quote:… Six Colorado voters argued that Trump had run afoul of a post-Civil War law that bars people who took an oath to support the Constitution from engaging in an insurrection or rebellion. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has never been used against a presidential candidate, and it’s only been deployed eight times since the 1860s.
That sparse record contributed to the high court’s decision Monday.
“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the court decision concluded. …
Two shallow “impeachments” could not find Trump did what these voters claimed. Also funny how the opinion of these six voters overruled any semblance of rule of law, briefly.
(Original thread title: “SCOTUS rules for Trump in Colorado ballot removal case, 9-0”)
Posts: 814 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just like SCOTUS ruled unanimously, I do hold that the voters should have their choice. Even if the thought of Trump as POTUS47 is repugnant, just as such is with many people I know, the voters at large should make that choice.
Even if I am ideologically opposed with the views of The Supremes on more issues than not of late, I think they made the right call in this instance.
Posts: 10676 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The effort to get a person thrown off a ballot says loud and clear that these people do not trust the voters and want to make their choice for them. Having someone removed from the ballot should only happen if a person has been CONVICTED of a serious criminal offense, and claiming that the results of an election outcome were dishonest is not one of them. Getting someone thrown off the ballot is common in many places where they want to maintain the facade of a multiparty democracy without having the substance thereof.
Posts: 2945 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recent decisions with respect to presidential immunity and official acts are being misconstrued by left-wing media, with some fearmongering an impending “imperial presidency” while ignoring the fact that we are deep in the throes of one. The decision applies to all presidents past and present, so all predecessors are included. So far, Judge (loosely-termed) Merchan has moved Trump’s sentencing over the undefined and undefinable “felony” to September in response.
Posts: 814 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, what is going to be the tricky part is the interpretation of "official duties" giving the President immunity. Cases in point; Trump would clearly be immune for any negligence on his part handling COVID. But then, so would Joe for the botched Afghanistan withdrawal or for the Border.
Will inciting a riot on Jan 6 (yes, I know Trump said peaceful, but he sure had enough "warm ups" saying otherwise) be considered an "official act" on the grounds he was POTUS45, or will it be considered "other than official" because it was taken in the effort to overturn an election for another term that he clearly lost.
Will the "hush money" payments (term has been all over the media; pretty hard to bury it now) made to an intermediary (Mickey Cohen) to cover up a lawful yet embarassing act and done in a manner to avoid both Medicare and Income taxes (rather than lawfully "grossing up" the net amount of the payment and including that amount on Trump's Individual Tax Returns, and of course allowing the Organization a deduction for that "grossed up" amount) be considered an "official act"?
These could be some "thornies".
Posts: 10676 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trump incited no riot on January 6. Please hold (pre)judgment until all of the footage finally gets released. OTOH, recall that Ms. Harris is on record bailing out several actual rioters from BLM and Antifa who did actual damage, much of it permanent.
And please stop substituting the phrase “hush money” for “nondisclosure agreement”. Frankly, neither are illegal and they are not synonyms; and no campaign finance laws were violated, not even at the misdemeanor level (reminder: the only time it can even reach a felony level is if a misdemeanor illegal transfer of money is used to conceal another crime, if the notion of that even makes sense).
Posts: 814 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: And please stop substituting the phrase “hush money” for “nondisclosure agreement”.
Mr. Helfner, let the record.show "I tried". I agree with you that any payment between Mr. Cohen and another party in the matter of a non-disclosure agreement is legal, as is of course any such agreement.
I have friends who, arising from past employment, are governed by such in consideration of certain continuing remunerative payments.
But I can't control how the media refers to such a payment, so in my immediate I simply used this term.
Posts: 10676 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
