One quibble: From my reading it sounds like Colorado wouldn’t count write-ins for him if he’s ruled ineligible. The write-ins may come into play if the Colorado ruling stands long enough that the ballots are prepared and then SCOTUS reinstates him.
I think chances are really low that he will be granted immunity. There’s a greater likelihood that he’ll be back on the ballot, but I think that could go either way.
I do think a victory in either case would help his campaign. Personally, I think he should be banned (should have been banned through impeachment). I think Biden would win again, but I believe that Trump should be held accountable and that he and MAGA are too dangerous to trifle with. He really shouldn’t be allowed to compete, and I hope SCOTUS will agree. The Court doesn’t seem to have much patience for his shenanigans.
One nor thing: the rule of law is more important (to SCOTUS and to the nation) than stopping Trump “at any cost.” We can break our own legal system and stop Trump, but then what happens? If immunity is in the cards it’s because the law was not applied correctly. We can’t go in with the assumption that the DOJ is perfect and Trump’s lawyers are always wrong. Even if it looks that way.
That's an interesting one: Presidential immunity doesn't exist within the Constitution nor any statutes. SCOTUS has provided civil liability for POTUS for actions in office, but not for criminal - yet.
They also have stated that actions pre-presidency are still subject to civil liability: it seems like a good possibility that criminal activity will also be unprotected, at least as it pertains to actions not related to being president.
That's not completely accurate. Article II, Section 4 says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This means that the President and Vice President (because they can't be fired like other civil Officers) have immunity from prosecution for lesser crimes while in office. The question is whether the immunity extends beyond their service term for crimes committed in office for which they were impeached and acquitted. This would potentially be double-jeopardy, which is exactly what Trump's lawyers are claiming.
Prosecution and removal from office are two separate things. Impeachment is a political action: prosecution a legal one. As Trump has not previously been tried on a court of law for X crime, he does not face double jeopardy.
The DOJ has a memo regarding prosecution of a president based on political considerations: it is binding for the DOJ, but arguably is not itself based on the Constitution.
I don't believe a president, in office, has ever been the subject of prosecution. There have been civil suits but even these have been subject to many restrictions. The question of whether an impeachment trial is a prosecution is a thorny one, and I don't have a lot of knowledge about it.
There's a couple stories that may or may not be true, but at minimum I think we can agree that Trump stands out as being quite unique amongst other presidents.
His presidency has shown the weak spots in our system, and - provided things work out well - we can make changes to strengthen the system against another wannabe autocrat.
The simplest solution was for the Senate to convict in 2021. They chose cheap politics over the mechanism in place to deal with this. The courts are ill-equipped to grapple with what should be a very simple disqualification issue.
I think the point that the dissents were about the state laws at hand and not about whether Trump was involved in an insurrection is likely to be the important point for SCOTUS, at least assuming the 10th amendment applies to the SCOCO decision.
I don't make any bones about it; i dislike trump more than any other human being on this planet. He is that despicable a human being to me. That said, i was delighted when the lower court in Colorado refused to act. I was truly disappointed when the Supreme Court found him ineligible to be on the ballot.
I've read many of the arguments why they should have ruled that way, and almost as many as why they shouldn't have. I get why everyone is so conflicted, i just see this as you do Steve; it's one more thing to add to trump's arsenal of grievances. As a footnote; has there ever been a human being given so much yet have so little gratitude towards life?
But alas, i drift. The Colorado decision will be meaningless as we march towards the 2024 election. Well, almost. It will be fuel on the fire to stoke the crazies that are rabid. You know...the ones threatening to kill those who dare try and hold trump accountable for his actions.
That's the real conundrum isn't it: Does he, should he be held accountable? Should he be tried for his actions (which were reprehensible if not illegal) or should he just be allowed to plod along like the goof he is? His life's work has been shameful too many times (IMHO).
And, let me be very clear: He's not a wanna-be dictator...he's a con man. He's not a wanna-be strongman...he's con man. He's not the next Mussolini or Putin...he's a con man. He's not a great business man...he's a con man. While it's clear how i feel, i will give him this....he is sheer genius at marketing and branding the trump name. Sadly, that too has worked to his advantage because in the end, much of what he built was all part and parcel of selling the brand to the rubes buying it.
2024 is going to be butt ugly...BUTT UGLY. Sadly, when he loses yet again, it will get worse as he whines for 4 more years how it was stolen from him. I guess the good news for him is he can keep on bleeding the suckers of their hard earned money.
Rule one of surviving autocrats: believe the autocrats.
That aside: at some point the question raised the the 14th amendment needs be answered. We haven't had a discussion about it in the 150+ years it's been in place because we haven't had to. Now we do.
One quibble: From my reading it sounds like Colorado wouldn’t count write-ins for him if he’s ruled ineligible. The write-ins may come into play if the Colorado ruling stands long enough that the ballots are prepared and then SCOTUS reinstates him.
I think chances are really low that he will be granted immunity. There’s a greater likelihood that he’ll be back on the ballot, but I think that could go either way.
I do think a victory in either case would help his campaign. Personally, I think he should be banned (should have been banned through impeachment). I think Biden would win again, but I believe that Trump should be held accountable and that he and MAGA are too dangerous to trifle with. He really shouldn’t be allowed to compete, and I hope SCOTUS will agree. The Court doesn’t seem to have much patience for his shenanigans.
One nor thing: the rule of law is more important (to SCOTUS and to the nation) than stopping Trump “at any cost.” We can break our own legal system and stop Trump, but then what happens? If immunity is in the cards it’s because the law was not applied correctly. We can’t go in with the assumption that the DOJ is perfect and Trump’s lawyers are always wrong. Even if it looks that way.
That's an interesting one: Presidential immunity doesn't exist within the Constitution nor any statutes. SCOTUS has provided civil liability for POTUS for actions in office, but not for criminal - yet.
They also have stated that actions pre-presidency are still subject to civil liability: it seems like a good possibility that criminal activity will also be unprotected, at least as it pertains to actions not related to being president.
That's not completely accurate. Article II, Section 4 says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This means that the President and Vice President (because they can't be fired like other civil Officers) have immunity from prosecution for lesser crimes while in office. The question is whether the immunity extends beyond their service term for crimes committed in office for which they were impeached and acquitted. This would potentially be double-jeopardy, which is exactly what Trump's lawyers are claiming.
Prosecution and removal from office are two separate things. Impeachment is a political action: prosecution a legal one. As Trump has not previously been tried on a court of law for X crime, he does not face double jeopardy.
The DOJ has a memo regarding prosecution of a president based on political considerations: it is binding for the DOJ, but arguably is not itself based on the Constitution.
I don't believe a president, in office, has ever been the subject of prosecution. There have been civil suits but even these have been subject to many restrictions. The question of whether an impeachment trial is a prosecution is a thorny one, and I don't have a lot of knowledge about it.
There's a couple stories that may or may not be true, but at minimum I think we can agree that Trump stands out as being quite unique amongst other presidents.
His presidency has shown the weak spots in our system, and - provided things work out well - we can make changes to strengthen the system against another wannabe autocrat.
The simplest solution was for the Senate to convict in 2021. They chose cheap politics over the mechanism in place to deal with this. The courts are ill-equipped to grapple with what should be a very simple disqualification issue.
When an impeachment conviction happens for anything short of treason or murder, the USA will be either a one-party nation or a five-party nation.
I think the point that the dissents were about the state laws at hand and not about whether Trump was involved in an insurrection is likely to be the important point for SCOTUS, at least assuming the 10th amendment applies to the SCOCO decision.
I don't make any bones about it; i dislike trump more than any other human being on this planet. He is that despicable a human being to me. That said, i was delighted when the lower court in Colorado refused to act. I was truly disappointed when the Supreme Court found him ineligible to be on the ballot.
I've read many of the arguments why they should have ruled that way, and almost as many as why they shouldn't have. I get why everyone is so conflicted, i just see this as you do Steve; it's one more thing to add to trump's arsenal of grievances. As a footnote; has there ever been a human being given so much yet have so little gratitude towards life?
But alas, i drift. The Colorado decision will be meaningless as we march towards the 2024 election. Well, almost. It will be fuel on the fire to stoke the crazies that are rabid. You know...the ones threatening to kill those who dare try and hold trump accountable for his actions.
That's the real conundrum isn't it: Does he, should he be held accountable? Should he be tried for his actions (which were reprehensible if not illegal) or should he just be allowed to plod along like the goof he is? His life's work has been shameful too many times (IMHO).
And, let me be very clear: He's not a wanna-be dictator...he's a con man. He's not a wanna-be strongman...he's con man. He's not the next Mussolini or Putin...he's a con man. He's not a great business man...he's a con man. While it's clear how i feel, i will give him this....he is sheer genius at marketing and branding the trump name. Sadly, that too has worked to his advantage because in the end, much of what he built was all part and parcel of selling the brand to the rubes buying it.
2024 is going to be butt ugly...BUTT UGLY. Sadly, when he loses yet again, it will get worse as he whines for 4 more years how it was stolen from him. I guess the good news for him is he can keep on bleeding the suckers of their hard earned money.
Rule one of surviving autocrats: believe the autocrats.
That aside: at some point the question raised the the 14th amendment needs be answered. We haven't had a discussion about it in the 150+ years it's been in place because we haven't had to. Now we do.
Come on SGman, it's already been decided. The Newt told us that amendment only applied for the civil war. Silly us for not being as smart as he is.