The Race For 2024

[Shadowy Man]

Not in this case. The ultimate decision will be made by the people who vote in November, not activist judges.

only because the do nothing Congress won’t enact legislation to clarify the disqualification rules as the Supreme Court majority says they must do to apply the disqualification.

Dry your eyes fella, Trump is running.

I always thought he would be running. I was just pointing out that the Supreme Court did not establish that it was only up to the people. If a sensible Congress existed they would make rules of disqualification. Knowing that no such sensible Congress exists right now I did not have hopes up. Note that the Supreme Court did not deny the facts found in the lower courts that he engaged in insurrection. So, despite the 14th amendment we may end up with an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" holding office and that disqualification clause of the Constitution is effectively a dead letter.

 

[TSwizzle]

Not in this case. The ultimate decision will be made by the people who vote in November, not activist judges.

only because the do nothing Congress won’t enact legislation to clarify the disqualification rules as the Supreme Court majority says they must do to apply the disqualification.

Dry your eyes fella, Trump is running.

I always thought he would be running. I was just pointing out that the Supreme Court did not establish that it was only up to the people. If a sensible Congress existed they would make rules of disqualification. Knowing that no such sensible Congress exists right now I did not have hopes up. Note that the Supreme Court did not deny the facts found in the lower courts that he engaged in insurrection. So, despite the 14th amendment we may end up with an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" holding office and that disqualification clause of the Constitution is effectively a dead letter.

Waaaaaaahhhhh!!!

Dry your eyes and do get over it.

 

[Elixir]

NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

9-0, all agreed that States don't have the right to exclude candidates under A14 Sec3.
The decision that only Congress can act to exclude a candidate under that provision, however, was 5-4, with the Jesus Freak siding with the libs.
So there ya go, as a matter of law.
It's kinda fucked up but it can be fixed later.
As for Colorado, and other Courts' FACT findings that Trump is an insurrectionist, those findings stand untouched.

 

[Elixir]

Not in this case. The ultimate decision will be made by the people who vote in November, not activist judges.

And this part means absolutely nothing unless all candidates agree to abide by the results of the election.

Or unless steps are taken to enforce the results of the election regardless of the toddler's tantrums.
Next time they try to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, let them reap their final reward on the spot.
Automatic weapons DO have their place.

 

[Derec]

Or unless steps are taken to enforce the results of the election regardless of the toddler's tantrums.
Next time they try to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, let them reap their final reward on the spot.
Automatic weapons DO have their place.

Serious questions. If Trump or Haley win the 2024 election, and there are unrests by say Antifa, do you also advocate that they should be mowed down with automatic weapons? Or are you just a hypocrite advocating for violence against your political opponents?

 

[Derec]

OMFG I am beginning to think @AdamWho is right when he says Trump won't make it to the nomination.

I disagree. His voice is strong with a good cadence. He does not sound frail, even when he rambles.
Biden definitely sounds older and frailer, no matter the actual content.

I wonder what is going on in Santa Monica that keeps its residents from noticing.
OMFG.

Santa Monica? As in the city in Los Angeles County with the eponymous pier? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[bilby]

the system worked, Biden is president so get over it.

I wonder if any of the defendants at Nuremberg offered "The system worked, Berlin is occupied by the Allies so get over it" as a defence.

Attempted murder? Now honestly what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for Attempted Chemistry?

 

[pood]

Here, I’ll help you.

 

[Copernicus]

Retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig has an interesting take on this decision. He opposes it, because he sees it as deeply hypocritical judicial overreach for a conservative Court. See this 5 minute clip of an interview with Jake Tapper:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig has an interesting take on this decision. He opposes it, because he sees it as deeply hypocritical judicial overreach for a conservative Court. See this 5 minute clip of an interview with Jake Tapper:

That does seem to be the surprise in the ruling. Typically SCOTUS does just barely enough to get it done, but this hyper conservative court is breaking with a good deal of former practices, especially when convenient.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump Dominates Michigan G.O.P. Convention Amid Party Turmoil - The New York Times
By 100%, with al 39 delegates.

Missouri Republican Caucus Results 2024: Trump Wins - The New York Times
By 100%, with all 51 delegates.

Idaho Republican Caucus Results 2024 - The New York Times

• Donald J. Trump - 33,603 - 84.9% - 32
• Nikki Haley - 5,221 - 13.2%
• Ron DeSantis - 534 - 1.3%
• Vivek Ramaswamy - 95 - 0.2%
• Chris Christie - 91 - 0.2%
• Ryan Binkley - 40 - 0.1%

Total reported - 39,584

But then this happened.
Washington, D.C. Republican Primary Election 2024: Live Results - The New York Times

• Nikki Haley - 1,274 - 62.8% - 19
• Donald J. Trump - 676 - 33.3%
• Ron DeSantis - 38 - 1.9%
• Chris Christie - 18 - 0.9%
• Vivek Ramaswamy - 15 - 0.7%
• David Stuckenberg - 8 - 0.4%
• Ryan Binkley - 1 - <0.1%

Total reported - 2,030

 

[lpetrich]

Nikki Haley Defeats Trump in 2024 Washington, D.C., GOP Primary - The New York Times - "She received 63 percent to Donald J. Trump’s 33 percent, becoming the first woman ever to win a Republican presidential primary. But only about 2,000 people voted."

Her response:
Nikki Haley on X: "Let’s do it. Thank you, DC! We fight for every inch. " / X

His response:
Truth Details | Truth Social

I purposely stayed away from the D.C. Vote because it is the “Swamp,” with very few delegates, and no upside. Birdbrain spent all of her time, money and effort there. Over the weekend we won Missouri, Idaho, and Michigan - BIG NUMBERS - Complete destruction of a very weak opponent. The really big numbers will come on Super Tuesday. Also, WAY UP ON CROOKED JOE!

What a big baby.

Trump says after Haley win that he ‘purposely stayed away’ from DC GOP primary | The Hill

Donald Trump’s ‘Pathetic’ Excuse For D.C. Primary Loss To Haley Is Mercilessly Mocked
noting
Nikki Haley Defeats Donald Trump In D.C. GOP Presidential Primary | HuffPost Latest News

Right on cue, shortly after Haley’s win was announced, Trump’s campaign said her victory means “the swamp has claimed their queen.”

“While Nikki has been soundly rejected throughout the rest of America, she was just crowned Queen of the Swamp by the lobbyists and DC insiders that want to protect the failed status quo,” Karoline Leavitt, press secretary for Trump’s campaign, said in a statement.

Responses like this:
Republicans against Trump on X: "Cry harder, you pathetic loser. (pic link)" / X

 

[lpetrich]

Haley Is Still Struggling to Deal With Trump’s Grip on Their Party - The New York Times - "Nikki Haley has become the voice of Republicans looking for an alternative to Donald Trump. But she has been a reluctant messenger."

Nikki Haley lately has been making the case that former President Donald J. Trump has transformed the Republican Party into his personal “playpen.” In media appearances and at rallies as she crisscrosses the country leading up to Super Tuesday this week, she has argued that Mr. Trump has installed loyalists in key party positions and pushed for changes in primary rules to serve himself.

Ms. Haley has suggested that the Republican National Committee is at risk of becoming his “legal slush fund” for the four criminal cases he is facing. She has sounded the alarm over losses Republicans have incurred up and down the ballot, with candidates championed by Mr. Trump. And she has even hedged her responses on whether she would endorse the Republican nominee if he wins.

“We are in a ship with a hole in it — that hole is Donald Trump,” she declared Wednesday to loud cheers at a performing arts theater near Salt Lake City. This new approach is a sharp turn from the more calibrated tone she employed for most of the Republican nominating contest.

noting
Nikki Haley Hedges on Her Pledge to Support Republican Nominee - The New York Times - "In a Sunday interview, Ms. Haley suggested she might no longer feel bound to support the eventual Republican nominee and also said that she supported I.V.F. but that states should be able to ban it."
noting
Nikki Haley vows to stay in the race as long as she remains ‘competitive’: Full interview

When the NBC host, Kristen Welker, asked whether she had ruled out endorsing Mr. Trump, Ms. Haley deflected, saying, “If you talk about an endorsement, you’re talking about a loss. I don’t think like that.”

After an extended back-and-forth related to her pledge last year to support her party’s nominee — which the Republican National Committee required candidates to sign in order to participate in debates — she referred to Mr. Trump’s recent endorsement of Lara Trump, who is married to his son Eric, to be a party co-chair.

“The R.N.C. is now not the same R.N.C.,” Ms. Haley said. “Now it’s Trump’s daughter-in-law.”

Meaning that Trump wants to treat the Republican Party as a business that he owns and runs. If the party continues the losses of 2018, 2020, and 2022, then the party will likely suffer a civil war.

The closest Ms. Haley came to explicitly disavowing the pledge was when she said, “I’ll make what decision I want to make.” But she quickly added: “That’s not something I’m thinking about. And I think that while y’all think about that, I’m looking at the fact that we had thousands of people in Virginia, we’re headed to North Carolina, we’re going to continue to go to Vermont and Maine and all these states to go and show people that there is a path forward.”

Seems very weaselly.

She did not hold back on criticizing Mr. Trump, saying, for example, that she did not want a president who “calls his opponents ‘vermin,’” as Mr. Trump has, echoing rhetoric used by Hitler and Mussolini. When asked whether she believed Mr. Trump “would follow the Constitution,” she said: “I don’t know. I mean, you always want to think someone will. But I don’t know.”

 

[Copernicus]

Retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig has an interesting take on this decision. He opposes it, because he sees it as deeply hypocritical judicial overreach for a conservative Court. See this 5 minute clip of an interview with Jake Tapper:

That does seem to be the surprise in the ruling. Typically SCOTUS does just barely enough to get it done, but this hyper conservative court is breaking with a good deal of former practices, especially when convenient.

I agree. Luttig refers to what he thought of as hyper judicial activism during the Warren court, but they usually stuck to the narrow issues and produced lengthy legal arguments. The Republican activist justices seem to be less concerned with legal justifications, have avoided accountability for appearances of corruption and conflict of interest, and have all but abandoned the concept of recusals. They appear to see themselves as a third house of the legislature--able to dismantle longstanding precedents that Republicans have been unable to get signed into law.

 

[TSwizzle]

Retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig has an interesting take on this decision. He opposes it, because he sees it as deeply hypocritical judicial overreach for a conservative Court. See this 5 minute clip of an interview with Jake Tapper:

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I understand nuance is problematic for some, but the issue being raised isn't that they said the State can't do it, but how much further the ruling needlessly went.

In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oath breaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.

But...

Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

And as a reminder before you bring out your cut and paste response, I noted the very likelihood of this being a unanimous decision undoing the Colorado action in late December. I didn't even need The Daily Mail to tell me that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

Yes. We understand that little Johnny. Here’s some bubble gum - why don’t you go outside and play while the adults have a conversation.

 

[Elixir]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

Yes. We understand that little Johnny. Here’s some bubble gum - why don’t you go outside and play while the adults have a conversation.

No need to be mean. Let the kid revel in this momentous 9-0 victory.
As one late night wit observed, the Supreme Court is the only place Trump has ever won a popular vote.
Personally I am a bit relieved that the GQP will be going into the Main Event with a big orange weight around its neck. The right wing propaganda machine has done such a good job of convincing people that Hunter is actually running the Country with his laptop, the economy has gone down the drain, inflation is like 15%, Vladimir Putin is a Champion Defender of Democracy, and migrant crime is being ushered in by the Biden Crime Family... seriously, it is such an impressive litany of lies that they have successfully rammed down their suckers' throats about Sleepy Joe, I think anybody but the Donald could probably beat him.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

Yes. We understand that little Johnny. Here’s some bubble gum - why don’t you go outside and play while the adults have a conversation.

No need to be mean. Let the kid revel in this momentous 9-0 victory.

It’s not mean. It’s a response in kind. At the same level of discourse that he is providing.

As one late night wit observed, the Supreme Court is the only place Trump has ever won a popular vote.
Personally I am a bit relieved that the GQP will be going into the Main Event with a big orange weight around its neck. The right wing propaganda machine has done such a good job of convincing people that Hunter is actually running the Country with his laptop, the economy has gone down the drain, inflation is like 15%, Vladimir Putin is a Champion Defender of Democracy, and migrant crime is being ushered in by the Biden Crime Family... seriously, it is such an impressive litany of lies that they have successfully rammed down their suckers' throats about Sleepy Joe, I think anybody but the Donald could probably beat him.

Sure, but the more interesting conversation happening here is about the legal implications of the Court’s decision. They did not deny the adjudicated fact that Trump is an insurrectionist, so that determination stands by the lower court. So it’s reasonable to attempt to understand how the 14th Amendment applies since he definitely should be disqualified according to the rule of law as stated in the Constitution.

I know some around here think that applying the Constitution as written is fascism but I disagree with that (inane) opinion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Scoreboard says NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

Time to move on.

Yes. We understand that little Johnny. Here’s some bubble gum - why don’t you go outside and play while the adults have a conversation.

No need to be mean. Let the kid revel in this momentous 9-0 victory.

It isn't a bad ruling. There are a number of issues at hand. The bigger problem is that a state took these actions because the GOP has become so corrupted by hyper-partisan and Christian Nationalist drives, that they themselves utterly failed in addressing the problem like adults.

To me, "shall" meant it was all or nothing. Liberals on the court raised similar concerns regarding several states having several opinions. Nothing states a person can't run, only not serve (which yes, that seems problematic), but this was never going to happen.

As one late night wit observed, the Supreme Court is the only place Trump has ever won a popular vote.

Hey, it is nice that Trump can win in court every once in a long while.