Trump 14th Amendment Eligibility Cases

[Rolodex]

Sure, Dan. Go for it.

[Maybenaut]

Turnabout is fair play?

Of course tfg is a traitor though.
IMG_6849.jpeg
IMG_6850.jpeg

Who could’ve predicted that?

viewtopic.php?p=225500#p225500

[Resume18]

Seeing what happened in Colorado made me think . . .

Well there's a first for everything Lt. Dan, you jagoff.

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 367a&ei=15

CNN anchor Boris Sanchez spent over seven minutes on Tuesday trying to get a really simple answer out of the chairman of Maine’s Republican party. But even after seven attempts, he was unsuccessful.

All Sanchez wanted to know was why it was wrong for Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. (A decision he announced Tuesday that he is appealing.) When she explained how she came to her decision on December 28, Bellows cited not just the United States Constitution, but Maine’s constitution as well. And a former Republican lawmaker in the state who was proactive in requesting Trump’s removal from the ballot, Tom Saviello, defended Bellows and her decision while declaring Trump to be “not qualified.”

But Maine’s GOP chair Joel Stetkis thinks she was wrong. Sanchez wanted to know why, legally speaking, Bellows was wrong — and he asked Stetkis seven times:

[Reality Check]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 367a&ei=15

Talk about evading the question.Thanks for posting this.

[raison de arizona]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 367a&ei=15

CNN anchor Boris Sanchez spent over seven minutes on Tuesday trying to get a really simple answer out of the chairman of Maine’s Republican party. But even after seven attempts, he was unsuccessful.

All Sanchez wanted to know was why it was wrong for Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. (A decision he announced Tuesday that he is appealing.) When she explained how she came to her decision on December 28, Bellows cited not just the United States Constitution, but Maine’s constitution as well. And a former Republican lawmaker in the state who was proactive in requesting Trump’s removal from the ballot, Tom Saviello, defended Bellows and her decision while declaring Trump to be “not qualified.”

But Maine’s GOP chair Joel Stetkis thinks she was wrong. Sanchez wanted to know why, legally speaking, Bellows was wrong — and he asked Stetkis seven times:

That was some serious tap dancing in the seven questions, glad it was pointed out at the end that he never answered.

[Kendra]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/us/state ... index.html

Capitol buildings in multiple states were temporarily shut down and evacuated Wednesday because of threats.

“It was a mass email sent to several (Secretaries of State) and state offices across the country,” said Michon Lindstrom, a spokesperson for the Kentucky of Secretary of State’s office.

A copy of an emailed threat obtained by CNN showed government offices in at least 23 states listed as recipients. The sender claimed to have placed explosives inside “your state Capitol,” although no specific state was mentioned in the email. It’s not clear if other email threats were sent.

The threat affected Capitol proceedings in Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Connecticut, Michigan and Minnesota. No states have reported finding any threatening items in those buildings.

“While everyone is safe, (Kentucky State Police) has asked everyone to evacuate the state Capitol and is investigating a threat received by the Secretary of State’s Office,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said on X.

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 367a&ei=15

Talk about evading the question.Thanks for posting this.

I watched that yesterday, good interview.

[Kendra]

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/vo ... ry-ballot/

A group of Illinois voters wants former President Donald J. Trump removed from the Illinois Primary election in March.

A petition filed this week asks for a hearing with the Illinois State Board of Elections to keep the former president off the ballot on March 19.

The group – Steven Daniel Anderson, Charles J. Holley, Jack L Hickman, Ralph E Cintron, and Darryl P. Baker – says Mr. Trump is not qualified to hold office because he violated Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th amendment, known as the Insurrectionist Disqualification Clause.

Engaged in "rebellion"
The petitioners say Mr. Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" for his actions during the riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

[Volkonski]

Breaking News: Supreme Court to hear case on whether Trump can hold office
Inbox

The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible for Colorado’s primary ballot. The court will hear the case in February.
Friday, January 5, 2024 5:17 PM ET

The case, which could alter the course of this year’s presidential election, will be argued on Feb. 8. The court will probably decide it quickly, as the primary season will soon be underway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/us/t ... 595e2e6e66

[Greatgrey]

Meanwhile in Wyoming

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/01/05 ... ff-ballot/

A Laramie judge has dismissed a Wyoming-based challenge to get former President Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis off the state’s ballots, saying the issue isn’t ripe because neither of them are on the ballot yet.

“Making a determination at this stage of the process would be imprecise, subject to speculation, and would create rather than diminish future controversies, because it would require engaging in legal details made in the abstract and result in a decision rendered without concrete factual background,” wrote Albany County District Court Judge Misha Westby in a Thursday order.

The order dismisses the Nov. 1 lawsuit of retired Laramie attorney Tim Newcomb against Secretary of State Chuck Gray, urging Westby to make Gray purge both Trump and Lummis from the state’s ballots in perpetuity. Newcomb cited skepticism by Trump and Lummis regarding the results of the 2020 presidential election, likening those to the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021.

[bob]

Meanwhile in Wyoming

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/01/05 ... ff-ballot/

Nb.:

Westby dismissed Newcomb’s lawsuit without prejudice, meaning Newcomb may be able to re-file it when the issues are ripe.

In her dismissal order, the judge cited Wyoming’s election processes. Those require a non-presidential candidate for primary-election nomination (like Lummis) to submit her application for nomination between 96 and 81 days before the primary election.

Then, 68 days before the primary election, the Secretary of State shall give each county clerk in Wyoming a list of people who have filed their applications.

Lummis is not up for reelection until 2026, so she’s nowhere close to being on a ballot and causing an actual controversy about whether she’s qualified to be on that ballot, Westby noted.

Presidential elections are different in Wyoming. Parties determine who their general-election presidential candidates will be via caucus, not by a primary-election vote.

Still, Westby continued, that caucus isn’t scheduled to happen until April. Wyoming does not yet have its presidential candidate on a ballot for the November 2024 election.

[realist]

Meanwhile in Wyoming

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/01/05 ... ff-ballot/

A Laramie judge has dismissed a Wyoming-based challenge to get former President Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis off the state’s ballots, saying the issue isn’t ripe because neither of them are on the ballot yet.

“Making a determination at this stage of the process would be imprecise, subject to speculation, and would create rather than diminish future controversies, because it would require engaging in legal details made in the abstract and result in a decision rendered without concrete factual background,” wrote Albany County District Court Judge Misha Westby in a Thursday order.

The order dismisses the Nov. 1 lawsuit of retired Laramie attorney Tim Newcomb against Secretary of State Chuck Gray, urging Westby to make Gray purge both Trump and Lummis from the state’s ballots in perpetuity. Newcomb cited skepticism by Trump and Lummis regarding the results of the 2020 presidential election, likening those to the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021.

I 100% disagree with that.

I agree that for the general election the issue is not ripe, but disagree that it's not ripe for the primary.
My .02.

[New Turtle]

The RNC doesn't really do superdelegates, but I'm guessing if they really want to nominate Trump, they will find a way to do so. Any court decision to remove him from the primary ballots would also need to address the nominating convention or it would have little effect in the presidential race.

eta: if these state level GOPs were somehow forced to disqualify Trump, the MAGAs may refuse to participate in their conventions and leave the door open for some other faction to run for committee seats and state chairs.

[Flatpoint High]

it was CO republicans who petitioned.

[bob]

The RNC doesn't really do superdelegates, but I'm guessing if they really want to nominate Trump, they will find a way to do so. Any court decision to remove him from the primary ballots would also need to address the nominating convention or it would have little effect in the presidential race.

IF SCOTUS agrees that he's disqualified under the 14th Amendment, the ruling will be sufficiently broad as to include the general election as well. SCOTUS won't narrowly rule, "disqualified, but only for primary elections."

So, yes, the Republicans could nonetheless somehow nominate him after such an adverse ruling, but that would only provoke an avalanche of losing lawsuits before November. It isn't a good tactic or strategy.

So, I suspect, if SCOTUS disqualifies him and he nonetheless wins delegates (which is entirely possible), the Republican Convention will be very, very interesting, as the RNC (which is only around 150 people) will have to figure out, in an unprecedented on-the-fly-manner, how to proceed forward.

I could see factions boycotting such a convention, but it'll be at their peril because there will be a nominee. It would be in everyone's best interest to demand a seat at the table, and not to walk away from it. (Unless the nay-sayers plan is to throw the election to Biden and then blow up the Republican Party, which is possible but not probable).

[Sam the Centipede]

But bob, your "could and should" analysis rather depends on rational actors being in play!

With the lunatics in the Republican Party and the twisted people they have put into courts and other positions of power, anything could happen. But we know (as your analysis indicates) that it will be driven by personal and factional self-interest.

[Suranis]

I would not assume that the Supreme will rule in his favour anyway. They haven't been exactly doing that so far, and He isn't the one pouring Cash into Alito's an Thomas's pocket right now. There's a lot of evil people that would prefer he is not a problem anymore, and blaming the Supreme court for removing him would fit right into their narrative.

[RTH10260]

I would not assume that the Supreme will rule in his favour anyway. They haven't been exactly doing that so far, and He isn't the one pouring Cash into Alito's an Thomas's pocket right now. There's a lot of evil people that would prefer he is not a problem anymore, and blaming the Supreme court for removing him would fit right into their narrative.

Dang - Joe is behind it all again, Soros must have been spending more than those shady Republican backers all together

[bob]

I would not assume that the Supreme will rule in his favour anyway. They haven't been exactly doing that so far, and He isn't the one pouring Cash into Alito's an Thomas's pocket right now. There's a lot of evil people that would prefer he is not a problem anymore, and blaming the Supreme court for removing him would fit right into their narrative.

This is true on both accounts.

SCOTUS has ruled against him on a variety of issues, including, notably, his tax returns.

There are many rich Republicans who would be happy to spend dark money to achieve his removal without their obvious fingerprints on it. Such people aren't scared of his "billions," as he's shown he heavily leveraged, much of the wealth isn't liquid, and he prefers to spend OPM.

[Luke]

The dynamics of this, coming from Luttig, a Federalist darling, mentor to countless conservative lawyers, and someone the Supreme Court respects, is delicious.

Former federal judge: Trump’s violation of 14th amendment ‘couldn’t be any clearer’
BY LAUREN IRWIN - 01/06/24 5:05 PM ET

Former federal judge Michael Luttig argued Saturday that former President Trump’s violation of the 14th Amendment “couldn’t be any clearer.” “Section three of the 14th Amendment simply could not be any clearer that the former President is disqualified from the presidency as the Colorado Supreme Court held,” Luttig told MSNBC’s Ali Velshi on Saturday, the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

His argument comes just one day after the Supreme Court decided it would look into the Colorado decision on whether Trump could be disqualified from appearing on the state’s primary ballot for his actions related to the insurrection.

Luttig, who said he has spent the last three years studying the amendment, believes the high court — which currently leans Republican — will “likely look for every legitimate way possible” to avoid an opinion on whether Trump can be disqualified from running for office again. However, Luttig said, there are “very few, if any, off ramps” that would allow the nation’s highest court to avoid making that decision.
***
Luttig previously argued that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is not “anti-democratic,” but rather Trump’s conduct that prompted the disqualification was anti-democratic. “What the American public is going to come to understand is that the Constitution of the United States is what will forbid the former President from … holding the office of the Presidency again, if that’s the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Luttig said Saturday.

“So that is not a question, if you, that’s open to the American people,” he continued. “The Constitution, the United States has settled this issue, beginning with the ratification of section three of the 14th Amendment in 1868, provided that that’s what the Supreme Court of the United States holds.”

Luttig suggested that the “framers of the 14th Amendment envisioned precisely this moment” — or when a president would attempt to remain in power after losing an election. He said the disqualification clause is “perhaps the most democratic provision” in the Constitution. “This will be one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions for both American democracy and for American politics since the founding of the nation,” he said.

[Lansdowne]

IF SCOTUS agrees that he's disqualified under the 14th Amendment, the ruling will be sufficiently broad as to include the general election as well. SCOTUS won't narrowly rule, "disqualified, but only for primary elections."

So, I suspect, if SCOTUS disqualifies him and he nonetheless wins delegates (which is entirely possible),

But is that what would happen?

Isn't the more likely outcome that SCOTUS says that Colorado was entitled to make that ruling, as the conduct of elections is a matter for each state?

Then you have a mess of SoSs, governors, legislatures, state courts making conflicting decisions and SCOTUS says "there is no federally guaranteed right to obtain an abortion get on the ballot; it's not our remit but for the states".

[bob]

Isn't the more likely outcome that SCOTUS says that Colorado was entitled to make that ruling, as the conduct of elections is a matter for each state?

I suspect this SCOTUS will find a way to vacate SCoCO's ruling.

But if it doesn't, the quadfectee will be off the Colorado primary ballot, but not necessarily any other.* Despite this hypothetical adverse SCOTUS ruling, it is likely that he'll nonetheless appear on some ballots, as states' ballot-access laws are different. (Recall other ineligible candidates have received votes in the other elections.) And he'll likely even win some states.

The primary voters may end up solving this issue by nominating someone else. (With grumbling and protests at the convention.) Or no candidate might secure enough delegates, which would make the convention interesting indeed.


* Presumably also off Maine's, but the Maine courts could still reverse based on a state procedural law.

[p0rtia]

I admit I am appalled at the number of legal commentators who think it would be just fine for SCOTUS, looking for a "technical" excuse to overturn Colorado SC, to find that "officer" didn't include POTUS for 14.3 purposes.

What a slap in the face of the already pummeled citizenry that would be.

Not that judicial gaslighting is ever fun. cf C. Thomas not recusing.

We are so far down the road to hell it isn't funny.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Just keep in mind that the legal argument that POTUS isn't an officer of the US predates the 14th Amendment, and has been advanced by sitting Supreme Court justices. I don't agree, but it has a 200-year-old history.