"The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.
Most notable were the questions from Justice Jackson who seemed to push the idea that the president may not have been intended to be one of those covered by the provision."
https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley
Time is a flat circle....
"The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.
Most notable were the questions from Justice Jackson who seemed to push the idea that the president may not have been intended to be one of those covered by the provision."
Quote Originally Posted by kcblitzkrieg: Justice Gorsuch: "How does that work given that Section 3 speaks about holding office, not who may run for office?" That was Colorado's entire argument for keeping Trump off the ballot. Bye. This happened during the transition though, the underlying reasoning for the decision Colorado made. So it seems that the comment that biased justice made is not understanding the proper perspective. He was still in office/seeking to stay in office when the actions which took place facilitated the need in that states view about Trump. Plus dont you find it a bit hypocritical if this group of goofy states rights advocates who made some MASSIVE decisions based on giving states rights on a FEDERAL ISSUE (abortion) would not do the same in this situation? If the SCOTUS has a narrative about states rights vs federal then that would for sure apply here. It isnt like Colorado is saying that Trump is completely out, just for their state and their decision. I would wager that this biased judge pool will do what Trump wants, it would be a shocker to see otherwise.
At issue is a state challenging a Constitutional amendment. RoeVWade was a SCOTUS decision.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Quote Originally Posted by kcblitzkrieg: Justice Gorsuch: "How does that work given that Section 3 speaks about holding office, not who may run for office?" That was Colorado's entire argument for keeping Trump off the ballot. Bye. This happened during the transition though, the underlying reasoning for the decision Colorado made. So it seems that the comment that biased justice made is not understanding the proper perspective. He was still in office/seeking to stay in office when the actions which took place facilitated the need in that states view about Trump. Plus dont you find it a bit hypocritical if this group of goofy states rights advocates who made some MASSIVE decisions based on giving states rights on a FEDERAL ISSUE (abortion) would not do the same in this situation? If the SCOTUS has a narrative about states rights vs federal then that would for sure apply here. It isnt like Colorado is saying that Trump is completely out, just for their state and their decision. I would wager that this biased judge pool will do what Trump wants, it would be a shocker to see otherwise.
At issue is a state challenging a Constitutional amendment. RoeVWade was a SCOTUS decision.
That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario.
You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same.
In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
@THEMUGG
That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario.
You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same.
In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
@THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
That is the perspective from the DNC side. Colorado tried to make the wording "fit" to their agenda. If that were to happen, then what would stop other states from eliminating dem candidates from their ballots in the future?
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
That is the perspective from the DNC side. Colorado tried to make the wording "fit" to their agenda. If that were to happen, then what would stop other states from eliminating dem candidates from their ballots in the future?
In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
No, you don't have to ride that same horse. These items are exclusive of each other. Just because the Court rules one direction with regards to State rights doesn't mean, based on a separate set of circumstances and separate language of the law, they will do the same.
Time is a flat circle....
@wallstreetcappers
In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
No, you don't have to ride that same horse. These items are exclusive of each other. Just because the Court rules one direction with regards to State rights doesn't mean, based on a separate set of circumstances and separate language of the law, they will do the same.
I agree with what you just proposed. If the definition is met then it applies for any candidate, but the supreme court took away rights of women on a federal level based on giving states the ability to decide, this fits the same scenario. They made an analysis based on existing legal wording, it was not new or unknown. So yes I agree with you if a candidate meets the framework then for sure the state can make the decision. I think the decision will go in the wrong direction and that does not make sense given the decision to reverse abortion rights.
@THEMUGG
I agree with what you just proposed. If the definition is met then it applies for any candidate, but the supreme court took away rights of women on a federal level based on giving states the ability to decide, this fits the same scenario. They made an analysis based on existing legal wording, it was not new or unknown. So yes I agree with you if a candidate meets the framework then for sure the state can make the decision. I think the decision will go in the wrong direction and that does not make sense given the decision to reverse abortion rights.
they used that rationale to reverse an existing ruling and that is the reasoning for the reversal. The framework is existing, Colorado felt Trump met the framework and they decided. Its completely the same in my book.
The damage this will do is it paves the road for actions a politician makes and minimizes the purpose for the existing verbage. To me they wont want to take a big position on a big topic even though womens rights on abortion are much more important than if a politician meets an existing legal definition. It also means that if he were convicted for this exact issue, the supreme court strikes down the penalty for the actions the politician took.
@kcblitzkrieg
they used that rationale to reverse an existing ruling and that is the reasoning for the reversal. The framework is existing, Colorado felt Trump met the framework and they decided. Its completely the same in my book.
The damage this will do is it paves the road for actions a politician makes and minimizes the purpose for the existing verbage. To me they wont want to take a big position on a big topic even though womens rights on abortion are much more important than if a politician meets an existing legal definition. It also means that if he were convicted for this exact issue, the supreme court strikes down the penalty for the actions the politician took.
You are getting too tied up on the State's rights issue. I don't disagree with your premise on the application at face value but there is more to it as it is a not a simple apples to apples comparison.
The court has even knocked this down a legal peg or two as well, simply stating that Trump would need to be first "convicted" of inciting insurrection. He hasn't even been charged with this (obviously).
Time is a flat circle....
@wallstreetcappers
You are getting too tied up on the State's rights issue. I don't disagree with your premise on the application at face value but there is more to it as it is a not a simple apples to apples comparison.
The court has even knocked this down a legal peg or two as well, simply stating that Trump would need to be first "convicted" of inciting insurrection. He hasn't even been charged with this (obviously).
@THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
@wallstreetcappers
EXCELLENT point! And I agree! The states either have the right to decide or they don't. Conservative arguments in the past have always been to keep the states' right to decide for themselves, like covid, gun laws, education, etc., etc., for only a few of many, MANY examples.
BUT......though morally wrong in their application, the supreme court will overrule the states.
Personally, I hold that there is a valid case to be made that while trump is guilty of insurrection and can be kept off the ballot in states that have those laws, the fact is that should only hold true *IF AND ONLY IF* the guilty person is ruled guilty after a full trial in a court of law FIRST! IOW, innocent until PROVEN guilty -- and then ban his fascist, insurrectionist, ass!!
But his guilt must be ruled in a court of law first!
And to my knowledge, no state has has held a trial specifically to determine trump's guilt and then ruled his ass guilty in a court of law ........... YET. If that would be the supreme court argument, I would side with SCOTUS. Anything other than that specific reasoning would be morally wrong, IMO.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
@wallstreetcappers
EXCELLENT point! And I agree! The states either have the right to decide or they don't. Conservative arguments in the past have always been to keep the states' right to decide for themselves, like covid, gun laws, education, etc., etc., for only a few of many, MANY examples.
BUT......though morally wrong in their application, the supreme court will overrule the states.
Personally, I hold that there is a valid case to be made that while trump is guilty of insurrection and can be kept off the ballot in states that have those laws, the fact is that should only hold true *IF AND ONLY IF* the guilty person is ruled guilty after a full trial in a court of law FIRST! IOW, innocent until PROVEN guilty -- and then ban his fascist, insurrectionist, ass!!
But his guilt must be ruled in a court of law first!
And to my knowledge, no state has has held a trial specifically to determine trump's guilt and then ruled his ass guilty in a court of law ........... YET. If that would be the supreme court argument, I would side with SCOTUS. Anything other than that specific reasoning would be morally wrong, IMO.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot. @wallstreetcappers EXCELLENT point! And I agree! The states either have the right to decide or they don't. Conservative arguments in the past have always been to keep the states' right to decide for themselves, like covid, gun laws, education, etc., etc., for only a few of many, MANY examples. BUT......though morally wrong in their application, the supreme court will overrule the states. Personally, I hold that there is a valid case to be made that while trump is guilty of insurrection and can be kept off the ballot in states that have those laws, the fact is that should only hold true *IF AND ONLY IF* the guilty person is ruled guilty after a full trial in a court of law FIRST! IOW, innocent until PROVEN guilty -- and then ban his fascist, insurrectionist, ass!! But his guilt must be ruled in a court of law first! And to my knowledge, no state has has held a trial specifically to determine trump's guilt and then ruled his ass guilty in a court of law ........... YET. If that would be the supreme court argument, I would side with SCOTUS. Anything other than that specific reasoning would be morally wrong, IMO.
Now all that said, as I have stated this before multiple times, I *WANT* the fascist, racist, anti-abortion, anti-bipartisan border reform, sex-offender on the ballot this fall! Provided the court cases against him are allowed to proceed AND CONCLUDE prior to election day (appeals notwithstanding) then this election will be an even easier win for Democrats than last time, and I would revel in the inevitable beatdown that fascist/racist asshole would suffer......... If his lawyers are able to successfully use tricks to delay the outcome of the serious federal court cases until AFTER the election, then the fascist/racist/sex-offender stands a 50-50 shot of being re-elected simply because of the sheer volume of idiots there are in this country.
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2:
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: @THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot. @wallstreetcappers EXCELLENT point! And I agree! The states either have the right to decide or they don't. Conservative arguments in the past have always been to keep the states' right to decide for themselves, like covid, gun laws, education, etc., etc., for only a few of many, MANY examples. BUT......though morally wrong in their application, the supreme court will overrule the states. Personally, I hold that there is a valid case to be made that while trump is guilty of insurrection and can be kept off the ballot in states that have those laws, the fact is that should only hold true *IF AND ONLY IF* the guilty person is ruled guilty after a full trial in a court of law FIRST! IOW, innocent until PROVEN guilty -- and then ban his fascist, insurrectionist, ass!! But his guilt must be ruled in a court of law first! And to my knowledge, no state has has held a trial specifically to determine trump's guilt and then ruled his ass guilty in a court of law ........... YET. If that would be the supreme court argument, I would side with SCOTUS. Anything other than that specific reasoning would be morally wrong, IMO.
Now all that said, as I have stated this before multiple times, I *WANT* the fascist, racist, anti-abortion, anti-bipartisan border reform, sex-offender on the ballot this fall! Provided the court cases against him are allowed to proceed AND CONCLUDE prior to election day (appeals notwithstanding) then this election will be an even easier win for Democrats than last time, and I would revel in the inevitable beatdown that fascist/racist asshole would suffer......... If his lawyers are able to successfully use tricks to delay the outcome of the serious federal court cases until AFTER the election, then the fascist/racist/sex-offender stands a 50-50 shot of being re-elected simply because of the sheer volume of idiots there are in this country.
States should not have the right to keep anyone off a Federal election ballot as this would be, by pure definition, not States that are United....
This is why allowing States to control voting is absurd for Presidency...Why it is not changed to just voting for Presidency and instead commingled with State and Local objectives is beyond me...they should be held separate from one another and Feds should control voting for Presidency and each State can run their local voting however they want...this separates the two and puts the control in its proper place...
Do this immediately and a lot shifts...
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
States should not have the right to keep anyone off a Federal election ballot as this would be, by pure definition, not States that are United....
This is why allowing States to control voting is absurd for Presidency...Why it is not changed to just voting for Presidency and instead commingled with State and Local objectives is beyond me...they should be held separate from one another and Feds should control voting for Presidency and each State can run their local voting however they want...this separates the two and puts the control in its proper place...
I dont recall that the language of law that they decided had application stated that someone had to be CONVICTED of that offense. If that were true then Colorado would not have decided he met the framework.
@fubah2
I dont recall that the language of law that they decided had application stated that someone had to be CONVICTED of that offense. If that were true then Colorado would not have decided he met the framework.
@fubah2 I dont recall that the lanuage of law that they decided had application stated that someone had to be CONVICTED of that offense. If that were true then Colorado would not have decided he met the framework.
You are correct. Not specific.
But I am saying that I would not side with any argument where a state merely "says" a guy is guilty of inurrection, as opposed to holding a legal trial and finding him guilty in a court of law first. Do that first (morally) then I support it. Otherwise, no. I don't want loose ends, where people can feel justified in saying (later) than trump was NOT PROVEN GUILTY first..... I want the moral high ground.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@fubah2 I dont recall that the lanuage of law that they decided had application stated that someone had to be CONVICTED of that offense. If that were true then Colorado would not have decided he met the framework.
You are correct. Not specific.
But I am saying that I would not side with any argument where a state merely "says" a guy is guilty of inurrection, as opposed to holding a legal trial and finding him guilty in a court of law first. Do that first (morally) then I support it. Otherwise, no. I don't want loose ends, where people can feel justified in saying (later) than trump was NOT PROVEN GUILTY first..... I want the moral high ground.
Fortunately states DO have the right to keep convicted felons off the ballot and even to remove their voting priviledges.
But those laws (which exist in most states) still require that someone be convicted in a court of law after a jury of his peers so rule. THAT is the moral high ground to remove ANYONE from the ballot.
That said, trump is a low-life, scum-sucking fascist/racist/sex-offender INSURRECTIONIST!
....and I still want his insurrectionist ass on all the ballots!
Fortunately states DO have the right to keep convicted felons off the ballot and even to remove their voting priviledges.
But those laws (which exist in most states) still require that someone be convicted in a court of law after a jury of his peers so rule. THAT is the moral high ground to remove ANYONE from the ballot.
That said, trump is a low-life, scum-sucking fascist/racist/sex-offender INSURRECTIONIST!
....and I still want his insurrectionist ass on all the ballots!
You are correct. Not specific. But I am saying that I would not side with any argument where a state merely "says" a guy is guilty of insurrection, as opposed to holding a legal trial and finding him guilty in a court of law first. Do that first (morally) then I support it. Otherwise, no.
@wallstreetcappers
Foops hit this one right on the head here.... after all these years, nice job here Foops.
Wally, how can a court rule "guilty" of insurrection when there has been no trial to judge guilt or innocence ?? The court is now saying "guilty" = "conviction". Without the conviction the court cannot rule guilt. Pretty straight forward.
Time is a flat circle....
@fubah2
You are correct. Not specific. But I am saying that I would not side with any argument where a state merely "says" a guy is guilty of insurrection, as opposed to holding a legal trial and finding him guilty in a court of law first. Do that first (morally) then I support it. Otherwise, no.
@wallstreetcappers
Foops hit this one right on the head here.... after all these years, nice job here Foops.
Wally, how can a court rule "guilty" of insurrection when there has been no trial to judge guilt or innocence ?? The court is now saying "guilty" = "conviction". Without the conviction the court cannot rule guilt. Pretty straight forward.
@kcblitzkrieg they used that rationale to reverse an existing ruling and that is the reasoning for the reversal. The framework is existing, Colorado felt Trump met the framework and they decided. Its completely the same in my book. The damage this will do is it paves the road for actions a politician makes and minimizes the purpose for the existing verbage. To me they wont want to take a big position on a big topic even though womens rights on abortion are much more important than if a politician meets an existing legal definition. It also means that if he were convicted for this exact issue, the supreme court strikes down the penalty for the actions the politician took.
have to agree there !
"I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@kcblitzkrieg they used that rationale to reverse an existing ruling and that is the reasoning for the reversal. The framework is existing, Colorado felt Trump met the framework and they decided. Its completely the same in my book. The damage this will do is it paves the road for actions a politician makes and minimizes the purpose for the existing verbage. To me they wont want to take a big position on a big topic even though womens rights on abortion are much more important than if a politician meets an existing legal definition. It also means that if he were convicted for this exact issue, the supreme court strikes down the penalty for the actions the politician took.
@THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
key point
"I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@THEMUGG That is the perspective from the GOP side, my comment was based on what precipitated Colorado to do this in the first place, also the abortion issue was already decided BY the supreme court, they revisited the issue and reversed their previous decision based on that faulty states rights position. If the viewpoint of the judges is that states rights matter most (which is what they were strongly saying regarding abortion) then this falls squarely in that same scenario. You cant say that he was not in the role when the underlying issue happened because he was, that is not an argument the justice should entertain, that is false. If states can control abortion rights and have the states decide alone, then the same applies here. Colorado decided based on the existing wording that it applied, so if you are going to strike down womens rights on a federal level then the same goes for this and many scenarios which they rule on. I can completely see why Colorado made that decision, it was not based on non-existing legal grounds, and since the state has control over a state ballot then this applies the same. In truth my position is that the supreme court STRONGLY screwed up with abortion and since they took that awful stance then this is the price of that decision, you rode that horse to strike down abortion and you have to ride that horse to give states the right to decide based on existing legal framework if a candidate does not qualify to be on their ballot.
That isnt the legal measure in this case, there is zero reference to a trial or conviction. You cant take legal liberties and be subjective sometimes and not apply the same all the time. They reversed a ruling based on a concept that states should make the decision when before the same body ruled otherwise, so this current set of justices reversed the ruling of other legally appointed justices and the reasoning they used was that states can decide. States can decide basic choice that they previously agreed was a federal issue, that is much more serious than to toothpick the verbage and decide that an existing framework does NOT apply in this case. It is on the books now as it is written and Colorado felt the definition was mat...so now they are going to reverse yet another decision made by previous justices/legal reps and not uphold what they just recently held as a more important concept...that the rights of a woman which existed on a federal level are no longer valid, that the state can revoke what was legally approved. This is no different and in fact as I stated several times, the abortion screw up is much more severe and consequential than this is.
We are in this position because of the actions/inactions of Trump, to me it meets the definition and unless the justices want to AMMEND what is currently standing, they have to uphold it...but right as in the case of abortion federal rights they can flush legal frameworks and be inconsistent when it serves a partisan purpose.
@kcblitzkrieg
That isnt the legal measure in this case, there is zero reference to a trial or conviction. You cant take legal liberties and be subjective sometimes and not apply the same all the time. They reversed a ruling based on a concept that states should make the decision when before the same body ruled otherwise, so this current set of justices reversed the ruling of other legally appointed justices and the reasoning they used was that states can decide. States can decide basic choice that they previously agreed was a federal issue, that is much more serious than to toothpick the verbage and decide that an existing framework does NOT apply in this case. It is on the books now as it is written and Colorado felt the definition was mat...so now they are going to reverse yet another decision made by previous justices/legal reps and not uphold what they just recently held as a more important concept...that the rights of a woman which existed on a federal level are no longer valid, that the state can revoke what was legally approved. This is no different and in fact as I stated several times, the abortion screw up is much more severe and consequential than this is.
We are in this position because of the actions/inactions of Trump, to me it meets the definition and unless the justices want to AMMEND what is currently standing, they have to uphold it...but right as in the case of abortion federal rights they can flush legal frameworks and be inconsistent when it serves a partisan purpose.
I think we are getting mixed up in what Courts we are both referencing. I am not referring to the Colorado ruling. I am only talking about the SCOTUS hearing today and what the Justices are saying. You are also stating legal theory and personal opinion. Law in many cases is an interpretation. There are levels of court system in this country that allow for different interpretation. I'm not arguing who is wrong or right. Just that this is a simple fact of our legal system.
You have stated your assertion that this SCOTUS is bias and will not make, in your opinion, the "right" decision due to partisan reasons. What will you say if this decision comes back 9-0 or 8-1 ??
Time is a flat circle....
@wallstreetcappers
I think we are getting mixed up in what Courts we are both referencing. I am not referring to the Colorado ruling. I am only talking about the SCOTUS hearing today and what the Justices are saying. You are also stating legal theory and personal opinion. Law in many cases is an interpretation. There are levels of court system in this country that allow for different interpretation. I'm not arguing who is wrong or right. Just that this is a simple fact of our legal system.
You have stated your assertion that this SCOTUS is bias and will not make, in your opinion, the "right" decision due to partisan reasons. What will you say if this decision comes back 9-0 or 8-1 ??
I will not be shocked but it is hypocritical, the core foundation of what Colorado is seeking is that a state can decide what is best GIVEN that the threshold was met, per the STATE. The current existing framework as it is written now was used for their decision, the decision of the STATE. It does not say anywhere that there needs to be a trial or a conviction, just the act and Colorado felt that the standard of law was met per what exists right now. The justices decided to use states rights with regards to abortion rules, that the states can decide what was previously existing from a federal level. This to me is upholding that same standard, that per what is written that the act met the standard per the STATE, that THEY can decide if the candidate should be on THEIR ballot. To me it is exactly the same legal flow, no requirement of a case or conviction and it DID occurr when he was in office/contending the election. So I say if the states can decide the rights of a female and the federal rules were overturned, the states can decide if a candidate can be on their ballot, PER the existing framework that exists.
To me the bigger issue is the way these justices navigate law and decide when it should be scrapped and when it should be adapted and when it should be upheld. If they want to give states rights, this is an example of doing exactly that. They wont and the vote count does not mean anything to me, they are going to do what they feel best serves their objectives and they do not care the impact...same thing with abortion they had an objective and they did not care about reversing an existing ruling and the impact it has and will continue to have on womens rights.
@kcblitzkrieg
I will not be shocked but it is hypocritical, the core foundation of what Colorado is seeking is that a state can decide what is best GIVEN that the threshold was met, per the STATE. The current existing framework as it is written now was used for their decision, the decision of the STATE. It does not say anywhere that there needs to be a trial or a conviction, just the act and Colorado felt that the standard of law was met per what exists right now. The justices decided to use states rights with regards to abortion rules, that the states can decide what was previously existing from a federal level. This to me is upholding that same standard, that per what is written that the act met the standard per the STATE, that THEY can decide if the candidate should be on THEIR ballot. To me it is exactly the same legal flow, no requirement of a case or conviction and it DID occurr when he was in office/contending the election. So I say if the states can decide the rights of a female and the federal rules were overturned, the states can decide if a candidate can be on their ballot, PER the existing framework that exists.
To me the bigger issue is the way these justices navigate law and decide when it should be scrapped and when it should be adapted and when it should be upheld. If they want to give states rights, this is an example of doing exactly that. They wont and the vote count does not mean anything to me, they are going to do what they feel best serves their objectives and they do not care the impact...same thing with abortion they had an objective and they did not care about reversing an existing ruling and the impact it has and will continue to have on womens rights.
@kcblitzkrieg I will not be shocked but it is hypocritical, the core foundation of what Colorado is seeking is that a state can decide what is best GIVEN that the threshold was met, per the STATE. The current existing framework as it is written now was used for their decision, the decision of the STATE. It does not say anywhere that there needs to be a trial or a conviction, just the act and Colorado felt that the standard of law was met per what exists right now. The justices decided to use states rights with regards to abortion rules, that the states can decide what was previously existing from a federal level. This to me is upholding that same standard, that per what is written that the act met the standard per the STATE, that THEY can decide if the candidate should be on THEIR ballot. To me it is exactly the same legal flow, no requirement of a case or conviction and it DID occurr when he was in office/contending the election. So I say if the states can decide the rights of a female and the federal rules were overturned, the states can decide if a candidate can be on their ballot, PER the existing framework that exists. To me the bigger issue is the way these justices navigate law and decide when it should be scrapped and when it should be adapted and when it should be upheld. If they want to give states rights, this is an example of doing exactly that. They wont and the vote count does not mean anything to me, they are going to do what they feel best serves their objectives and they do not care the impact...same thing with abortion they had an objective and they did not care about reversing an existing ruling and the impact it has and will continue to have on womens rights.
Correctamundos! Immoral. And what is worse is SCOTUS have lifetime appointments and there is no further appeal from their immorality. But they are going to do it anyway....
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@kcblitzkrieg I will not be shocked but it is hypocritical, the core foundation of what Colorado is seeking is that a state can decide what is best GIVEN that the threshold was met, per the STATE. The current existing framework as it is written now was used for their decision, the decision of the STATE. It does not say anywhere that there needs to be a trial or a conviction, just the act and Colorado felt that the standard of law was met per what exists right now. The justices decided to use states rights with regards to abortion rules, that the states can decide what was previously existing from a federal level. This to me is upholding that same standard, that per what is written that the act met the standard per the STATE, that THEY can decide if the candidate should be on THEIR ballot. To me it is exactly the same legal flow, no requirement of a case or conviction and it DID occurr when he was in office/contending the election. So I say if the states can decide the rights of a female and the federal rules were overturned, the states can decide if a candidate can be on their ballot, PER the existing framework that exists. To me the bigger issue is the way these justices navigate law and decide when it should be scrapped and when it should be adapted and when it should be upheld. If they want to give states rights, this is an example of doing exactly that. They wont and the vote count does not mean anything to me, they are going to do what they feel best serves their objectives and they do not care the impact...same thing with abortion they had an objective and they did not care about reversing an existing ruling and the impact it has and will continue to have on womens rights.
Correctamundos! Immoral. And what is worse is SCOTUS have lifetime appointments and there is no further appeal from their immorality. But they are going to do it anyway....
Right and that goes for POTUS and all elected officials, there should be guidelines for any public official in how long they serve and to what age they serve.
@fubah2
Right and that goes for POTUS and all elected officials, there should be guidelines for any public official in how long they serve and to what age they serve.
@fubah2 Right and that goes for POTUS and all elected officials, there should be guidelines for any public official in how long they serve and to what age they serve.
can we have said rights for, say, moderators in a public forum?
Freedom road was a one-way street
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@fubah2 Right and that goes for POTUS and all elected officials, there should be guidelines for any public official in how long they serve and to what age they serve.
can we have said rights for, say, moderators in a public forum?
The states either have the right to decide or they don't. Conservative arguments in the past have always been to keep the states' right to decide for themselves, like covid, gun laws, education, etc., etc., for only a few of many, MANY examples.
Hot Forum Topics
