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

12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

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

Well, they do.

You might have to do some minor investigation of the historical precedent as regards usage of Section 3 in order to understand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, susieice said:

5 of them have been pretty traditionally republican.

If the rulings stand, including Texas. No way Trump can win. If he can’t win then why would the republicans nominate him

Edited by Unusual Tournament
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Figured you'd be along to argue about what shade of blue the sky is....

So Politico is basically saying Clinton isn't the source because her campaign strategist is...    and to ignore that other Democrat staffers that brought it up.  Oh and after it was exposed, Hillary fired one who did bring it up.  Sure, ok.  Fortunately, all of us aren't as naive as you, Doc.  

Then you have long time Clinton strategist, Sidney Blumenthal supposedly sending reporters over to Kenya to investigate.

Did Sid Blumenthal really push birtherism? - POLITICO

Got to keep that plausible deniability going.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

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.

Yeah, like I said, she just did her job as she thought best. I got no ill will toward her.

Quote

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

I do believe each state has its own Voting laws, so I'm not 100% sure a Federal Court CAN overrule a state court on the subject. We'll see pretty soon, I think.

I'm not even sure why I'm arguing so much. I'd rather Trump not run, and someone else get the GOP nomination. Haley, I think. Though many say she's just a Trump lite. Which is OK with me, with most of the same political platform, but not nearly as much of the stupid.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

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

I think a lot of those protesters/rioters/insurrectionists that got charged and jailed, would be willing to testify.

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

1 hour 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?

 

I'd imagine if it comes to it, Trump would rather have an insurrection trial AFTER the election, given the preponderance of evidence. Thus preventing him being taken out of the primaries, and perhaps the Nov election.

Delaying works to his favor.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think a lot of those protesters/rioters/insurrectionists that got charged and jailed, would be willing to testify.

Also members of Trumps staff and security 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'd imagine if it comes to it, Trump would rather have an insurrection trial AFTER the election, given the preponderance of evidence. Thus preventing him being taken out of the primaries, and perhaps the Nov election.

Delaying works to his favor.

It seems that’s the Trump plan. Only without a Supreme Court ruling stopping Trump from being struck off the ballot, there really is no way he can win. Trump’s in a big bind 

Edited by Unusual Tournament
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I do believe each state has its own Voting laws, so I'm not 100% sure a Federal Court CAN overrule a state court on the subject. We'll see pretty soon, I think.

There are a few ways but arguably the easiest way is the first amendment.

While not explicitly stated in the first amendment the Supreme Court has always held the position that what is explicitly stated in the first amendment extends also to the freedom of association.  To be more technical the Supreme Courts view is that essentially the rights explicitly stated in the first amendment naturally result in the freedom of association so the freedom of association is a derivative of the first amendment.

The freedom of association is that people can freely decide to associate with people who hold similar political, religious, cultural, or really any other type of belief.  By removing someone from a ballot without a proper legal reason, which is an entire other question, it can be argued that the state is violating the freedom of association of the person removed and also of the people who would vote for that person.  

Not really sure if something quite like this has ever been tried and ruled on it Court yet but that is roughly one of the justifications that will be used.  Another possibility is lack of due process but that gets into other legal and constitutional issues.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, like I said, she just did her job as she thought best. I got no ill will toward her.

I do believe each state has its own Voting laws, so I'm not 100% sure a Federal Court CAN overrule a state court on the subject. We'll see pretty soon, I think.

I'm not even sure why I'm arguing so much. I'd rather Trump not run, and someone else get the GOP nomination. Haley, I think. Though many say she's just a Trump lite. Which is OK with me, with most of the same political platform, but not nearly as much of the stupid.

It's an interesting question.

Trump's political career keeps bringing something new.  He's entertaining.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

It seems that’s the Trump plan. Only without a Supreme Court ruling stopping Trump from being struck off the ballot, there really is no way he can win. Trump’s in a big bind 

Trump didn't win the primaries for either Colorado or Maine in 2016.

It's possible he could still win the nomination.  Then question becomes more difficult for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edumakated said:

Figured you'd be along to argue about what shade of blue the sky is....

So Politico is basically saying Clinton isn't the source because her campaign strategist is...    and to ignore that other Democrat staffers that brought it up.  Oh and after it was exposed, Hillary fired one who did bring it up.  Sure, ok.  Fortunately, all of us aren't as naive as you, Doc.  

Then you have long time Clinton strategist, Sidney Blumenthal supposedly sending reporters over to Kenya to investigate.

Did Sid Blumenthal really push birtherism? - POLITICO

Got to keep that plausible deniability going.  

Can you translate this in to English?  You're posts are damn near incomprehensible.  

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

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think a lot of those protesters/rioters/insurrectionists that got charged and jailed, would be willing to testify.

'Weak and feeble man': Three ex-Trump staffers fear second term would mean democracy's end (msn.com)

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

5 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well, they do.

You might have to do some minor investigation of the historical precedent as regards usage of Section 3 in order to understand.

Link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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.

I know , but we just know he did it anyway.He could be slapped down just for being associated with all the **** he been involved in. :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those saying that this (the Maine decision) is justice - those people haven't read it, and if they have read it they haven't understood it. If they've read it and understood it and say it's a good decision they are idiot, partisan hacks"
~ Viva Frei 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Edumakated said:

Figured you'd be along to argue about what shade of blue the sky is....

I'm mildly pleased that you thought of me before you posted yet another lie. Think of me as your conscience.

15 hours ago, Edumakated said:

So Politico is basically saying Clinton isn't the source because her campaign strategist is...    and to ignore that other Democrat staffers that brought it up.  Oh and after it was exposed, Hillary fired one who did bring it up.  Sure, ok.  Fortunately, all of us aren't as naive as you, Doc.

Looks like you need to re-read the article.

It doesn't say the strategist was the source of birtherism.

Some volunteer shared an email from people off the deep end and was immediately fired.

A dual problem with reading comprehension and credulity is what you have.

15 hours ago, Edumakated said:

 Then you have long time Clinton strategist, Sidney Blumenthal supposedly sending reporters over to Kenya to investigate.

Did Sid Blumenthal really push birtherism? - POLITICO

Got to keep that plausible deniability going.  

Not to investigate birtherism, unless you solely go by the word of one Trump supporter.

But of course that's what you'll do.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

Link?

Peruse "The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment" by the Congressional Research Service. Then scrutinize "Disqualification of a Candidate for the Presidency, Part II: Examining Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as It Applies to Ballot Access" from the same source. These are shorter, more lightweight options. Once you've warmed up, you can dive into this:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/wmbrts30&div=8&g_sent=1&casa_token=xl6cOR9aUkgAAAAA:5B9nAaXgVPE43PhtxmOddiKmmZcyumcci4wBsCr1FkdR2tsZlplMOZURe-oSnKFuABbH1vLO&collection=journals

happy reading!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Axelrod, that standby of the DC Left, is speaking some truth to power here:

Hopefully, they'll listen and stop this train from derailing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2023 at 11:28 AM, OverSword said:

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

Not for me. I don’t care what party they are affiliated with. I don’t trust any of them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24

Quote

Underscoring the urgency, arguments will be held on Feb. 8, during what is normally a nearly monthlong winter break for the justices. 

Really that's going to be too late, I think, unless they put a hold on the bans, and force states like Maine, and Colorado, to allow him till they decide.

Because if they decide he can NOT be kept off, then it will be too late for many states to add him to their voter choices.

Though... thinking about it... that might not be fair, but might be for the best after all.

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

  • 1 month later...

 

Quote

 

Supreme Court signals reluctance to disqualify Trump from ballot  

The Supreme Court on Thursday appeared reluctant to take the extraordinary step of disqualifying former President Trump from appearing on the ballot during a historic oral argument in which the justices grilled lawyers about whether states have the authority to ban a candidate from running for office.

The justices spent almost no time debating whether Trump engaged in insurrection through his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, which various lawsuits contend requires Trump’s disqualification under the 14th Amendment. 

 

Even an Obama appointee asks the question:

Quote

“What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for president?” said Justice Elena Kagan.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4456219-supreme-court-reluctance-disqualify-trump-ballot/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2024 at 10:50 AM, OverSword said:

 

Even an Obama appointee asks the question:   “

What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for president?” said Justice Elena Kagan.

I think… A state can only remove a candidate from that State’s Ballot….not the national ballot.?     I’m surprised a SCOTUS Justice does not know that! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lightly said:

I think… A state can only remove a candidate from that State’s Ballot….not the national ballot.?     I’m surprised a SCOTUS Justice does not know that! 

I think it depends on what exact question the Supreme Court is supposed to be answering. Notice none of them are even concerned about January 6 so far when speaking about this case?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand why he wasn’t simply tried and convicted of election interference. .that case would be a slam dunk, and sufficient grounds to bar him from holding any office or position in government.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trumps-trial-on-election-interference-cant-wait-until-2026-federal-judge-says-17d5bad2

 …sorry, looks like that link is wonky!  

Edited by lightly
  • 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.