American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

Trump's reaction to the news:



Darrell

[Mjmd]

I have to admit to not looking up his reaction. Its painful to listen to him.

Instead of the courts it should have been Republican leadership that came out against him a long time ago like what happened with Nixon. Many regular Republican voters believed Nixon for a long time. Something to think about greenline. The weird thing this time is much of it has always been in the open, but most elected Republicans are just scared of getting primaried.

Honestly I can hope the balance of power saves us, but I have little hope in our current supreme court. It's weird to me the argument isnt that he didnt do it but rather if the 14th amendment actually covers..... to me the spirit of the law here is pretty clear, but technically wording is always fun in court.

[Cyneheard]

I have to admit to not looking up his reaction. Its painful to listen to him.

Instead of the courts it should have been Republican leadership that came out against him a long time ago like what happened with Nixon. Many regular Republican voters believed Nixon for a long time. Something to think about greenline. The weird thing this time is much of it has always been in the open, but most elected Republicans are just scared of getting primaried.

Honestly I can hope the balance of power saves us, but I have little hope in our current supreme court. It's weird to me the argument isnt that he didnt do it but rather if the 14th amendment actually covers..... to me the spirit of the law here is pretty clear, but technically wording is always fun in court.

Option 1) Argue that Colorado's process was deficient, avoid the bigger issue. This is a dumb idea, it just means SCOTUS deals with it again in a couple months when another state finds him ineligible.

Option 2) The "Office of President of the United States" is not an "officer" as defined in Amendment 14, Section 3. This is a terrible argument and it's very clearly dismantled in the Colorado Supreme Court cases. Very unlikely the Court uses this as their out.

Option 3) "Who decides that Trump Did An Insurrection?" - basically, that only a criminal conviction provides enough due process. I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the law - for one thing, hardly no Confederates were charged with crimes after the Civil War. But this could be a ruling that would be treated as relatively legitimate. I think this is what they'll do. 

Option 3B) "This is a political question that the courts can't handle" is similar...except that A) it probably leaves the door open for a Secretary of State to say he's ineligible, which has the same problem as #1, and B) saying "the courts can't enforce the Constitution" is pretty ridiculous too.

Option 4) One of the Trump appointees decides Trump is now more trouble than he's worth, so let's get rid of him while the GOP can still nominate a new candidate. If they affirm the Colorado judgment, he's basically off every state's ballot. If Gorsuch or Barrett or Kavanaugh wanted to do this, Roberts and Jackson/Kagan/Sotomayor would agree too. It would instantly end any willingness of the Democratic Party to reign in the Supreme Court. I don't think this will happen, but it's not impossible - the Court has not tried to help Trump with his legal issues.

Trump lost the 2020 election and then tried to steal it, putting the VP and Congress at risk. One of the consequences of doing that being "you're not being allowed to run for election again" is a perfectly legitimate response. And the 14th Amendment put this in so someone who betrays their oath to the United States of America can't regain power.

[darrelljs]

When Trump's second impeachment ended in acquittal, any chance to apply the 14th amendment in a bipartisan matter died. I'm deeply uncomfortable with some random judges in Colorado taking away the right of voters there to choose the candidate they clearly want. It's horribly undemocratic, on par with efforts by Republicans to decertify results in Pennsylvania.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

I mean we all know it will get appealed to supreme court, which is majority conservative. I have hope for #4 above or just actually applying the law (not holding high hopes for Supreme Court to do this mind).

I also wish Republicans had had the courage, but those that did got pressured or primaried out..... Part of our democracy though is the balance of powers to keep any party or individual from having too much power, so maybe the Supreme Court will actually hold up their end.

[greenline]

The spirit of the law of the 14th amendment is that it was written shortly after a five year civil war with hundreds of thousands of casualties that impoverished half the country for close to a century. Even then, it was never actually applied to any Confederates. To take that law and then apply it to Trump is to obviously completely disregard the spirit of the law, considering that Trump has attempted no violent insurrection to this date.

[Mjmd]

The 14th Amendment does not state violent, lethal or similar (although some would argue Jan 6th fulfills that anyways). There were confederates barred under it and many other requested amnesty to remove their section 3 disqualification and never even tried running. It seems absurdly illogical that someone who tried to overturn a democratic election in our country should be allowed to run. The civil war is in essence part of the country saying "we don't agree to live under the results of an election". Just as a reminder for why transfer of power is a key pillar of democracy and the dangerous road Trump has started this country down.

[Cyneheard]

When Trump's second impeachment ended in acquittal, any chance to apply the 14th amendment in a bipartisan matter died.  I'm deeply uncomfortable with some random judges in Colorado taking away the right of voters there to choose the candidate they clearly want.  It's horribly undemocratic, on par with efforts by Republicans to decertify results in Pennsylvania.

Darrell

A Colorado judge has ruled that Trump did an insurrection, yes, but it's the Supreme Court's decision to let that stand or not. Either the Constitution means something, or it doesn't. We already restrict voters' choices - Schwarzenegger and Musk can't run for President, and neither can Obama. And "you tried to overturn the lawful government of the United States, you've forfeited your right to run for a position in the lawful government of the United States" is perfectly reasonable.

And greenline, you're wrong - the 14th Amendment disqualification clause was used. Congress eventually chose to grant an amnesty, which is allowed under the 14th Amendment.

Mjmd, I'd say there's like a 10% chance that SCOTUS goes with Option 4. If they go with Option 3, "conviction or bust", then I think it'll be at least 6 votes in Trump's favor; I could see some/all of the Dem appointees going along with that line, and Roberts isn't going to be the 4th vote to remove Trump from the ballot unless he knows there's a fifth. It could also be a very complex opinion, with dissents and concurrences all over the place.

[greenline]

You are right, I was incorrect in thinking the 14th amendment was not used. That it was only used once for a non Civil War related offence, and that this case was overturned, still makes it seem a major overreach. The spirit of the law refers to insurrections, and this would rely on the reader having the intelligence to realize that insurrection carries an indisputably violent connotation. Following only the letter of the law would make it easy to view any slight as an insurrection.

[Mjmd]

So most definitions I'm seeing the note is USUALLY by violence (again Jan 6th makes it qualify anyways). The march on Rome is considered an insurrection example that would correlate well. I also think your note about the spirit of the law is important. There is 0 way the spirit of the law doesn't apply here. There isn't a chance in hell that if you let the writers know that they wouldn't be more clear. The fact you are quibling on definitions attests that you know what the spirit of the amendment is.

I do want you to step back to 2016. Lets pretend the Democrats did EVERYTHING that republicans did in 2020. The major difference being that Obama was directing, but on behalf and with support of Clinton (IE she didn't do AS much as Trump did in real timeline, but is still heavily involved). Other being is they actually won the popular vote. Now imagine the headlines you would see. Think about the coverage of Hunter Biden and multiply it by about 100. Clinton runs in 2020, would you think she should be disqualified? I hope and pray I would still think so. Would Democrats think so? This is part of my fear. Given your rhetoric and its similarity to many right wing talking points verbatim, I suspect if you answer yourself honestly, you would think she should be disqualified in this scenario.