Because they might win again.
Do you imagine there are a bunch of MAGAites who weren’t going to vote, but now are suddenly going to because of thiis decision?
You know, I don’t want to argue about this.
If you don’t think this will make much difference, good for you, I wish I felt the same.
We can’t make decisions about legal matters based on how somebody’s fan club is going to react to those decisions.
By itself, I would say, so what — while wondering if you were nonetheless correct to be concerned.
I suppose it helps Trump’s election chances whenever he wins a case, and he will probably win this in the U.S. Supreme Court. But maybe he won’t. If the inconsistency stands that he can’t be on the ballot in Colorado, some swing voters elsewhere will see it signaling the reality of Trump being unacceptable.
While victimhood is a great issue for Trump in the primaries, I’m totally unsure if it works for him in November.
I think there’s another book of laws which applies here:
For ye have the MAGAts with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but it won’t help; they’ll still be Evil Ignorant MFs.
Which is what I said in my initial post.
I’ve heard several talking heads claim that Trump shouldn’t be excluded from the ballot because the matter should be decided by the voters. Does anyone think that would apply to other qualifications to become president?
Can Barack Obama run for president again even though he already served two terms? Shouldn’t the people make that decision in the voting booth? How about Ronald Reagan? So he’s dead, shouldn’t the voters decide whether he’s qualified? How about a 5 year old child?
Here’s my totally IANAL IMHO prediction:
The Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision on the grounds that “participating in an insurrection” is unconstitutionally vague without a clear definition of “participating” and criminal conviction for a crime that would meet that definition.
If, on the slim chance the Court upholds the Colorado decision, and the Republicans win the vote (not at all a sure thing) there will be a slate of electors from Colorado voting for Trump sent to Congress. Congress will vote - narrowly - vote to accept that slate and record those electoral votes for Trump.
The wording in s. 3 is:
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof
None of that can be constitutionally vague, because it’s in the Constitution itself.
Courts will have to determine what “engaged in insurrection” means, just like they have to determine what other broad clauses, like “freedom of speech”, “right to bear arms”, and “cruel and unusual punishment” mean.
How you prove it, though, is also a good question. What standard of proof is needed? civil standard, or criminal standard? who determines it?
Every single negative thing against Trump does this.
If the standard we should follow is to never give Trump anything to complain about, you’ll be giving him free rein to do anything he wants. That’s what he’s trying to achieve. Don’t give in to him. His actions absolutely deserve consequences.
The point is, more than one thing can be true at the same time.
Should the judges fairly and accurately interpret the law, and ignore politics when it comes to making their rulings? Yes, of course.
So if this was a good ruling (I’m not a legal expert) then undoubtedly they did the right thing, no question.
Will this be a bigger boost for Trump even than things like Trump’s mugshot? Yes, in my opinion. And it’s depressing. It’s the perfect message for low-information voters.
That’s all I’m saying.
If the Colorado ruling is upheld, then Trump is ineligible for the office and no electors can be awarded to him.
I disagree. I think having a judicial declaration that he isn’t even eligible to be POTUS will be devastating to him, even if he’s only off the ballot in a few states he wouldn’t win anyway.
“Trump isn’t eligible to be on the ballot because the Constitution says that people who lead insurrections, like the one we all saw on TV during J6, is ineligible.”
Another perfect message for low-info voters.
(Seriously, this isn’t hard to counter.)
I honestly don’t know if you’re trying to counter me or agreeing sarcastically.
Firstly, it’s obviously not going to put off the MAGAs, who enthusiastically buy merchandise with Trump’s mugshot.
For the broader electorate, Trump jumps in the polls with each indictment and this one is very easy for people to interpret as “They can’t beat him fairly, so they are trying to get him out of the race”. If you think it won’t make a difference, well, let’s see the next polls.
Again, I shouldn’t need to say it a third time, but just in case: the judges should uphold the law, without any thought of politics. But this is one of the best things that could have happened to Trump’s campaign at this stage, save an economic crash.
Kinda like a firm “NO!” to a toddler throwing a tantrum. I expect, well hope, him to lose his shit any day now.
I think you’re completely wrong. I don’t think he can win purely on victimhood. And I don’t think polls today mean anything.
And I never, ever subscribe to the appeasement nonsense.
Can something explicitly in the constitution be unconstitutional?
And this is a long thread, so as may have been pointed out, the authors said “engaged in” not “convicted of.” It seems to me that they would have known the difference.
And isn’t it the right that’s always demanding strict textualism when interpreting the constitution?
Mijin’s argument is effectively that Trump is supra-Constitutional. This argument wouldn’t be made about me, if I urged a crowd to attack the Representatives and Senators of our country and, as a consequence, was disallowed to run for Federal office, but it’s somehow ok to allow Trump to do so?
Bullshit. No one is above the law. And polls are irrelevant as polls do not elect Presidents.