Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Loren Pechtel]

Counties remind Nevadans: Trump didn’t file for presidential primary, so he won’t be on ballot • Nevada Current

Donald Trump will not appear on Nevada’s presidential preference primary ballot — a decision made by the former president, not by election officials. Election administrators in the state’s most populous counties are hopeful voters understand this and will not be surprised when the GOP...

www.nevadacurrent.com

OOPS!

No oops.

Fundamentally, this comes down to Nevada switching to a primary system instead of a caucus system for selecting a presidential candidate. The Nevada GOP tried to deny reality and go with a caucus anyway--said that signing up for the primary automatically disqualified you. He didn't sign up, they at least so far haven't prevailed in their attempts to deny the measure, so he's not on the ballot here.

 

[bilby]

Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.

I don't recall who first said it, but it's certainly true, that:

"An illegal act that is punishable only by a fine, is only illegal for poor people".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.

I don't recall who first said it, but it's certainly true, that:

"An illegal act that is punishable only by a fine, is only illegal for poor people".

Great quote. Except for the comma.

 

[bilby]

Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.

I don't recall who first said it, but it's certainly true, that:

"An illegal act that is punishable only by a fine, is only illegal for poor people".

Great quote. Except for the comma.

What's wrong with, the comma?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a drama llama and likes to needlessly insert dramatic, pauses.

 

[bilby]

It is a drama llama and likes to needlessly insert dramatic, pauses.

William, Shatner, does, not agree.

 

[ZiprHead]

Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.

I don't recall who first said it, but it's certainly true, that:

"An illegal act that is punishable only by a fine, is only illegal for poor people".

Great quote. Except for the comma.

What's wrong with, the comma?

Bilby channeling William Shatner.

ETA: Ninja'd by Bilby himself.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Bilby channeling William Shatner.

Shatner is just channeling John, Wayne,

 

[Swammerdami]

Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.

I don't recall who first said it, but it's certainly true, that:

"An illegal act that is punishable only by a fine, is only illegal for poor people".

Great quote. Except for the comma.

What's wrong with, the comma?

From the Pedantry Desk:

The comma separates the subject from its verb. No-no.

Add a comma after 'act', and the comma after 'fine' becomes not only permissible but mandatory: it sets off a subordinate clause. Unfortunately it would change the meaning of the sentence, which would then be grammatical but factually incorrect.

 

[bilby]

Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.

I don't recall who first said it, but it's certainly true, that:

"An illegal act that is punishable only by a fine, is only illegal for poor people".

Great quote. Except for the comma.

What's wrong with, the comma?

From the Pedantry Desk:

The comma separates the subject from its verb. No-no.

Add a comma after 'act', and the comma after 'fine' becomes not only permissible but mandatory: it sets off a subordinate clause. Unfortunately it would change the meaning of the sentence, which would then be grammatical but factually incorrect.

The comma serves its only worthwhile purpose: That of indicating a pause if the sentence is spoken aloud.

The arbiters of what is (or is not) a no-no are the speakers of the language, and I can assure you that most of them neither know nor care what the subject, or in many cases even the verb, are.

They also think a subordinate clause is one of Santa's elves.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Monetary sanctions mean little when deep pockets are involved.

I don't recall who first said it, but it's certainly true, that:

"An illegal act that is punishable only by a fine, is only illegal for poor people".

Great quote. Except for the comma.

What's wrong with, the comma?

From the Pedantry Desk:

The comma separates the subject from its verb. No-no.

Add a comma after 'act', and the comma after 'fine' becomes not only permissible but mandatory: it sets off a subordinate clause. Unfortunately it would change the meaning of the sentence, which would then be grammatical but factually incorrect.

If “that is only punishable by a fine” were a non-restrictive clause then indeed it would be preceded by a comma. However, for grammatical correctness, the “that” would need to be a “which”.

And it would indeed change the meaning of the sentence to “an illegal act is only illegal for poor people” while also implying “an illegal act is only punishable by a fine”. Neither of which was intended by the quote, I believe.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Arguments are today. Wanna talk crazy?

Whatever the court decides is likely to polarize voters just as the court’s decision in Bush v. Gore split the country 24 years ago.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was just three years out of law school when she was sent to Florida to help Bush’s legal team in a dispute over the tallying of absentee ballots. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, then in private practice, helped oversee a recount in central Florida as part of the Bush campaign. And Roberts, who as partner in a Washington law firm had already argued dozens of cases before the high court, was sent to Tallahassee to advise the Bush campaign and help prepare the lawyer appearing before the Florida Supreme Court.

How incestuous!

Back to the case itself, this needs to be a 9-0 or 8-1 decision, but I highly doubt it. Thomas and Alito really don't think a GOP President has any limits, but fuck... if a Democrat President wants to manage the Environment. SCOTUS finds itself in a position they don't want to be in. While hyper-technicalities have been this SCOTUS's specialty recently, going hyper-technical on the 14th Amendment could really make things difficult. SCOTUS generally likes to punt when it comes to controversy, meaning they'd try to rule without ruling.

Easy outs
What is insurrection?
Who gets to say it is insurrection?
Due process?

Dubious outs
The President isn't an officer. (well, was Jefferson Davis?)
It wasn't insurrection. (what is then?)
It applies only to Confederacy. (14th doesn't mention it, nor does it seem reasonable that any attempt to overthrow the results of an election wouldn't count)

This is a no win situation. If Trump is allowed to run, that means that while his supporters were sentenced to prison for fulfilling what his rally wanted, he gets away without any punishment. This creates an obscene bar of no culpability to the White House. If Trump isn't allowed to run, the ability to how open and free elections is put is grave danger of partisan malfeasance. Our democracy survived this long because of adherence to tradition by every other President. Donald Trump fucked it up, as he has most things he has touched. The GOP is to blame for letting this fuckwad run again by not impeaching him and disqualifying him outright in January 2021.

 

[Elixir]

SCOTUS generally likes to punt when it comes to controversy, meaning they'd try to rule without ruling.

Easy outs
What is insurrection?
Who gets to say it is insurrection?
Due process?

That is all too … obvious.
I think they will fail to rule by failing to rule - as they should.
It's already up to the States, and if I had to bet I’d bet they’ll leave it that way. The current question regards primary ballot eligibility, and the general will give them another chance for mischief if they’re looking to do some election interference.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS generally likes to punt when it comes to controversy, meaning they'd try to rule without ruling.

Easy outs
What is insurrection?
Who gets to say it is insurrection?
Due process?

That is all too … obvious.
I think they will fail to rule by failing to rule - as they should.
It's already up to the States, and if I had to bet I’d bet they’ll leave it that way.

But I don't think it is that simple, as it doesn't make it easy to walk away, because if the 14th Amendment is viewed to disqualify a candidate in one state, on what basis does it not disqualify a candidate in all of them? I don't see this as being a "judgement call". It is an either/or thing. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment indicating if someone is felt to have done something. It is a Person A does B, they are disqualified.

The current question regards primary ballot eligibility, and the general will give them another chance for mischief if they’re looking to do some election interference.

I suppose that could be the other potential route, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to primaries, but that just sounds way too weak.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If the 14th Amendment only applies to the Confederacy then I say the 2nd Amendment should only apply to muskets.

 

[Elixir]

I don't see this as being a "judgement call". It is an either/or thing.

It is. Each state can make that either/or decision.

 

[Elixir]

The current question regards primary ballot eligibility, and the general will give them another chance for mischief if they’re looking to do some election interference.

I suppose that could be the other potential route, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to primaries, but that just sounds way too weak.

They don’t have to stipulate “only applies to primaries”. They only have to decide the question at hand; does it or does it not apply to primaries.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't see this as being a "judgement call". It is an either/or thing.

It is. Each state can make that either/or decision.

How in the world is that a reasonable interpretation? This would allow Southern States to ignore the 14th Amendment? They could have said it wasn't an insurrection and Lee can run for US Senate in Virginia.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Shall is a legal term. It means there is no other option. It isn't an opinion of gray, it is black and white.

 

[Elixir]

This would allow Southern States to ignore the 14th Amendment?

Would HAVE ALLOWED.
That ship has sailed. But it may be held that Southern States may decide for themselves.
I am listening the Rrumpy lawyers prevaricating before SCOTUS.
Of course they’ll raise that strawman, but as a question, the answer wouldn’t really bear on the current circumstance.
Right now the rumpsuckers are trying to construe that the chief executive officer of the United States of America isn’t an officer of the United States of America and therefore should be allowed to run for office regardless of being an insurrectionist who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
RIDICULOUS.
This procedure is a mini version of Trump’s macro tactic: delay.
They’re just wasting as much time as possible in the hope that the Justices and everyone else involved will get so sick of their bullshit that someone will throw them a bone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This would allow Southern States to ignore the 14th Amendment?

Would HAVE ALLOWED.

No. The whole point was to eliminate it. A reading of the 14th Amendment is that of an order, not a suggestion.

Of course they’ll raise that strawman, but as a question, the answer wouldn’t really bear on the current circumstance.

I think it does, as if Colorado says so, what is the basis for another state to disagree? Alito is right in asking that.

Right now the rumpsuckers are trying to construe that the chief executive officer of the United States of America isn’t an officer of the United States of America and therefore should be allowed to run for office regardless of being an insurrectionist who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
RIDICULOUS.

It is, and that'd be one of the worse angles to argue from.

Thomas is trying to say that the Amendment disqualifies a person to be seated, not elected. A fine argument that is cutting the hair pretty damn fine. Oh, you can elect them... you just can't seat them? I think this is the angle they'll find on. It is awful though. How can they actually say that Trump can be elected President, but he can't be seated. Who, how can you stop that?