The Supreme Court rules Trump is eligible to run for office again?

[SolitarySolace]

The Supreme Court rules Trump is eligible to run for office again - www.businessinsider.com/scotus-rules-trump-eligibility-campaign-president-colorado-super-tuesday-2024-3

Good ruling

Bad ruling

[WhiteSteve]

All the court rulings in the world don’t matter. America has problems with character and critical thinking to even be taking Donald Trump seriously. This is the “new normal”, sadly. Like half the country can apparently be won over by appealing to the worst aspects of who they are, cloaking it in enough “I just want that because I love America, not because I’m ignorant/bigoted/selfish”, whatever the case may be, to give it just enough faux-legitimacy to survive in the open air.

Ban Trump all you like, some other grifter is going to pop up in his place and fill his shoes the same way with the same messaging. It’s the message these people are buying, not the man, and it horrifies me that a lot of parts of that message are seen as acceptable by my fellow humans, honestly. I don’t care about the economic stuff as much as the social positions. I just don’t know how some people say some of these things they say and look themselves in a mirror with any pride. “Why is your speech free but mine isn’t?” Because yours is inherently discriminatory in its nature, dummy, that’s the whole fucking problem. I am fucking FATIGUED by this dumbassery, SHEESH.

Sorry, anyway…as much as I’d like to see Trump disappear, I have no doubt anything disqualifying him would open an entire can of worms, and we’d see it used early and often in a retaliatory manner til the end of time if that happened.

All we can do is put the decision in the hands of our overwhelmingly dumb and/or selfish population and hope there are enough good souls out there to counter the MAGA vote. Definitely feels like the bad guys are winning sometimes, though, and that’s disheartening, just as a human, not even as an American.

[gorydetails]

Guess that settles that. They can STFU about it now.

[SolitarySolace]

Right, but I’m now concerned with what they’ll attempt next

[goaded]

The didn't decide that he didn't engage in insurrection, just that the state wasn't allowed to exclude him from a federal election for a federal position.

[gorydetails]

@goaded The fact that the FBI stated Jan 6 was not an insurrection and the fact Trump has never been charged, much less convicted of inciting an insurrection takes care of that. But, please, by all means, keep whining about it.

[goaded]

The FBI had almost no information at the time, and wasn't that still under Trump?

[gorydetails]

@goaded lmao. Sure they didn't. Keep grasping at those straws. Your loser whining about ThReAT tO DemCRaCY gets funnier every day.

[goaded]

I'd forgotten the details. What they actually said was: "FBI finds scant evidence U. S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources".

1. "Sources".
2. "Scant evidence" is not "no evidence"
3. Huge amounts of evidence have come to light since:

All the "protest" groups who asked for an area (100s of yards from the Capitol) lied about not wanting to march on the Capitol and about being associated with the Trump campaign. The march was decided on around December 20th. Trump knew the mob he was sending to the Capitol was armed and sent them anyway. Trump wanted to join them at the Capitol.

[gorydetails]

@goaded True, they do have all the evidence from their informants inciting the crowd.

[goaded]

Sad.

[gorydetails]

@goaded It is very sad that we have a major party in the US whining about fascism while illegally attempting to keep their political opponent off the ballot. I just saw one of your intellectual cohorts calling for the Supreme Court of the US to be disbanded on X. But that's par for the course. Your bunch likes to whine about fascism while trying to dismantle one of the pillars of the federal government because they disagree with you.

[goaded]

Not illegally. Like Trump in November 2020, they had a right to have their arguments heard in court. What Trump did next was the illegal part.

[gorydetails]

@goaded it's illegal now.

[goaded]

Not when it was done. Remind me, how many of Trump's lawyers are in legal trouble for their lies about the election?

[gorydetails]

@goaded Right. When it was done, it was just scummy banana republic dictator shit. Now it's illegal.

[goaded]

Nope. States' rights. Remember that?

[gorydetails]

@goaded A state doesn't have a right to remove people off the ballot. We just decided that.

[goaded]

Not even if they're 30? You'll pretend not to notice that all the state officials are accepting the ruling, and not throwing a hissy-fit.

[gorydetails]

@goaded The Colorado Secretary of State was throwing a fit on TV.

[goaded]

Really? Maybe that's because Trump engaged in insurrection. SCOTUS made no ruling that he didn't.

[gorydetails]

@goaded No, she's whining because she got bitch smacked by the SCOTUS.

[goaded]

The findings of fact were never considered. Trump's a traitor, and so are you.

[gorydetails]

@goaded lmao. You're really sad your little fasicst goals were shot down. cry harder about it, bitch boy.

[goaded]

FFS. Grow up.

[gorydetails]

@goaded As I said. The shilib meltdown is hilarious. Yours included

[WindyandWarms]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/voMW-P9bU8I

When Trump said he wanted to make America great again, the left lost their shit.

[SolitarySolace]

Probably because they don’t want America to be great they want everyone to be miserable like they are

[WindyandWarms]

Biden pushed gas prices to five bucks, When the price was lowered by 20 cents, Biden wanted you to praise him. Trump will win in November. The Democrats will vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Although I'm not sure how we can recognize the legitimacy of the 14th amendment given how it was "ratified".

It does seem like a near ruling to the extent it is limited to the application of said amendment given Section 5 of the same.

Congress has passed laws to enforce the 14th amendment section 3 clause and Trump wasn't even charged much less convicted of violating them.

that the supposed 'crime' is like stealing ones own car doesn't even pass the laugh test makes me wonder why this wasn't thrown out as it had been in nearly every other state.

[handsomelad70]

They had to because the U. S. Presidency is a federal, not State office, hence states cannot keep a Chief Executive candidate off its ballot. Don't worry, Trump will have to answer for his role in inciting the Jan.6,2021 gooberfest.

[888theGreat]

They ruled States can't take Federal candidates off their ballots. Common sense. They ruled what Constitution says. States must follow Federal Law.

[Twalli]

That wasn't the case. It was whether or not states can keep him off the ballot.

[msc545]

This is a really bad ruling that ignores an important part of the constitution.

[Jersey2]

So… the Supreme Court whose only job it is is to interpret the Constitution voted 9-0 in favor of Trump but you, who have never read the entire Constitution much less studied for years and was selected to interpret it says it “is a really bad ruling that ignores an important part of the constitution.” Wow.

[exitseven]

The court got it right. One down 3 to go

[goaded]

Did they overturn the findings of fact?

[goaded]

According to the article, they did not. AFAICS.

[goaded]

So, @monorprise How do you feel about SCOTUS handing more power to the federal government?

"So in effect the Supreme Court has pushed over to the US Congress the means by which anybody may be adjudged to have violated that article 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68470315

[monorprise]

@goaded
The problem with the 14th amendment is it was written by extremist and only ever ratified under the gun with a one way ratchet by the same extremest.

Although I don't think in an honest republic we would acknowledge the 14th amendment as part of the Constitution. I don't have a problem with the court taking a literal interpretation of Section 5 of the 14th amendment.

[goaded]

@monorprise Sucks to be on the losing side of a war.

[monorprise]

@goaded
Not so much as it sucks to be under a ever more repressive and lawless goverment. Of course its going to suck for their supporters a lot more when Knowing war is required. Any future attempt will be designed to make things as miserable for them as possible or simply kill them immedeadly.

The 11 Southern States left peacefully as they could in the 1860's just like they joined. When they and others feel its time to try it again the opposition will either be begging them to do it, or will soon be in ashes afterward.
opening the door for an endless serises of future wars as the only option

[monorprise]

@goaded
You never want to govern by mere force of arms, as you will inevitably die by the same.

Because if force is the source of your legitimacy then you will soon enough find a lot of people with more of it that you Including that of the very men you entrusted to fight for you.

[goaded]

@monorprise You're still itching to fight a 150 old war that isn't even popular in the south.

[monorprise]

@goaded I demand the freedom of the Constitution, not any war such is the duty of true patriot.

In America an American's duty is to liberty and the Constitution not any politician.

[goaded]

@monorprise Strange that someone so keen on the constitution is fine with a president trying to stay in office after he lost an election.

[monorprise]

@goaded
I didn't say I was ever fine with a president staying in office after they lose an election. I simply said that after Mar Largo raid made it clear to all future president they will face legal persecution if they choose to step down peacefully we will get presidents particularity the less than honest ones that will find reasons to refuse to step down.

That congress has foolishly maintained the largest and most powerful army in the world in their exclusive hands only makes it likely such a president would be successful if they had tried.

The best the rest of the country can do at that point is engage in a civil war against such army in a desperate attempt to stop him, that is not likely to go very well.

[goaded]

@monorprise Why do you think "all future president they will face legal persecution"?

That's like saying "If you lock up that career criminal, they could lock you up next!". That might be true for you, but it's not true for me.

Trump spent a year or more obstructing justice with regards to his illegal retention and mishandling of classified documents before the search was authorised. He was asked nicely for them back, he was subpoenaed for them back, finally, they came and took them back. He wouldn't have had a problem if he'd just given them back when asked, let alone not taken them in the first place.

Trump and his allies spent weeks planning how to stay in office when he lost re-election, they committed many crimes implementing that plan. Members of congress even asked for pardons for the crimes they knew they'd committed.

[monorprise]

@goaded Your just assuming the unprecedented Raid on Mara Largo was somehow justified by some kind of criminality that could not be resolved any other less intrusive way.

To those of us who are American and are familiar with the history of past presidents and normal procedure in such cases we know for a fact this isn't even remotely the case and how this is dealt with. There was no justification for even thinking about a raid in any case where your agents already have been given access.

To even pretend this supposed 'crime' is unusual flys in the face of not only the frequency with which this is found among public officials including Joe Biden. But the very fact that the man in question was indeed President when said documents were taken. Thus their true classification status exist only in his head, not yours.

The fact that we disregarded the presidential records act in this attack only further illustrates how there was no aspect to this choice to raid Mara largo that was legitimate.

No no, if they can do this no future president has any expectation of being allowed to step down in peace.

[goaded]

@monorprise I'm not assuming anything, it's all documented how the government tried to deal with it in less intrusive ways for 18 months. If he'd done nothing wrong he'd have had nothing to worry about.

apnews.com/.../biden-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-subpoenas-b8082283fc599738c92d1f1ec8680924

[monorprise]

@goaded
Looked thou your timeline, NARA had no business involving the FBI when they were given what they asked for and were never entitled. The FBI had no business ceasing the presidential records to which they were not at all entitled. This is particularity true in almost any case after having been given access with on going discussions for further actions among lawyers.

Both agencies abuses their power in deliberately escalating the situation with unwarranted claims.

Disputes with former presidents are not new in this country, there is precede for how to deal this which apparently this goverment had no patent for. It is most unfortunate that with it no longer being safe for former presidents to give up power peacefully its just a matter of time before one of them decides not to.

Nothing theses agencies were supposedly looking is even remotely worth the dire consequences we now face from their abuses of power in their supposed haste to get it. If it really was important they could have taken their time to dispute it properly and negotiate for it as required by he presidential records act. Leaving all future presidents with a since of security.

[goaded]

@monorprise Two lies in the first sentence!

If you become aware of a crime, you have a duty to report it, especially if it means you've come into possession of property you're not supposed to have.

They were entitled to the documents, at least the ones they were asking for. That's the whole point of the National Archives.

Trump was not entitled to them, especially not classified documents.

Seriously, you're just denying reality.

[Sasahara]

Good ruling.