Substantively, it matters little as it’s not as though Trump was ever going to win CA. Symbolically, it means quite a bit. Though there are genuine points to made, notably that Trump hasn’t been convicted of the charges yet.
Ultimately the safest thing to do is to let the people decide because opening the precedent to deny people access to ballots because of lower court decisions or pending indictments could be abused by fascists down the road.
A) what are you suggesting? That the mere accusation is sufficient?
Regarding B) , I’m sorry but it’s because of those systems of checks & balances that our democracy buckled but did not break. If you open said door to denying anyone the capacity to run for office under such grounds, it’s a very easy, weak link of the chain, to abuse. It’s a high bar to convince me that this is a good idea. After conviction of conspiracy to defraud the US and rights of citizens at the federal level in Smith’s case, I’d be far more convinced…
No. I’m suggesting that suits are filed, a hearing is held and a judge hands down a verdict based on the evidence.
This past November a Colorado district judge ruled that Trump absolutely engaged in an insurrection against the US government. She declined to remove him from the ballot because of some chickenshit reasoning that the office of President is not specifically mentioned in Article 3. So she kicked it up to the CO Supreme Court which actually followed through on the ruling that being an insurrectionist makes one ineligible for office.
In the case of Maine, that didn’t happen. For what it’s worth I think the CO process is more robust but still somewhat susceptible to exploitation. Particularly odd to me is that a state court is determining what a person did at the Federal level and not within their state and not without a precedent at the Federal court level (yet). Despite this particular instance so happening to fall in line with reality, that seems… pretty abusable to me.
My understanding is that Maine was able to do what it did BECAUSE of the ruling in CO. A CO judge determined that Trump is an insurrectionist, so he’s an insurrectionist everywhere. Just like how a trial in NY determined Trump is a rapist. He’s a rapist in every state, not just NY.
It’s also important to note that in the CO trial, Trumps team didn’t deny that he engaged in the behavior he was accused of, they simply said he was exercising his First Ammendment rights. The judge determined that his actions weren’t protected by the First. Hence, he’s an insurrectionist.
This was a state ruling, not a Federal ruling. As such, what happens in one state legally has no bearing on what occurs in another state. Hence why it’s so important the rulings of Federal trials from Smith go through and set a precedent with a legitimate jury no less. Don’t get me wrong, it’s my personal opinion that Trump and the broader GOP is largely guilty and complicit in this act of insurrection, treason, etc.
But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go — precedent for every red or worse purple state in the Union. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy if Trump can’t primary let alone be on a general election ballot. But ultimately, I’d feel much better about it if these cases were decided by a Jury based on Federal evidence; and finally, if Americans cannot reject such a person at the ballot… Then there probably is no hope for this country anyway.
As for the rapist argument, that doesn’t seem to apply here. For one, that was a Federal, and second, that was a civil suit — not a criminal one, whose consequences are lesser and the bar lower. Doesn’t help that the Jury explicitly rejected the rape claim.
But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go —
We absolutely need to stop using the “if we hold these criminals accountable for legitimate reasons, they might use it against us for illegitimate reasons” BS.
These people are thoroughly unscrupulous, and they will use whatever means they want to further their agenda.
The very fact that you’re scared of them using legitimate laws in illegitimate ways is EXACTLY why they should be stopped.
I get where you’re coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.
The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.
I get where you’re coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.
The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.
Humoring your argument for just a second, the “safest” thing to do is to stop the delay tactics and let the court case play out then, wouldn’t you agree?
I would agree. And yeah I’m as anxious to get the trials started sooner than later as everyone else. For all intents I agree Trump and the Republican Party is a threat to the nation and that he’s guilty, personally. Nevertheless the accused have these rights afforded to them for a reason. Some may use them to delay; others may use them to ensure they have a fair trial.
Substantively, it matters little as it’s not as though Trump was ever going to win CA. Symbolically, it means quite a bit. Though there are genuine points to made, notably that Trump hasn’t been convicted of the charges yet.
Ultimately the safest thing to do is to let the people decide because opening the precedent to deny people access to ballots because of lower court decisions or pending indictments could be abused by fascists down the road.
A) under section 3 he doesn’t need to be convicted of anything.
B) fascists don’t need an excuse to abuse their power, which is why the can’t be allowed to achieve a position of power.
A) what are you suggesting? That the mere accusation is sufficient?
Regarding B) , I’m sorry but it’s because of those systems of checks & balances that our democracy buckled but did not break. If you open said door to denying anyone the capacity to run for office under such grounds, it’s a very easy, weak link of the chain, to abuse. It’s a high bar to convince me that this is a good idea. After conviction of conspiracy to defraud the US and rights of citizens at the federal level in Smith’s case, I’d be far more convinced…
No. I’m suggesting that suits are filed, a hearing is held and a judge hands down a verdict based on the evidence.
This past November a Colorado district judge ruled that Trump absolutely engaged in an insurrection against the US government. She declined to remove him from the ballot because of some chickenshit reasoning that the office of President is not specifically mentioned in Article 3. So she kicked it up to the CO Supreme Court which actually followed through on the ruling that being an insurrectionist makes one ineligible for office.
So no, it wasn’t just an accusation.
So a conviction. 👌
IANAL. Also… I’m not a lawyer, so please feel free to correct me… But I don’t know if the CO case resulted in a “conviction”.
In the case of Maine, that didn’t happen. For what it’s worth I think the CO process is more robust but still somewhat susceptible to exploitation. Particularly odd to me is that a state court is determining what a person did at the Federal level and not within their state and not without a precedent at the Federal court level (yet). Despite this particular instance so happening to fall in line with reality, that seems… pretty abusable to me.
My understanding is that Maine was able to do what it did BECAUSE of the ruling in CO. A CO judge determined that Trump is an insurrectionist, so he’s an insurrectionist everywhere. Just like how a trial in NY determined Trump is a rapist. He’s a rapist in every state, not just NY.
It’s also important to note that in the CO trial, Trumps team didn’t deny that he engaged in the behavior he was accused of, they simply said he was exercising his First Ammendment rights. The judge determined that his actions weren’t protected by the First. Hence, he’s an insurrectionist.
So a couple things here.
This was a state ruling, not a Federal ruling. As such, what happens in one state legally has no bearing on what occurs in another state. Hence why it’s so important the rulings of Federal trials from Smith go through and set a precedent with a legitimate jury no less. Don’t get me wrong, it’s my personal opinion that Trump and the broader GOP is largely guilty and complicit in this act of insurrection, treason, etc.
But until a higher bar is met, this low bar could easily be exploited by the next Trump fascist who needs only get some 2-bit State judge from some red state to conclude of their own volition that the next liberal is treasonous / insurrectionist and there ya go — precedent for every red or worse purple state in the Union. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy if Trump can’t primary let alone be on a general election ballot. But ultimately, I’d feel much better about it if these cases were decided by a Jury based on Federal evidence; and finally, if Americans cannot reject such a person at the ballot… Then there probably is no hope for this country anyway.
As for the rapist argument, that doesn’t seem to apply here. For one, that was a Federal, and second, that was a civil suit — not a criminal one, whose consequences are lesser and the bar lower. Doesn’t help that the Jury explicitly rejected the rape claim.
We absolutely need to stop using the “if we hold these criminals accountable for legitimate reasons, they might use it against us for illegitimate reasons” BS.
These people are thoroughly unscrupulous, and they will use whatever means they want to further their agenda.
The very fact that you’re scared of them using legitimate laws in illegitimate ways is EXACTLY why they should be stopped.
I get where you’re coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.
The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.
I get where you’re coming from but we circle back to one of my original points: high bars already helped prevent a fascist who was already in the White House from making such a move to consolidate power and remain in office.
The laws are there. Justice should in theory come by honest means soon enough. We just need to be patient.
Humoring your argument for just a second, the “safest” thing to do is to stop the delay tactics and let the court case play out then, wouldn’t you agree?
I would agree. And yeah I’m as anxious to get the trials started sooner than later as everyone else. For all intents I agree Trump and the Republican Party is a threat to the nation and that he’s guilty, personally. Nevertheless the accused have these rights afforded to them for a reason. Some may use them to delay; others may use them to ensure they have a fair trial.
This is the primary ballot. Denying him a spot on the primary ballot would make it harder to win the nomination.