Of the arguments brought up in the Colorado case, there is one I like...

"...that Trump violated the 14th A..."?

Wow! You are sooooo irrevocably lost in this discussion I wouldn't even know where to start...

 

And you somehow find that trumpist justices having an argument and it being among the Trump attorney's original arguments to be, in some way, contradictory?

I don't know what you're trying to say, but it looks to me as if you were desperately trying (and failing) to find some minutia to argue against in the wording of my arguments so you don't have to respond to the POINT I'm making.

If you have anything to say that addresses the point I make in the OP, go for it! Otherwise... I'm just not interested.

 

For the hundredth time, it was Kagan's argument. Not a "trumpist justices [sic]" argument. Please research the oral hearing. Correcting all this misinformation is tiring. This thread is a disaster of misinformation and circular reasoning. And you just admitted that Trump's briefing barely even mentioned it. It focused on many other arguments as their primary points. And it was Jackson, not a "trumpist justice [sic]" who asked why it wasn't more important to them.

 

It was Kagan's and it was the Trump attorney's argument (even though he barely mentioned it until Kagan and Jackson pointed him in that direction) and this thread speculates that in the end, we might learn that it was the whole court's argument.

The final part of the above sentence (in bold) is what this thread is about. If you have anything to comment about the topic, go for it. Otherwise... have a nice weekend.

 

Sigh. Even if what you are saying is true, it negates the entire thesis of this thread. You're just spinning on a wheel trying to get away from the purpose of this thread, but you're not getting anywhere. Let me try to bring you back to reality. THIS is what you made this thread about:

Your claim is that "Trumpist justices [sic]" have only one argument which is that one state should not decide for others.

YOU ARE WRONG!

Trump's attorneys are not "Trumpist justices" [sic] and as you admit they barely even mention this. They have a list of 5 primary arguments that they actually did use. The justices who used this argument to help formulate their decision were Kagan and Jackson, who are not "Trumpist justices" [sic] as you falsely claimed. The entire premise of this thread is based on unresearched nonsense that has no basis in reality. It's not debatable. It's not in a gray area. It is just 100% factually incorrect. Let us know when you've actually researched this subject, and we can move forward after you've carefully framed your argument based on facts. As it stands, you are making zero sense whatsoever because you don't understand the basics of what the topic is intended to be about.

To quote a signature:
Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. And remember: I do my research. I don't do yours. If you have a point to make, that's your burden. Don't ask me to do your research for you.

Stop putting the burden on us to make this thread based on facts.

 

The title of the thread was not written thoughtlessly. READ it please!

You appear to be stuck on the semantics of the justices "HAVING" arguments. Strictly speaking, they have an almost infinite number. The trumpist justices could simply argue that they rule against Colorado because they WANT Trump to be President. There is nothing that legally impedes them from using that as an argument. In fact, it would be more honest than any of the others I've read.

On the other hand, if we are speaking about "HAVING" in the sense of legal arguments that make any logical sense, they have no arguments whatsoever, to refuse to uphold the 14th A. ZERO. The Colorado attorney destroyed them all. But only from a logical point of view.

However, as the title indicates, the topic of this thread is "HAVING" one that I like. And the reason why I like it is in the OP: mostly because it doesn't do as much damage as any others would.

That's the topic of this thread. And since you appear to have nothing of value to contribute to the topic, I guess that means my point stands. Maybe next time you'll actually try to understand the POINT I am making, and debate THAT. Instead of trying so unsuccessfully to "trip" me by arguing semantics. Because that has never worked, and it's unlikely it will ever work.

 

Yes, we all know of the short sightedness of the left. They can't even figure out that states would remove Biden from the ballot for their own definition of insurrection. Ignoring the constitution by Illegally allowing an invasion of illegal immigrants for one. But short sightedness has always been the downfall of the left. They love those blinders when they go after Trump, not able to even conceive how it could blow up in their faces.

No different than their idiocy of allowing the nuclear option in the Senate over Obama judges that cost them 3 conservative Justices on the court in one administration.

They didn't have to look as there are so many.

False, they weren't nitpicking, they were bringing the legal obligation of the constitution to the forefront, which you don't like.
You were told over and over that this doesn't include a president or VP,
but you wouldn't listen
You were told over and over that no judge can determine (without a trial) who could be an insurrectionist.
but you wouldn't listen
You were told over and over that the other categories of the 14th made it clear that the president and VP are not officers.
but you wouldn't listen

But this is nothing new

False
It was explained to you over and over that the states have no authority to enforce the 14th. And the justices made it very clear to you.
But you wouldn't listen

Thats because those arguments were never going to pass muster with the court, which is why they were not brought up.
You were told this over and over
But you wouldn't listen

False
This was the findings of all the judges, not just Roberts.
But again, you were told this over and over
But you wouldn't listen

ONLY If you had a conviction of insurrection, not just your own claim or the medias claim.
But again, you were told this over and over
But you wouldn't listen

I bet you were since NOTHING YOU FORECAST over and over came to fruition.
NOTHING

 

The title of the thread has nothing to do with the misinformation presented in the argument of the first post. Just because you like one argument doesn't mean it was the "only" argument and presented by "Trumpist justices" [sic]. The entire premise of this thread is untrue nonsense.

I'm not reading the rest of your post because you clearly are unwilling to admit the thread was created based on unresearched information and was completely false. So I'll repeat: please research the basic information presented during oral arguments and try again. It gets tiring having to constantly correct your posts while you divert attention to unrelated nonsense due to refusing to admit you were wrong and that the information presented was very basic information that would have been found with even a bare minimum level of research. If you had Googled this argument, you would have seen Kagan's name all over it and not "Trumpist justices" [sic]. You didn't even have to listen to the oral arguments or read the transcript to easily find out that you were wrong and basing your position on a false premise due to overt personal bias rather than easily identifiable facts.

 

Nonsense. As I stated, it won't be an issue because no state can remove a candidate unless that candidate engaged in insurrection, and Biden has not, nor can repubs come remotely close to making that claim. You're talking pure horse manure.

Dead horse.

Doesn't negate my point.

they were nitpicking. Haggling over 'officer' is nitpicking and evades the big issue that the framers didn't want an insurrectionist from being president or holding any office, which history reveals they didn't want Jefferson Davis to be president or holding any office. What I like or not is not an argument.

I wasn't told anything, so meaningless point. The issue ignores the common sense fact that if they didn't want insurrectionists in government, why would they want insurrectionists as president.

Meaningless point, I wasn't told anything. Comment is bizarre.

I wasn't told anything, so meaningless point. It was, however, up for debate, which is why they are arguing it in the court. s\

Speculation, you don't know.

Again, meaningless point, I wasn't told anything. Your comments along this line
are not even logical. I saw things I disagreed with, which is why we are debating it here. Your comment is non sequitur and bizarre.

Non sequitur, meaningless point.

once again, I wasn't told anything so I have no idea what you are talking about.

No conviction for section 3 is required, and they didn 't make that determination, though it was mentioned.

Chill out.

I predicted that this court would likely shoot down the CO appeal, as the Wash DC court did. It's probably going to be true for SC, as well.

I predicted that Trump's immunity claim would be rejected by the courts. It has been, so far.

Before these two, I don't recall making any predictions, only wish lists.

You're talking superfluous specious meaningless non sequitur nonsense.

 

A traditionalist Constitutional Conservative would believe, correctly, that a state should be able to cast whatever electoral vote for president that individual state wishes.
This idea that the public has a right to vote for President is not actually in the U.S. Constitution.

If the state of Colorado wants to ban Trump on the ballot simply because they do not like him, that is the state's right under the U.S. Constitution.

Now, is it legal and does it violate the people's rights under the Colorado state Constitution and law? That is a separate question. But one which the U.S. Supreme Court should not get involved in, because they do not have proper jurisdiction over that area.

The state Supreme Court in Colorado is trying to use the U.S. Constitution to justify their decision, but they are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court could give their opinion about that.

The one holdout is that the U.S. Supreme Court could perhaps block the state Supreme Court's decision, but if the state were actually able to pass a law banning Trump from the ballot, then that should be the end of the matter, as far as the federal government is concerned.
The U.S. Constitution says the state decides the electors, but we could argue over what exactly is "the state"? Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court could refuse to allow any electors to be recognized unless the state is able to pass a law specifically recognizing the choice of those electors.
Right now, the state has laws in place that delegate those decision-making powers to certain state officials.

(It could also be possible the U.S. Supreme Court might interpret that "the state" has not actually decided electors, because those electors were not actually correctly chosen according to the state's own law)

 

Gorsuch used to argue that. Not anymore, apparently.

Nor is the right to life. This is why Human Rights trump the Constitution.

I disagree with that. But I do believe they should be allowed to ban Trump if they have enough reason to believe that he doesn't meet the qualifications. However, the Supreme Court is not going to allow them to do either for the reason you give, or for mine. But their decision will take power away from the states. And I rather think that's a good thing. But the way they are doing it is not proper. The way to do it is to follow the steps to repeal a Constitutional Amendment. Not just the decision of a handful of judeges.

I understand what you're saying. But your premise is that states should have more rights. I believe the opposite. However, in this case, both our positions will be moot. The Supreme Court had already decided before they even read the case. And all they are looking for is an excuse.

 

I agree that it is incredibly petty, but I have to ask just because this claim seems so incredibly bizarre.

How do you figure that acknowledge means "it is nothing new"? It seems to me that one could acknowledge some old fact, or they could acknowledge something that is entirely new, like lets say a football coach acknowledging after the game that they were outcoached.

How are you rationalizing "its nothing new" as being part of the definition of acknowledge? To me, that does not make a lick of sense.

 

Well... you just answered your own question. Unless you think they could acknowledge they were outcoached BEFORE the game.

That the football coach lost the game is nothing new when he acknowledged it. Everybody who watched the game saw it. So it's not exactly news. However, if you want to be puny, you might try to argue that something that happened so recently that it almost coincides with what is being acknowledged. Like a chess player resigning by tipping his king. Which acknowledges he is defeated. Or a wrestler tapping the floor three times acknowledging that he lost. But the point is that acknowledge most easily and naturally is interpreted as "nothing new". But, as you say in your first paragraph, the argument is petty. And even AFTER I clarified beyond a shadow of a doubt that I DID use it in the sense of "nothing new", this poster insisted on that being his argument to the point that he decided to bring up some... credentials.. that he believed gave him some sort of "authority" that would not require further arguments other than to repeat "nothing new" again and again.

 

Yeesh...To claim that acknowledge means it is nothing new is just silly. It means admit the existence or truth of something. There is not a time frame attached to the word. It could be acknowledging something that happened 100 years ago, or 1 second prior.

 

. That was NOT adjudicated in Colorado.

 

So only you get to decide on who was involved in an insurrection?
Tell us again, how many people were charged with insurrection during this (self proclaimed) insurrection?
Media claims and leftist drivel does not an insurrection make.
All you had were a hand full of rioters mad about the election no matter how much cheese you want to put on it. lol

History actually proves that the terms president and Vice president were removed from the original section 3 with the explanation that it wasn't needed as nobody would vote for a confederate president. Section 3 was written to stop confederates from being appointed.
My how the left makes everyone laugh out loud with their made up stories of OJ Simpson, qualification claims, civil claims, and screams of insurrections. Too funny

Balderdash. You even made a thread about it and fought tooth and nail that all of your OJ Simpson claims, qualification claims, insurrections claims civil case claims were correct. Then preached to everyone else that you are right and everyone else was wrong.
Don't even try. lol

 

On what basis ? If the certified electoral votes are delivered on time, they are valid and Congress has no basis to reject them .

 

Then you do not understand the Constitution, probably like most people. The Constitution says the states choose electors.

Maybe you don't like that system, but that is what the Constitution says. And there's very good reason things are set up that way, under the Constitution, in my opinion.

It greatly helps mitigate the problem of election fraud and disputed national elections. In a winner-take-all system with each state running their own elections, there is no incentive for the majority to suppress the votes of the minority. And the Presidential election, so far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, is nearly impossible to dispute, even though it could be disputed within each state.

 

They could be rejected on the basis that "the state" did not actually choose those electors.

Rather state laws delegated legal powers to certain officials to choose for the state. But that might not be enough to be considered a "choice by the state" for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously if the state were able to pass a decision specifically into law that it chose a certain set of electors, that would be a state choice.

So it would set a higher bar than just a state secretary or state governor certifying a state election. It is one tactic that the U.S. Supreme Court could use, if there is some sort of disputed election.

 

If a state refuses to abide by the federal election laws and uses the constitution out of context to remove candidates they don't like, then they shouldn't be allowed to participate in federal elections.

 

Accept their argument is not about upholding the 14th. Its about Colorado taking the 14th out of context where it never belongs.
Which means even though you read it, YOU decided to take the information out of context to make your argument.

1. All of the justices, both liberal and conservative, hit lawyers representing Colorado with questions that seemed to suggest the court will back Trump in a ruling. The arguments did not focus on whether Trump had violated the insurrection clause because there was no insurrection and the 14th doesn't apply to presidents, but rather on narrower provisions, like who the clause was meant for.

2. Chief Justice Salmon Chase of California ruled that the insurrection ban was not “self-executing”, and could not be enforced without Congress acting on it first even if the 14th covered presidents. Which was the same time frame of the 14th amendment.

3. Trump did not have a deliberate plan to overthrow the government, adding that an insurrection needed an “organised, concerted effort and the march on the US Capitol on January 6 was a riot, not an insurrection.

4. The justices questioned Colorado's attorney, if the clause banning insurrection was meant to apply to former US presidents, the article could not be invoked without US Congress first passing a law on it

5. The justices also questioned if courts striking off candidates would affect voters’ rights and, therefore, US democracy itself. If Trump is struck off the ballot in Colorado, they said, it would set a precedent and could see other states strike off presidential candidates in future elections, allowing the choice of who becomes president to come down to a “handful of states”

6. If the 14th was meant for presidents, that would open the door for other states to bar candidates from the ballot. The decision would be a binding precedent in every state.

7. Colorado's position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree.

8. Justices questioned Colorado if they think a state has the power in deciding candidates for national elections.

9. Justice Kagen asked, Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation?

10, All justices were opposed to the 14th as it applies to the president, and even if it did, who can enforce it, the implications for democracy if a candidate can be barred from the ballot, the “disuniformity” that would result if states disqualified candidates using different standards, and the state by state definition of “insurrection” to ban candidates from ballots.

11. Section 3 doesn't apply to Trump “because the president is not an officer of the United States as that term is used throughout the Constitution.”

12. “A state is not allowed to implement or enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment unless and until Congress enacts implementing legislation.”

13. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that Section 3 appeared to exempt the office of the president from the positions an insurrectionist is barred from holding office. “The word ‘president’ or ‘vice president’ does not appear specifically on that list,”

14. Mitchell agreed, and he also argued that an insurrectionist president, unlike lower office-holders who have engaged in insurrection, is not covered by Section 3.

15. Justice Kavanaugh, echoing several colleagues, suggested Congress, not individual states, has the primary role in stating how Section 3 should be enforced. “You look at Section 3, the term ‘insurrection’ jumps out and the questions are, what does that mean? How do you define it? Who decides whether someone is engaged in it?”

This idiotic attempt by Colorado is nothing more than another election interference by Democrats who are desperate. And your attempt to take the preceding out of context is exactly what the left does.

 

That states can eliminate a Presidential candidate for no reason is not what the Constitution says... or in any way implies.

 

You are being stupid. That may not be what the Constitution explicitly says, but it does implicitly say that.

Maybe you need to go look up what the U.S. Constitution says about how the President is chosen.

If a state can choose their electors for President (you don't disagree with that, hopefully), and the Constitution does not say anything about how a state conducts an election for President (you do realize states are under no obligation to even hold an election for President?), why do you not believe a state could do whatever they want when it comes to carrying out a Presidential election? (I'm talking as far as the federal level of government is concerned)

 

To this...

You respond....

Which tells me you are not even bothering to read my posts (look up if there is any relation between the words "implies" in my post, with "implicitly" in yours). So why should I waste my time responding to you?

In any case, read my sig! YOU make the claim, YOU do the research. I'll look forward to your arguments demonstrating that the framers intended for states to eliminate presidential candidates just because they don't like them.

 

You are actually the one making the claim, in a sense. (a claim that the state is not allowed to do this)

There's no real "research" to do. You can easily look up what the Constitution says about the matter for yourself. If you're too lazy to do that, then this conversation is over.

The rest of it is just using logic and reasoning.