Supreme Court Puts Trump Back on the Ballot

[Res Ipsa]

I think it would be fair to say that the 14th amendment added a qualification: not have committed insurrection.

I agree 100%. Where does high crimes and misdemeanors fall in or maybe that is for something else? Regarding the insurrection: Is that issue still being heard by the courts? I haven’t heard about it much on internet news sites. Was the second indictment from the house about the insurrection? I don’t think the senate voted to convict. They sure went after the little people. They shuffled the face antler horns guy right through some type of court even though some people question his need for mental health treatment prior to the case moving forward and he needed proper legal representation which on closer examination appears he did not get, based on the attorney not bringing up the need for court appointed psychiatrist to examine him and make a recommendation.

High crimes and misdemeanors is the requirement for impeachment and removal. Trump's second impeachment was over January 6. No trial was held in the Senate because Trump's term had expired. Trials of people not named Trump are ongoing, with about 80 suspects not identified and a few that are on the lam.

[yellowstone123]

Thank you for your response. I think people rushed through a people’s court type trial, should and likely is being done today, have the whole thing reviewed. Clearly antler man with his moose type calls needed some mental health evaluation, even if both sides got it done in two hours and said the man understands the charges and the trial can proceed. I don’t even know if it went to trial. The attorney could have said if you plead guilty you get six years and take it to trial and you face life.

One time I was in the Compton court house. It was my vacation but I got a subpoena so I showed up. At 10:00 the criminal case they wanted me to testify in was in Department 302 for mediation. Nothing went forward. Then they said be in Department 602 at 2:00 for further mediation. It went nowhere. Then I was in Department 1020 for further mediation. As I sat there the court room seemed like a circus. It was very loud but nothing was getting done. I looked for the judge. She was down by the court clerk laughing with him and a couple other attorneys. I was just sitting in the spectators area getting angrier and angrier. I cut my June Lake vacation short because of the subpoena.

Then some guy in a jail jump suit who was inside the attorneys area sat down about five feet from me. A guy in a perfect suit, socks, shoes, and tie sat down next to him. The attorney knew Oxblood dress shoes should only be worn with a dark grey suit. I was impressed. He then leaned over to the guy in the jump suit and said - she said ten years if you plead guilty but if you take it to trial you face life. The jump suit guy seemed stunned. The Judge and her friends were still laughing. The public seems not to know that people are casually making calls that have major impacts on the lives of people and their family. I’ve seen it up close. The attorneys ask about the Smith, Jones, Wilson, and Kimball cases. They all agree to something in a minute, tell their clients what they need to do and a judicial review will be held in six months.

I talked to my dad about the guy in the jump suit who had to make a decision of ten years or face life if found guilty. When I heard his attorney tell him his options, I thought, dude - what did you do. My dad who spent his whole career responding to calls, seeing the victims, some extremely disfigured or deceased looked at me and then a very serious look came over his face. He said - don’t ever feel sorry for a guy like that. Given those two options, that guy hurt someone and he hurt them really bad. Don’t you ever feel sorry for him. I just nodded my head in the affirmative. I looked at my dad and he was very angry thinking about things.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Res, what are your thoughts about the speed to which the Supreme Court moved on this case, but seems to drag its feet on others? Shenanigans, or is there something else at play the layman doesn’t understand?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Res, what are your thoughts about the speed to which the Supreme Court moved on this case, but seems to drag its feet on others? Shenanigans, or is there something else at play the layman doesn’t understand?

- Doc

In general, the Court doesn't like to be rushed. It puts substance over speed. When the court takes a long time to issue an opinion, it generally means that there are swing votes in play. Drafts of opinion will be circulated in an attempt to sway the swing votes. The Court will generally take longer in order to get enough votes to issue a majority opinion instead of a plurality opinion.

The Court can move pretty quickly when the decision is unanimous and the issue is pretty simple. My guess is that it wanted to issue a decision by today because the Colorado primary is tomorrow. That makes practical sense. But I also think it's likely the decision would have been better had the Court not felt the urgency of a deadline. The majority opinion holds that a federal court does not have the power to disqualify a candidate absent some kind of enabling legislation by Congress. That issue was not before the court, so the Court did not have the benefit of briefing specifically addressing that issue. That part of the opinion is 100% what the Court is not supposed to do.

The Court is, in some sense, a black box, so it's not surprising that some of what they do gets construed as shenanigans by partisans. When it just produces sausage without any insight into how the sausage is made, speculation will fill the gap.

[Res Ipsa]

Thank you for your response. I think people rushed through a people’s court type trial, should and likely is being done today, have the whole thing reviewed. Clearly antler man with his moose type calls needed some mental health evaluation, even if both sides got it done in two hours and said the man understands the charges and the trial can proceed. I don’t even know if it went to trial. The attorney could have said if you plead guilty you get six years and take it to trial and you face life.

One time I was in the Compton court house. It was my vacation but I got a subpoena so I showed up. At 10:00 the criminal case they wanted me to testify in was in Department 302 for mediation. Nothing went forward. Then they said be in Department 602 at 2:00 for further mediation. It went nowhere. Then I was in Department 1020 for further mediation. As I sat there the court room seemed like a circus. It was very loud but nothing was getting done. I looked for the judge. She was down by the court clerk laughing with him and a couple other attorneys. I was just sitting in the spectators area getting angrier and angrier. I cut my June Lake vacation short because of the subpoena.

Then some guy in a jail jump suit who was inside the attorneys area sat down about five feet from me. A guy in a perfect suit, socks, shoes, and tie sat down next to him. The attorney knew Oxblood dress shoes should only be worn with a dark grey suit. I was impressed. He then leaned over to the guy in the jump suit and said - she said ten years if you plead guilty but if you take it to trial you face life. The jump suit guy seemed stunned. The Judge and her friends were still laughing. The public seems not to know that people are casually making calls that have major impacts on the lives of people and their family. I’ve seen it up close. The attorneys ask about the Smith, Jones, Wilson, and Kimball cases. They all agree to something in a minute, tell their clients what they need to do and a judicial review will be held in six months.

I talked to my dad about the guy in the jump suit who had to make a decision of ten years or face life if found guilty. When I heard his attorney tell him his options, I thought, dude - what did you do. My dad who spent his whole career responding to calls, seeing the victims, some extremely disfigured or deceased looked at me and then a very serious look came over his face. He said - don’t ever feel sorry for a guy like that. Given those two options, that guy hurt someone and he hurt them really bad. Don’t you ever feel sorry for him. I just nodded my head in the affirmative. I looked at my dad and he was very angry thinking about things.

While in law school, I clerked for a semester for a municipal judge in a Boston suburb. Of all the criminal cases that came before the court, only one defendant was found not guilty. It was a guy who could afford a private lawyer instead of being assigned a public defender. I once went to a session of night court in Brooklyn and watched the long line of criminal defendants who had a 30 second conference with a public defender before pleading guilty and being sentenced. They were being put through the grinder.

The criminal justice system is crushing for those who don't have millions to spend on lawyers.

[Bret Ripley]

Thanks for sharing your insight, Res -- much appreciated.

[Moksha]

I think the court affirmed the Doctrine of Looking the Other Way on Partisan Grounds. It was irrelevant as to whether Trump was an oathbreaking insurrectionist.

[ajax18]

I could be wrong but I don't see that Colorado so much as removed Trump as they had a case that established that to the State of Colorado Trump participated in insurrection and was thus subject to the 14th.

It was according to appointed (not elected justices in Colorado). Where is the due process in concluding that Trump engaged in an insurrection when he has never been charged with insurrection? Biden should be pulled off the ballot in every red state for refusing to enforce democratically established border law on the southern border. You shouldn't be able to just bring in cheap votes for yourself and cheap labor for your donors without the consent of congress whether the American working class who suffers for it in both increased taxes and depressed wages like it or not.

[Res Ipsa]

I could be wrong but I don't see that Colorado so much as removed Trump as they had a case that established that to the State of Colorado Trump participated in insurrection and was thus subject to the 14th.

It was according to appointed (not elected justices in Colorado). Where is the due process in concluding that Trump engaged in an insurrection when he has never been charged with insurrection? Biden should be pulled off the ballot in every red state for refusing to enforce democratically established border law on the southern border. You shouldn't be able to just bring in cheap votes for yourself and cheap labor for your donors without the consent of congress whether the American working class who suffers for it in both increased taxes and depressed wages like it or not.

What are you talking about? Trump was not denied due process. The case was filed in a Colorado trial court by Republican and Independent voters. A trial was held, with both the plaintiffs and Trump calling witnesses. At the trial, Trump was able to call his own witnesses and cross examine plaintiff's witnesses. He was also a party to the appeals. That's due process.

The fact that Colorado chooses to appoint its state supreme court justices is irrelevant. Some states choose to appoint; some choose to elect. The 14th amendment does not refer to being criminally convicted of insurrection -- it refers to having "engaged" in insurrection.

Please don't derail the thread with your usual list of border grievance. Your disagreement with Biden's border policies has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling.

[ajax18]

What are you talking about? Trump was not denied due process. The case was filed in a Colorado trial court by Republican and Independent voters. A trial was held, with both the plaintiffs and Trump calling witnesses. At the trial, Trump was able to call his own witnesses and cross examine plaintiff's witnesses. He was also a party to the appeals. That's due process.

So it doesn't matter that Trump was never charged with insurrection. As long as a state court judge believes it was insurrection he can disqualify candidates from the ballot. Why can't we say that we believe Biden has engaged in insurrection and take him off the ballot in our state? The lawfare that the left has engaged in to beat Trump when they can't beat him at the ballot box seems much more antidemocratic to me. So we'll just take him off the ballot in Texas, Florida, UT, etc. because he's a threat to democracy as we choose to define it.