Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Maine's top election official rules Trump ineligible for 2024 primary ballot


WVK

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

As long as we have activist judges trying to legislate from the bench on behalf of party affiliation then yes.

Who elects those judges with those activist views?  DO they just appear to work their evil, or do they tell voters exactly what they believe?

Fortunately, we have appeals courts and the SC all with panels of multiple judges from multiple schools and views on Constitutional theory.  Outlier judges tend to get overruled eventually.

Here is my view.  Judges are the referees in our system to settle conflicts and make sure we play within the rules.  We need them.  Corrupt or incompetent judges need to be replaced, but it needs to be hard to do.  Otherwise judges get replaced because people dislike their calls, not because they strayed from the rule book. 

Without rules and judges, you get unresolved conflict between individuals or teams.  The ultimate being war.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

He was trying to stop massive fraud. And because of said fraud, our dollar is doomed, hence our standing in the world is as well. We are in more danger of WW3 then any other time. 
 

What fraud? You mean the fraud that the due process and evidence you were so passionate about 5 minutes ago showed never happened?

4 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Well we could start out with some due process. Then, I don’t know, maybe some evidence? 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

As long as we have activist judges trying to legislate from the bench on behalf of party affiliation then yes.

Luckily the Supreme Court will save us from....aw shucks.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I believe that the ruling was based, in large part, on the Colorado judges ruling. Which is up to appeal and currently on Hold. So, will Bellows change the decision if the appeal goes Trump's way? 

Should not this decision then also not be on Hold?

Colorado is likely to be overturned. Not because Trump didn't stir up insurrection, but because he's not been convicted of anything yet.

Convict Trump and the excuses are gone.

As far as I know, there is no trial set for insurrection.

Should we allow states to ban people from the election process without any conviction, and just the opinions of a judge? Because get ready to have some states ban Biden.

An administrative decision is different from a criminal case.  Look what happened to OJ Simpson.  This requirement for a criminal conviction is not codified anywhere.

Bellows also has a timeline in responding to a challenge.  According to the ruling the discretion to stay a ruling does not exist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Who elects those judges with those activist views?  DO they just appear to work their evil, or do they tell voters exactly what they believe?

 

You have voted for judges.  How much about their politics were you aware of when you cast that vote?  But in the cases we are talking about here (state supreme court of CO mainly) they are appointed not elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, razman said:

Geez , i only remember a little of that , had forgotten. So we're saying Trump tried to do the very thing he is complaining about now , to someone else and call it a witchunt or interference or whatever ? And maybe divide the country some more over him?

I don’t think it’s an issue of dividing the country, since politically countries are always divided. But more like division in the Republican Party. The MAG’s are alone. No senior or distinguished republicans are coming out to support Trump. 
 

Looks to me at least the republicans are willing to lose this election if only to get back their own party. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OverSword said:

You have voted for judges.  How much about their politics were you aware of when you cast that vote?  But in the cases we are talking about here (state supreme court of CO mainly) they are appointed not elected.

Why blame the judges in Colorado when all Trump has to do is petition the Supreme Court and all his problems apparently can go away?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, razman said:

Geez , i only remember a little of that , had forgotten. So we're saying Trump tried to do the very thing he is complaining about now , to someone else and call it a witchunt or interference or whatever ? And maybe divide the country some more over him?

That actually originated with Hillary, not Trump.  That was part of Hillary's strategy to go after Obama in the primary.   Trump brought it back up.  Questioning if someone meets the basic binary qualifications is ok.  Remember, they even tried to say John McCain may not have qualified due to where he was born.  

Probably also don't remember that Hillary also tried to accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset too...   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

An administrative decision is different from a criminal case.  Look what happened to OJ Simpson.  This requirement for a criminal conviction is not codified anywhere.

Bellows also has a timeline in responding to a challenge.  According to the ruling the discretion to stay a ruling does not exist.

That's all true. But the Maine official, Bellows QUOTED the Colorado judge as party of her decision. 

If that quote becomes invalid, then her decision should be in doubt.

Maybe that's not required by law, regarding the Sec of State, but I imagine when it goes to appeal, in a court room, it certainly will come up, and matter quite a bit.

If Trump goes to the SCOTUS, and they overrule Colorado, or mandate a crime be convicted, this decision will flip with Colorado.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Why blame the judges in Colorado when all Trump has to do is petition the Supreme Court and all his problems apparently can go away?

 

It's really pretty irrelevant since the case doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edumakated said:

That actually originated with Hillary, not Trump.  That was part of Hillary's strategy to go after Obama in the primary.   Trump brought it back up.  Questioning if someone meets the basic binary qualifications is ok.  Remember, they even tried to say John McCain may not have qualified due to where he was born.  

Probably also don't remember that Hillary also tried to accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset too...   

Just another lie from one of the easily duped.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edumakated said:

That actually originated with Hillary, not Trump.  That was part of Hillary's strategy to go after Obama in the primary.   Trump brought it back up.  Questioning if someone meets the basic binary qualifications is ok.  Remember, they even tried to say John McCain may not have qualified due to where he was born.  

Probably also don't remember that Hillary also tried to accuse Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset too...   

but gotta admit if Russia had a political spy then you couldn’t find a bigger candidate than Trump 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

It's really pretty irrelevant since the case doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  

The what do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-secretary-of-state-shenna-bellows-explains-barring-trump-primary-ballot/

Quote

Under Maine law, voters can petition the secretary of state with challenges to a candidate's qualifications for office, and then a public hearing is held where the challengers must make their case. 

This hearing already happened. Now the opinion is up to appeal.

Quote

In her decision, Bellows recognized that it "could soon be rendered a nullity" but "that possibility does not relieve me of my responsibility to act."

Quote

Anticipating an appeal of her decision, Bellows expects Maine's Superior Court to rule before or by Jan. 17. She suspended her own ruling for five days to provide an opportunity for such an appeal.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

That's all true. But the Maine official, Bellows QUOTED the Colorado judge as party of her decision. 

If that quote becomes invalid, then her decision should be in doubt.

Maybe that's not required by law, regarding the Sec of State, but I imagine when it goes to appeal, in a court room, it certainly will come up, and matter quite a bit.

If Trump goes to the SCOTUS, and they overrule Colorado, or mandate a crime be convicted, this decision will flip with Colorado.

I just heard on the news the Maine decision is on hold.

While it is true that does use the Colorado precedent,  Bellows gives her own reasons how Trump's course of conduct fits the definition.

How can a court mandate a criminal burden of proof in a civil case?  SCOTUS rulings are preponderance of evidence too right?

 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

The what do you mean?

I mean the fact is trump has not only not been convicted of the crime they are using as a reason to keep him off the ballot he has not even been charged with that crime.  State lawmakers, judges or officials  don't even have the standing to bring those charges let alone determine guilt.  But don't take my word for it wait for the supreme court to tell you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

I mean the fact is trump has not only not been convicted of the crime they are using as a reason to keep him off the ballot he has not even been charged with that crime.  State lawmakers, judges or officials  don't even have the standing to bring those charges let alone determine guilt.  But don't take my word for it wait for the supreme court to tell you.

My understanding is the states are doing nothing illegal. They have a right to strike off anyone from a federal ballot participating in their state. The Federal Supreme Court is the only ruling that can reverse it. 
 

So basically this is how it plays out. Trump can petition the Supreme Court to throw these bans out on account that the rulings supersedes Federal laws and then based on such a ruling the States can ask for a constitutional ruling on whether Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection thus making him illegible to run and opening himself up for a prison term. 

I wonder what’s keeping Trump from getting the ball rolling?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, susieice said:

There's like around 30 states involved in this. A lot of these suits could be filed again after the primaries. 

All the states trying to kick Trump off the ballot and where cases stand (newsweek.com)

There are now active lawsuits in 14 states, including Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, seeking to remove Trump ahead of their primaries citing the same constitutional clause.
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/29/maine-trump-ballot-us-supreme-court

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

My understanding is the states are doing nothing illegal. They have a right to strike off anyone from a federal ballot participating in their state. The Federal Supreme Court is the only ruling that can reverse it. 
 

So basically this is how it plays out. Trump can petition the Supreme Court to throw these bans out on account that the rulings supersedes Federal laws and then based on such a ruling the States can ask for a constitutional ruling on whether Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection thus making him illegible to run and opening himself up for a prison term. 

I wonder what’s keeping Trump from getting the ball rolling?

 

You would suppose they might actually have a legitimate legal argument backing their position, but I don't think they do.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Not a coincidence I think.   Voters and public pressure in the state are bound to influence the state officers. They can be honest and try to be impartial, but  its hard to scrub it all out.

However, I do have a lot more confidence in the judicial, many are appointed for life, don't need to seek reelection, and may be a lot more cognizant of their office and how important it is.

For the most part, I think judges try to be as fair as they can.  Every person has some bias based on their beliefs, if not on party affiliation. But I think they try hard to bring justice.

I have confidence in the Supreme Court as well.  They have their issues and some unseemly brushes with corruption  All of the justices are well aware of that and know that each affects the reputation of the entire court and even the  entire judicial  system for years to come.  Their personal legacies will be at stake.  How much is that worth?.I will guarantee that for Clarence Thomas who rose up against all odds to become a Supreme Court Justice, it means a lot.

They will play it straight and try to give the best opinion they can; it will be above board and will not be challenged by irregularities.  I don't know what they will decide, but I will accept it.

I do have confidence in them based on my reading of their initial decision not to hear Jack Smith's immunity argument immediately, and Donald Trump's response.  The appeals court acted quickly and will present their opinion in rocket time. The Supreme Court is aware of the time crunch, but can wait for the appeals court decision, which may strengthen their own.  They can still act quickly.   They need the appeals court backup if they can get it.  There was no dissent recorded for this delay.  If the three liberal SC justices thought the six conservatives were going to throw the case for Trump, they would have filed a dissent. I think all nine know how serious this is and how important it is to cling exactly to the Constitution.  I trust that they can do that.

The Supreme Court could make a lot of Donald Trump's legal troubles and financial costs go away with one decision. if they rule in his favor. Donald Trump filed his own brief.  If he and his lawyers fully believed in his immunity, they would have said lets go right away and settle this.  Instead, they said, lets not rush it, haste makes waste.  Lets delay for a while.   Delay will cost Trump big bucks in lawyer's fees and his name will not be entirely cleared  of wrongdoing in the next few months. That doesn't reek of confidence.  Trump's lawyers are not willing to take the odds on a favorable decision at the Supreme Court.. Delay is their only defense.

I think there's a problem.

Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Who elects those judges with those activist views?  DO they just appear to work their evil, or do they tell voters exactly what they believe?

Fortunately, we have appeals courts and the SC all with panels of multiple judges from multiple schools and views on Constitutional theory.  Outlier judges tend to get overruled eventually.

Here is my view.  Judges are the referees in our system to settle conflicts and make sure we play within the rules.  We need them.  Corrupt or incompetent judges need to be replaced, but it needs to be hard to do.  Otherwise judges get replaced because people dislike their calls, not because they strayed from the rule book. 

Without rules and judges, you get unresolved conflict between individuals or teams.  The ultimate being war.

Great Post Tate, right on target my friend!!!!:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OverSword said:

You would suppose they might actually have a legitimate legal argument backing their position, but I don't think they do.  

Well that’s for the Supreme Court to decide. But Trump is lawyer-ed to the hilt and it seems timid and reluctant to go down that path. 
 

IMO an insurrection charge would need witnesses and evidence before being heard. 
 

Could such a process be problematic for Trump being nominated?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

There are now active lawsuits in 14 states, including Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, seeking to remove Trump ahead of their primaries citing the same constitutional clause.
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/29/maine-trump-ballot-us-supreme-court

5 of them have been pretty traditionally republican.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.