(03-04-2024 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-09-2024 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and of course... states (it seems to me) wouldn't have standing to declare someone guilty of doing something 'against the Federal government'.... only the federal government.

(03-04-2024 01:24 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Anderson was released just minutes ago. The only thing I know about it is that it was unanimous.

From https://www.scotusblog.com

"The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot on the grounds that he participated in insurrection. 'Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse'."

Link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23...9_19m2.pdf

Based only on the SCOTUSblog summary, this seems like a classic case of a Supreme Court decision coming down not to the ultimate substantive question ("Is Trump eligible to be President?"), but to the jurisdictional question of who can make that call and and one what basis -- just as in the Dobbs v. Jackson case on abortion.

Sadly, I think we can safely predict that, also as in Dobbs v. Jackson, this essential understanding of the role of a judiciary will be lost on the commentariat, especially on the most gleeful and most angry segments of it.

What this also does is kick the can down the path a bit more.

I will assume that if Trump is elected, and the Ds control Congress --- there will be once again another furball.

And SCOTUS took the only path available that allowed it to ignore the findings of fact in the lower proceedings.

??? This was always a jurisdictional question. Why would they do anything other than address that? The States do NOT have jurisdiction to remove Federal candidates from the ballot. No matter the alleged 'reason'. That's it. 9-0.

Edit: here's the relevant quote:

Quote:“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

I've edited the above to speak to my assumption going in.... which seems to be in the ball park based on the quote here from the decision..... and though I understand that there was a trial of fact in Colorado which I was not aware of and appreciate the information... 'that' never seemed to me to be appropriate.... and apparently it wasn't.... even for the liberal justices.

So while it may have been the 'only path'... it also seems to have been the CORRECT path, since it was 9-0.

That said, I agree 100% that this doesn't end this for Democrats. I'm not even sure Democrats winning in 2024 would end it for them. They (especially Biden) have vilified a large swath of American voters...

No, I don't think a large swath of voters values Trump's brashness and arrogance... in fact I'd say most of them don't care for it at all.... but they absolutely value his positions... and much like it seems many Democrats... they are willing to overlook a whole lot of technical violations... particularly ones that relate to his personal business and not his public one... in order to get the public issues 'right'.

Russia was a hoax. The documents are valid, but it seems many have violated THAT law without repercussion. They absolutely could get him on obstruction there, but even that may be a technical argument and/or given the constant litigation of the political left, I think many of his supporters are actually on his side for giving a partisan investigator the finger. Almost everything else they've thrown at him is unrelated to him being President... and the lives of voters. Certainly the NY thing is unrelated, since nobody was in any way negatively impacted. The 'insurrection' case is troubling on its face... but there are a lot of conflicting positions.... It's not OBVIOUS to me that he tried to 'steal' an election.... and I don't know enough about the technicalities to render much of an opinion... but as I don't really see that our nation was actually at risk, I think even this issue is not something that is high on the priority lists of many people. The whole argument that he's going to somehow install himself as dictator is just lunacy.... and yet that is often the argument.

Dave Chappel nailed it when he spoke about what made Trump a star... It was when he stood up on the debate stage with Hillary and she accused him of cheating on his taxes... and he essentially said... 'I didn't write the rules... I just play by them... and so do her donors. If she really wanted to stop me, she would change the rules... she was a Senator (like Biden) but she doesn't because she doesn't want to harm her donors'.... and that is/seems absolutely 100% true.... Perhaps more true of even Biden than Hillary.

Now in fairness, Trump could have pressured congress to close those loopholes as well... and he really didn't.... but most Republicans and certainly most of his supporters care more about things like energy independence and not spending money we don't have to solve the worlds problems while cutting back on domestic solutions than they do about 'getting' tax cheats.... and they especially don't trust the government to decide who is cheating and who isn't.... and history really supports that.

Oh, my, Ham...you ARE quite the Com'spiracee Theolist here....and, seeing as you have such a high Reputation score here...that is proof you MUS' be a rascisss Supremeciss also, correct?...