None of that stuff requires courage, just enough cowards in power that nobody can refuse cruel and absurd orders.
Trump is absolutely that cruel and he does command an army of cowards. That’s not in dispute, the only question is whether they can gain enough votes and armed paramilitary goons to make it happen.
Well, that was conservatives’ hope, back in the day, for the Dred Scott decision. Quite a few chips fell by 1865.
I’d be very interested in how that would work. You’d need something on the record in regards to that finding of fact. I suspect an effort like that would backfire.
" Various states, including Colorado, determine Trump is disqualified from holding office"
I think this thread should have a new title. It’s inaccurate.
I mean, discussion has involved actions in other states that have either failed, or are currently ongoing. These states have not determined that Trump is disqualified.
Something like “various legal actions attempting to disqualify Trump from office” would be better.
What does anyone else think? Feel free to suggest other wording
Did we really expect him to be removed from ballots everywhere, and we’re surprised that he wasn’t? I don’t think we expected that, even if we think that’s what should have happened.
So it seems to me you are arguing that the thread title should place as much focus on the “dog bites man” part of the story as the “man bites dog” part. The fact that he has been disqualified in some states is the surprising and consquential aspect of the story. It doesn’t preclude a wider discussion of why it didn’t happen everywhere.
This. If Missouri (or any other state) wants to keep Biden off the ballot, they will have to provide evidence to a court. Evidence that, if it’s the manufactured evidence that the likes of True The Vote or The Gateway Pundit like to spread, is likely to cause the lawyers submitting it to loose their law licenses. That is why you never see what they spread in a court of law.
I guess what I am saying is that I don’t believe a Missouri court could come to a finding of fact that Biden committed insurrection. If they had legitimate evidence, I am not sure I would be against it. If it wasn’t legitimate, I doubt it would withstand appeal.
No, I am not concerned that if the SC upholds the Colorado decision that it will encourage red states to make baseless accusations against Democratic candidates. They are going to do that regardless, that’s a given.
But, I am concerned that is the SC does not uphold the Colorado decision that the next insurrection will be much more violent and dangerous than the previous one.
I’m not exactly sure of what happened the states that declined to remove Trump from the ballot, but don’t we already have contradictory findings of fact about Trump’s insurrection in different states?
Not to my understanding - in one (that did not remove) was due to the local laws being that they couldnt remove from the primary - the judge left it open to be re-litigated for the actual ballot (should he win the primary).
The others were similar - I don’t know of any that said “nope, he is NOT an insurrectionist”.
Colorado and Maine have, in fact, determined that Trump is disqualified. Are you just quibbling over the fact that they might potentially be overruled?
Here’s a map tracking the disqualification efforts.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/07/trump-ballot-remove-14th-amendment-map
Nope, all of the states who declined to remove him did so because their election laws didn’t allow it. So much for the conspiracy of democrats willy nilly throwing trump off the ballot for no reason but trump derangement syndrome. (That, and the fact that a lot/ most of the cases were in actually brought by Republicans…)
My understanding of the ruling in Colorado (which may be mistaken) is that the ruling is not narrowly about the primary ballot, but that the court found him disqualified under 14A, presumably with everything that flows from that - the primary ballot is just the first consequence of that finding under Colorado law.
But the way that map describes matters, it sounds like in other states there can/must be a fresh case brought specific to each stage of the election. Is that generally true? Given a finding about whether he committed insurrection, is there still substantial uncertainty about what that implies under state law in most cases?
What are you exactly unsure of?
You do understand the difference between a primary and the general election, right?
It sounds to me as if you are arguing simply to argue, not that you disagree.
Obviously whether the different determinations derived from a different finding of fact about Trump’s insurrection or a difference between state laws.
You do understand the difference between a finding of fact and a legal conclusion, right?
Then feel free to step out of the conversation.
I am not sure this is correct. The lawsuit in Colorado was brought to prevent the SoS from allowing Trump on the Primary Ballot. Since the General Election would only be for Electors for Trump (assuming he received the GOP nomination), I don’t see how that the Colorado SC decision would apply. There would have to be another lawsuit brought against the Colorado SoS to prevent Electors For Trump to be allowed to appear on the General Election ballot for that to apply.
I am free.
No, I’m pointing out that this thread has included discussion of states that didn’t determine that Trump is disqualified. Some have, and some haven’t. And there have been new challenges within the last few days that haven’t been heard yet, and are unresolved at the moment. I simply offer the suggestion that the thread title should reflect all three.
Not a big deal, just an idea…
Edit: Yes, and the ruling says he’s disqualified under 14A, therefore he’s off the primary ballot.
But would that then be a formality, given the prior ruling that establishes that he’s disqualified? Or is there still considerable uncertainty about the subsequent legal implications of him being disqualified?
I would think that if he couldn’t be on the primary - it follows that he would not be on the general, nor could electors be chosen for him.
He’s disqualified - period.
That was my expectation too, which is why I’m confused about the talk of subsequent lawsuits in other states. I would have thought if the question of whether he’s disqualified under 14A is settled, the subsequent application of state law would be pretty clear. Maybe not.