US Supreme Court Will Decide If Trump Can Be Included In 2024 Election Ballot

[MOT 3,608]

Personally, although I consider Trump to be a piece of filth, I still go with the idea that disqualifying someone because they have done something which was criminal without their having been convicted of that crime in a criminal trial doesn't make sense.

Having said that, the Colorado Supreme Court (whose opinion would be worth somewhat more than mine) disagree. So what will SCOTUS do ? They might agree with Colorado. They might agree with me. They might just be terrified and reinstate Trump. They might see this as a way to finally get Trump out of the establishment's hair. I know they are highly conservative, but they have not always danced to Trunp's tune. At the end of the day, I think they will overturn Colorado, but it's by no means a certainty 

What will happen if they overturn Colorado ? I think Trump just goes back on the bsllot everywhere and then we get on with criminal trials and election csmpaigns.

What will happen if they uphold Colorado ? First of all, to state the obvious, I think he will be off the ballot everywhere. I don't know if SCOTUS can issue an order banning him nationwide, but if they can't then surely cases will be taken against him in every state and they can all only go one way ultimately. So what would Trump do then ? Try to start a civil war ? Or maybe do a deal with Haley, agree to endorse her in return for the promise of a pardon if she is elected ? It might be his best bet.

 

[Nemo 4,410]

2 hours ago, MOT said:

Personally, although I consider Trump to be a piece of filth, I still go with the idea that disqualifying someone because they have done something which was criminal without their having been convicted of that crime in a criminal trial doesn't make sense.

It may be (almost certainly is) a crime, but that's incidental -- it's not on the basis of it being a crime that it's an exclusion from office. It's not even being treated as a "high crime or misdemeanor" for this purpose (although the Senate could've "convicted" him of that, and barred him from office -- under an entirely separate Constitutional provision from the one we're talking about here! -- but that still wouldn't constitute a criminal conviction in the normal sense).

Consider another of Trump's current trials, the civil fraud case. Because it's only a civil trial, where he only stands to lose money, all that's needed for conviction is a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial, where he stands to lose his freedom, the burden of proof is much higher -- it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". But the "right" to be President is something much less inherent than either money or freedom -- it can be denied for things that aren't even faults, like just not being 35 yet. It's more like a privilege than a right. So the standard for exclusion should accordingly be lower (i.e. easier to exclude); not the criminal standard, nor even the civil standard.

Of course, that does still mean that someone has to decide, legally; so who gets to do that? The Constitution doesn't say. But within each state, according to each state's laws, there are people (usually the Secretary of State) and procedures for determining electoral eligibility. That's why, aside from sheer partisanship, we've seen different results so far in different states -- because their state laws differ.

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,112]

3 hours ago, MOT said:

Personally, although I consider Trump to be a piece of filth, I still go with the idea that disqualifying someone because they have done something which was criminal without their having been convicted of that crime in a criminal trial doesn't make sense.

Having said that, the Colorado Supreme Court (whose opinion would be worth somewhat more than mine) disagree. So what will SCOTUS do ? They might agree with Colorado. They might agree with me. They might just be terrified and reinstate Trump. They might see this as a way to finally get Trump out of the establishment's hair. I know they are highly conservative, but they have not always danced to Trunp's tune. At the end of the day, I think they will overturn Colorado, but it's by no means a certainty 

What will happen if they overturn Colorado ? I think Trump just goes back on the bsllot everywhere and then we get on with criminal trials and election csmpaigns.

What will happen if they uphold Colorado ? First of all, to state the obvious, I think he will be off the ballot everywhere. I don't know if SCOTUS can issue an order banning him nationwide, but if they can't then surely cases will be taken against him in every state and they can all only go one way ultimately. So what would Trump do then ? Try to start a civil war ? Or maybe do a deal with Haley, agree to endorse her in return for the promise of a pardon if she is elected ? It might be his best bet.

 

In all fairness, the previous applications of this Constitutional provision (the former President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis) didn’t require a criminal conviction. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,112]

Also, can I just say: I have never been happier to see someone deactivate their account LMAO 

[RAMROD 117,087]

2 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Also, can I just say: I have never been happier to see someone deactivate their account LMAO 

Who did? 

[MOT 3,608]

7 hours ago, Nemo said:

It may be (almost certainly is) a crime, but that's incidental -- it's not on the basis of it being a crime that it's an exclusion from office. It's not even being treated as a "high crime or misdemeanor" for this purpose (although the Senate could've "convicted" him of that, and barred him from office -- under an entirely separate Constitutional provision from the one we're talking about here! -- but that still wouldn't constitute a criminal conviction in the normal sense).

Consider another of Trump's current trials, the civil fraud case. Because it's only a civil trial, where he only stands to lose money, all that's needed for conviction is a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial, where he stands to lose his freedom, the burden of proof is much higher -- it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". But the "right" to be President is something much less inherent than either money or freedom -- it can be denied for things that aren't even faults, like just not being 35 yet. It's more like a privilege than a right. So the standard for exclusion should accordingly be lower (i.e. easier to exclude); not the criminal standard, nor even the civil standard.

Of course, that does still mean that someone has to decide, legally; so who gets to do that? The Constitution doesn't say. But within each state, according to each state's laws, there are people (usually the Secretary of State) and procedures for determining electoral eligibility. That's why, aside from sheer partisanship, we've seen different results so far in different states -- because their state laws differ.

Hey, thank you, that's very nicely put imo, makes perfect sense. I hereby officially reverse my position and I now agree with the Colorado decision.

[ssslyboy 3,273]

I hate to break the news to the Trump haters (I have my own issues with Trump, btw), but the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 in Trump's favor.  Liberal judges will vote same as conservative judges.  It's pretty cut and dry. 

[MOT 3,608]

49 minutes ago, ssslyboy said:

I hate to break the news to the Trump haters (I have my own issues with Trump, btw), but the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 in Trump's favor.  Liberal judges will vote same as conservative judges.  It's pretty cut and dry. 

Hate to break the news to you, but what you posted there ....it isn't news, it's an opinion. And that's a fact.