if Trump enjoys executive immunity from prosecution. Smith wants a quick decision because the DC trial is scheduled to begin in March.

SCOTUS agreed to fast track that decision bypassing the normal appeals process.

Supreme Court agrees to quick review of Trump’s presidential immunity claim | Courthouse News Service

They have already also agreed to make a decision on some of the appeals from the January 6 riot cases. How those cases are settled could have an impact on Smith's charges against Trump.

It involves his charge that Trump "corruptly obstructing an official proceeding ".

A Supreme Court case may unravel Jack Smith's case against Trump (msnbc.com)

The last one has not officially been appealed yet . But I expect an appeal within days.

It is this nonsense in Colorado where the State Supreme Court (or rather 4 of 7 justices ) has decided that Trump can be removed from the November ballot in the state based on incredibly fanciful interpretations of the 14th amendment insurrection clause. The state is scheduled to print it's primary ballots January 5 . So if SCOTUS is to hear the case it will be by the 1st week in January .

The Compost's Ruth Marcos argues that SCOTUS should toss the case unanimously and that Trump should remain on the ballot.

Opinion | The Supreme Court should toss the Colorado case - The Washington Post

I completely agree . It was a sad day in 2000 when the court had to intervene in the Presidential election. It set a terrible precedent that has impacted every Presidential election since .

Do we believe in the democratic process or not ? If yes then we need to honor the people's choices right or wrong. This is especially true in this case where the state court invented charges ;and they are the judge ,jury and executioner against Trump for crimes he has never been charged with.

New York is also looking into how they can remove Trump from the ballot. Now Trump has no chance of winning in either state, but it still illustrates just how terrified these people are of Trump. TDS seems to be more contagious than COVID.

As I noted ;this movement has to be stopped and now. I put this right up there with the Ayatollahs deciding who is worthy to be on Iranian ballots .

Completely agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

but it still illustrates just how terrified these people are of Trump.

Not terrified of -- instead, disgusted by.

This has every opportunity to benefit Trump. It will fire up his base even more than it is presently, and they will all show up to vote next November, whereas Biden's campaign in mired in mediocrity, unable to point to a single outstanding accomplishment during his term. Additionally, it puts him in the victim chair, and makes the dems look like a third world, banana republic, making political decisions altogether outside of the rule of law.

It certainly seems to reflect a sense of desperation on the dem side. They see the train wreck approaching.

Biden (AND Trump) is not a sure thing yet.

None of that matters . All that matters is that a judiciary is meting out punishment for a crime that Trump is not being charged with .There was no trial . No due process. No jury finding him guilty of treason and insurrection (which has never been legally defined.) beyond reasonable doubt based on a preponderance of the evidence.

I add that they all stretched the meaning of the 14th amendment insurrection clause beyond reasonable limits .

The clause was added to bar former Confederates from serving as "officers " in the government .Yes if Trump led a secession from the US he would be guilty . An officer of the government is an appointed position not an elected one (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) The people in a democracy have the power to choose their leaders .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The clause was added to bar former Confederates from serving as "officers " in the government .

Confederates??? Yes, they are definitely that with a capital C!

Quote:

Yes if Trump led a secession from the US he would be guilty.

And he will lead a session from the U.S. in the future. He has even warned us that those are his plans WHEN he's elected.

he can't be convicted on what someone thinks he will do . 'The Atlantic ' has a whole issue on Trump will be a dictator . All it is is nothing more than expensive cat litter .

Quote:

Confederates??? Yes, they are definitely that with a capital C!

and I suppose he was around in 1865 when the issue applied . Trump's America first agenda is hardly a rebellious movement .

And again this is a sidebar to the real issue. If the people can't choose who they elect than we do not have a democracy .

Quote:

Confederates??? Yes, they are definitely that with a capital C!

Thus strongly indicating that you have no idea of what a "Confederate" is.

It's just all TDS. There is no other explanation for it. He has a big mouth and can certainly be contentious, but he does have a functioning brain and a record of success unlike the person currently occupying the office.

Quote:

If the people can't choose who they elect than we do not have a democracy

. You nailed it, Tom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Thus strongly indicating that you have no idea of what a "Confederate" is.

Then teach me!

Quote:

It's just all TDS. There is no other explanation for it. He has a big mouth and can certainly be contentious, but he does have a functioning brain and a record of success unlike the person currently occupying the office.

His brain is no longer working. What successes? Biden is a non-issue. Trump is the topic on the table.

A Confederate (Capital "C", as you said) is a supporter of the Confederate States of America. A person would have to be foolish to suggest that Donald Trump and other repubs are really Confederates, so I know you could not be suggesting that.

What successes did Trump have? Well, there would be a great economy, record low unemployment, low inflation, stable relations with foreign nations, "rule of law" appointees to the Supreme Court, 7 million new jobs, great increase in middle class income, and lowered taxes. Shall I continue???

The Dems again prove they will use banana republic tactics to achieve their aims . They keep on bleating " defending democracy" as they flush it down the toilet .

The Capital C Confederates left the union and formed a separate nation .The clause in the 14th was designed to prevent those people ;who dragged the US into a war that cost us 600,000 + lives ,from serving in government .

That is what the plain text says .

Quote:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

There is no legal definition of what "insurrection " is . And Trump has not been even charged with insurrection or treason let alone tried or convicted of it .

How many in Congress could be charged with such for their part in fomenting insurrection in the George Floyd BLM and Antifa riots ?

How often was the Portland Courthouse fire bombed by rioters egged on by Dems in Congress who later contributed to the defense fund of the rioters ? Was that not giving aid and comfort ? Was that not disrupting and official proceeding ? Was it not insurrection when the White House was stormed and Secret Service had to move Trump to a safer location ?

For perspective . Whether Trump caused the Capitol riot or not ;can that be compared with forming a break away rebellion that caused a war claiming 600,000 lives ? Remember the US did not have a large population. In today's numbers we'd be looking at over 6 million deaths. It is proof that the Dems suffer from historical illiteracy for them to think it comparable.
For the record . one Capitol Police officer was beaten and died. One rioter was shot in cold blood by a Capitol Police officer 3 died of natural causes . 5 deaths total. The so called insurrectionists did not come with guns blazing . They came with cell phones taking selfies. The few that assaulted police of course deserve punishment fitting their crime.

Oh the irony . The justices in the Colorado Supreme Court are using a clause in the Constitution designed to punish representatives from break away states . The effect of their ruling if upheld will make Colorado ,and any state that goes along with it essentially break away states. Call it a Confederacy of TDS sufferers .

The more this goes on, the more I wonder, "What does Trump have on these people? What are they so afraid of?"

They took down the Tea Party movement easily with deep state tactics . They had thought that they had eliminated the last resistance to the uniparty dictatorship .

Then Trump upset the apple cart and defeated Evita while attacking the deep state legitimacy .
That was his unforgivable crime. Defeating him at the polls in 2020 was not enough . They have to make an example of him so no one else will seriously oppose them in the future .They will tolerate a McCaine ;Bush or a Romney . Outsiders to the club need not apply.

Still waiting for the release of the Epstein guest list . Will believe it when I see it

Judge orders release of associates named in Jeffrey Epstein lawsuit documents | AP News

That was a really good observation, Tom. I copied that to Facebook.

The Epstein guest list is going to be a struggle.

1 down SCOTUS decided to NOT fast track the Appeal of the DC court rejecting Trump's immunity contention. The appeal has to go to the Circus court . No doubt the court will rule against Trump ;which will set up a SCOTUS case anyway.

But the timeline blows a hole in the prosecution's plan to have a trial during the early primaries.

The Supreme Court tells special counsel Jack Smith to go away, in a big victory for Trump - Vox

The trial date is in jeopardy

Sometimes I think it might as well be called the Epstein guess list.

The Colorado Supreme Court consists of 7 Dem Justices. The decision was 4-3 which means that not all Dems are bat sh*t crazy.

One of the dissenters was Chief Justice Brian Boatright

He concluded his dissent this way

My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection related offense.¶272 The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the Electors’ claim overwhelmed the process. In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent

23SA300.pdf (state.co.us)

Michigan Supreme court rejected attempts to remove Trump from the ballot . SCOTUS has to intervene or we will have all 50 states making the determination piecemeal . It will be an unacceptably chaotic situation.

Would it be true that SCOTUS cannot intervene without a case being brought to it first? Would that case be the Colorado situation?

Well, here's the case. "Colorado to include Trump on 2024 primary ballot as state GOP appeals to Supreme Court."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/col...-supreme-court

SCOTUS will ultimately have to make a ruling . Too many states have made it an issue.

latest one is from Louisiana

Chalmette woman files lawsuit to keep Donald Trump OFF of the 2024 presidential ballot in Louisiana - the latest in a string of state-level legal actions in response to Jan 6 claims (msn.com)

The interesting thing about Louisiana is that it's a RED state with a possibility of keeping Trump off the ballot.

Now Maine's Sec of State has unilaterally decided to remove Trump from the primary ballot because she decided that Trump violated the 14th amendment. This is way out of control. SCOTUS must rule on this the first day of January they return from their holiday IMO

Maine Bars Trump From 2024 Primary Ballot, Joining Colorado - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Both Colorado and Maine have primaries on Super Tuesday March 5 . So there is not a lot of time. Ballots need to be printed pronto .

2024 Presidential Election Calendar - 270toWin

The reality is that they want Trump removed because they don't like him. All of the references to the 14th Amendment is just window dressing. It's as silly as denying Biden a place on the ballot because a state believes he has committed impeachable offenses.

No blue or swing state will remove Clueless Joe from the ballot . No red state or swing state is going to remove Trump from the ballot . If he wins the red states and the swing states he won in 2016 then it does not matter .

EXCEPT perhaps Maine.

The reason for that is Maine does not do winner takes all electors . They award them proportionately to the popular vote results

2016 Evita got 3 electors and Trump 1 . It takes 270 electors to win. In a close election that divided result could matter .

Either way SCOTUS has to put a stop to this nonsense.

The idiocy of this is mind boggling when you consider that the whole purpose of the 14th amendment was to prevent states from making laws that restricts rights. Now you have states determining who is eligible to run for President ?

They keep on suggesting that Sec 3 of the amendment disqualifies Trump . But Sec 5 says
"the Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
It does not say the Colorado Supreme court has the power . It does not say the clown Sec State of Maine has the unilateral power .

Now Congress did pass an insurrection act.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

But with all the charges against Trump ;not one charges him with insurrection let alone convicted of it .

Quote:

One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit is not a fair mechanism for determining Trump's eligibility for the ballot because it deprives him of his right to due process, noting that a jury has not convicted him of insurrection.
"Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection - there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," Samour said.

Trump barred from Colorado primary ballot for role in US Capitol attack | Reuters

Quote:

No red state or swing state is going to remove Trump from the ballot

Not too sure of that when your examples above included Louisiana.

That is going nowhere . Anyone can file a lawsuit . Who is Ashley Reeb and what is her standing to sue ?

ok She is a Dem so she has no say in who is on the Repub ballot. She is not an elector . The Repub primary is not open .Based on that she has no standing. Not that there isn't a chance some idiot judge or 2 would rule in her favor. But the suit will be struck down.

What she is is a rabid lefty . Her social media posts prove it.

Ash (@DatParishGirl) / X (twitter.com)

BLM / pronoun confusion Her 15 minutes of fame ended 14 minutes after she filed

I don't doubt any of that, but in the current wild, wild west of federal courts, who knows what could happen, at least temporarily.

The WSJ editorial board opines that Maine's Sec State Shenna Bellows is playing right into Trump's hand.

Quote:

Ms. Bellows is a former ACLU official, served in the state Senate as a Democrat, and ran for the U.S. Senate against Republican Susan Collins. Her ruling gets her name in the headlines and perhaps will be a boost in her next try for higher office. She has added nothing to the legal merits, though she has reinforced Mr. Trump’s campaign narrative.
Maine is unlikely to matter in the GOP primary, and meantime Ms. Bellows is giving Mr. Trump another chance to tell Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans that Democrats are attempting to steal the 2024 election before the voting begins. Democrats really do want to run against Mr. Trump next year.

Maine Casts Its Ballot for Trump - WSJ

The emperor's Rasputin ;David Axelrod , agrees and warns about the danger of denying Trump a place on the ballot.

Removing Trump from the primary ballot would 'rip the country apart': David Axelrod (nypost.com)

Quote:

The Epstein guest list is going to be a struggle.

yes for Bubba and others .

Bill Clinton to be identified as "Doe 36" and named over 50 times in upcoming Epstein doc dump (nypost.com)

I was just about to post that. It's not a done deal yet, but it seems likely. Then the question will become, "Now what?" Of course BC being on the list doesn't make him guilty, but it sure looks bad.

a lot of 'A listers' are panicking. Perhaps the only one more prominent than Bubba is Prince Randy Andy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCxg11kW...jpg&name=small

Will be interesting to see how all of the supposedly anti-sexual assault dems react to this. They were all over the place with the non-assault by Kavenaugh. Let's see what they say about BC.

Unsurprisingly, CNN news mentions the Clinton story not at all. They are too busy with a long section about how wonderful the economy will be in 2024. In other words, vote Biden.

Looks like SCOTUS is going to decide about Trump being removed from ballots. Colorado will be the test case.

Quote:

Supreme Court to decide if Trump banned from Colorado ballot in historic case. The highest court said that the briefs are due by Jan 31.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...-historic-case