I'm NOT Raising a Red Flag... But I Am.

[Carborendum]

I just found it kinda funny that Colorado & Maine removed Trump from the primary ballots (and, by extension, the final ballots).  It probably wouldn't have much of an effect because those states would likely go to Biden anyway.  So, just what are they thinking?

I just heard now that DeSantis wants to retaliate by threatening to remove Biden from the ballot in Florida.  Again, why?  There's no way Florida is going to Biden.  So, what is this about.

Yes, yes, political grandstanding, blah blah.

But it just got me to thinking... what if every state pre-emptively decided to take candidates off the ballot?  These states would clearly delineate the lines of national divorce.  And we've discussed this in previous threads.

At this point, is it likely?  Probably not.  But at some point it will be.  And I wouldn't be surprised if I witnessed it in my lifetime.

Edited January 8 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

It seems to me that every government, every nation, since the dawn of human history, is little more than a shared grouping of ideas and principles held or tolerated by folks.  It further seems to me that there is no such thing as a government or nation where 100% of its citizens/subjects/slaves/etc agree on those ideas and principles.  There are always naysayers, opposition, even downright defiance and rebellion.   Human geopolitical history is little more than a study in nations reforming themselves from within, when they're not being changed/taken over/destroyed from without.

Yeah, it's a little concerning when states start tinkering with sacred principles like the free voting process enshrined in our constitution.  But it always has been that way.  For all it's impact on our culture, Trump's dragging out the election only lasted less than a month longer than Gore's fighting against the 2000 election (December 13th vs January 7th).  I don't remember the first time I heard one side or the other trying to manipulate the system in their favor, it's probably as long as our history of elections.  

Let's see what SCOTUS 23-719 does with the case.  (And just starting last week, we can get email updates now on individual SCOTUS cases.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html)

One real interesting thing about Colorado - it passed a law saying it doesn't matter who Coloradans vote for, CO's electoral votes will all go to the winner of the national popular vote.   So if Trump gets the popular vote, CO votes for Trump, even though he might not actually be on the ballot.

Edited January 8 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

36 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

One real interesting thing about Colorado - it passed a law saying it doesn't matter who Coloradans vote for, CO's electoral votes will all go to the winner of the national popular vote.   So if Trump gets the popular vote, CO votes for Trump, even though he might not actually be on the ballot.

I don't know about the CO statute itself. But my understanding is that most of the states that passed such a law, stipulated that it only takes effect if a certain threshold of states agreed to it as well.  And we haven't reached that threshold yet.

Again, it appears to be grandstanding for now.  But those laws have little hope of being repealed any time soon.

Maybe that was kinda your point.  But there is a certain line that is threatened to be crossed here that hasn't happened before.  Removing a name from the PRESIDENTIAL ballot based on accusation alone without conviction?  How dare the people choose a candidate that they disagree with?

Edited January 8 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

I’m not a Trump supporter by any stretch but I’m also creeped out by states removing him from the ballot. Having said that, he wasn’t going to win Colorado or Maine anyway. 

[Just_A_Guy]

In the abstract, I have no problem with states determining that certain candidates are ineligible to run.  I think it strengthens the role of states in the electoral system.  But of course, any regimen that tends to exclude a particular candidate would still have to pass muster under a due process analysis; and I have no idea whether the states in question have afforded due process to Trump (and whether the underlying statutory regimens are truly tenable) or not.

I rather wonder, though, whether Kamala Harris couldn’t be excluded from office under those same statutes; since I believe her campaign was involved in raising bail funds for BLM rioters (including resistors of arrest and, possibly, courthouse/state capitol occupiers).

[Traveler]

Our electrical process has many flaws.  Of course, we need some limitations as to who can be on a ballot – but all such limitations, in a free society, are determined long before that designated date for individuals to apply.  Once applications have been accepted under the law – I find removal from the ballot most troubling – especially if the process involves individual(s) that are politically opposed to the individual being removed.  I believe that a great sign of a totalitarian regime is to remove the voice of opposition – especially at the ballot box.  If there is only one choice on a ballot – there is no freedom of choice.  Da!

I am very concerned with the blatant openness of political corruption of both parties but especially the Democrats.  I am so concerned that our election process has been so corrupted = that I believe we ought to have a forced re registration to vote – allowing only living citizens to register to cast ballots.  I believe that this is such a problem that to register illegally or register someone illegally - attempting to cast an illegal vote should be punishable with permanent lifetime loss of voting privileges as well as running for any government office.  A second offense punishable with life in prison.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

Secret combinations,

The end.

[Carborendum]

On 1/10/2024 at 11:36 AM, Traveler said:

Our electrical process has many flaws. 

That's shocking to hear.

[NeuroTypical]

On 1/8/2024 at 8:06 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Let's see what SCOTUS 23-719 does with the case.  (And just starting last week, we can get email updates now on individual SCOTUS cases.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html)

BTW, I'm finding it fascinating to read the amicus briefs being filed.  Half a dozen so far.  Vivek filed one.   Every one of them has been in favor of Trump so far - I wonder if any in favor of Colorado will come?

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's shocking to hear.

It is what you get when you cross dyslexia with spell checker.  If you are shocked by this, it is of your own doing.  😬

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is what you get when you cross dyslexia with spell checker.  If you are shocked by this, it is of your own doing.  😬

I'm glad you have a sense of humor about this.  All in good fun.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm glad you have a sense of humor about this.  All in good fun.

If you think this is funny – very often the things I see and hear are so hilarious I cannot contain myself and yet it is next to impossible to explain it to others.  This is also the reason that I am unable to connect to anything (believe) unless I can comprehend the logic of it.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

I came today to write on a very similar subject.  This deals with the case of taking Trump off the Ballet in Colorado and possibly in other locations.  There has been a push from a few directions for individuals with Doctorates in certain areas to write briefs to the Supreme Court.  These briefs take the slant that Trump can be taken off the Ballot for the election of President.

I did not write one and I did not send a brief.  I understand several dozen have been sent to the Supreme Court.  

Now, it is NO SECRET on these forums that I am not a fan of Trump.  I think it should be clear then that I feel these moves are absolutely politically slanted.  I DO NOT know who sent all the briefs, but I expect a majority to be those who would already be opposed to Trump more strongly than I am, not due to what he has supposedly done with any insurrection, but simply due to his other actions.

I do not support the idea that Trump committed an insurrection.  I'd prefer the election to be open and Trump, at least currently, be allowed on the Ballots.  I do not like him, nor his politics, but I think he has not had a conviction which bars him from the ballot yet.  I feel he could be a threat to the Constitution, the Republic, and any democratic elections in the future if he gains power, but that does NOT warrant (In MY OPINION) for him to be barred.  Fear is NOT a reason to take away rights.

I DO not feel Trump committed an insurrection on January 6th for the following reasons.

1.  I do not feel Trump is mentally sound enough to actually plan something like an insurrection.  Trump basically says whatever is on his mind at the moment he is talking.  It could be a lie, it could be the truth, but whatever he is currently thinking about, he blurts out.  IN that, you can take him as remarkably up front with his thoughts, or remarkably profuse in lying half the time.  He doesn't seem the have the forethought to actually recognize what he says and how he says it may affect him in the future.   The greatest example of this yet was his behavior towards a trial which he was fined over 80 million dollars recently.  If he had any forethought at all, this was a penalty he should have EASILY been able to avoid.    Now he has smart people around him that can plan and think these things up, but Trump...in my opinion, it's beyond his ability to do something like this.  It would mean he had to be able to plan in detail, and then plant certain individuals, and then without others noticing and not mentioning it, move these individuals into place in order to actually try to overthrow the US government.  I do not feel he exhibited this ability nor has this ability.  Perhaps others on his staff, but I don't think Trump would understand exactly what they were doing even if he wanted to.

2.  He hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection.  If it was so clear cut, there should be charges regarding this directly.  

3.  You all saw the videos of January 6th.  Did this appear to be a group of militant individuals that were performing a precisely organized military attack?  It did not appear that way to me.  I saw several things.

a.  It appeared that most of them didn't know WHAT they were doing.  They joined in on a mob.  When they actually got into the Capital they acted more like confused tourists that were going around with the freedom to do as they wanted.  They acted more like people who were in a grocery store they were visiting than a focused group intent on taking over the government.  

b.  I've seen videos from the BLM riots, and I've seen January 6th and they appear very similar.  The difference was who were there involved with the riots.  Some of the BLM riots were more destructive than the one on January 6th (though not towards government buildings generally).  If the BLM riots were just riots, I would think that this was more likely a riot in general than an attempted insurrection.

c.  Yes, I think there were a few there that had a strategy to do some very nefarious things to members of government.  I think it was an extremely small segment of individuals who were planning these things out.  They had a hand in creating the mob and directing it.  I think they were not one united group, but several groups.  They composed less then 1% of the mob.  They had some very horrible things they planned to do and we are lucky they didn't get to do them.  I do not think that they would have overthrown the government even if they were successful.  They could have caused some serious damage, but not overthrown the government. 

d.  I think Trump was delighted that there were people who so fervently supported him, but I do not think he realized that it would be perceived that he was pushing them to cause an insurrection.  I don't think the thought actually even entered his mind.  I think he was trying to OVERTURN an election, but I don't think he realized it would be seen by some as an insurrection.  With the exception of the few mentioned in part c, I highly doubt most of the mob that were rioting even had the thought that they could be seen as being part of an insurrection.  I think the thought of that would have horrified most of them.  Most of them probably thought they were patriotic and being highly loyal to their nation.

4.  I do not think if they were successful they would have actually overthrown the US government and succeeded.  I don't think that was most of their intent, nor do I think that was Trump's intent.  He didn't want to kill everyone in Congress.  That wouldn't have done him any good.  I think he wanted people to protest the validation of the electoral votes, but not to actually go and kill the very people who would have to make the decision whether to validate or not.  He wanted Congress to make a decision that would be favorable to him, not to destroy Congress so no decision could be made that day at all.

IN ending, I do not support the idea that Trump should be tossed off the ballot due to fomenting an insurrection.  It's a nonsense thing that if we accept that states can just toss off a presidential candidate because they feel like he broke a certain rule or not, it could cause a dangerous precedence in the future where states can accuse anyone they do not like of causing an insurrection or other item to disqualify a candidate someone does not like.

I still do NOT support Trump.  I still am not going to vote for him at this time.  However, if Trump is to be defeated, let it be via a legal way rather than trying to create ways that could cause a serious problem in the future (In MY OPINION).

PS:  I feel Abbott in Texas is closer to an insurrection than Trump ever was.  If I were Biden I'd push the issue.  Nationalize the Texas national Guard along with any other states whose guard members are there.  Then tell them to take down the barriers.  Those who refuse to obey are court martialed.  If the Texas Governor orders his Texas State Guard (different than the Texas National Guard, State guard are ONLY answerable to the Governor) and police to fight against these nationalized troops, THEN he really IS basically forming an insurrection.  He's already coming somewhat close to it in refusing to obey the Supreme Court and the US Federal Government, but he hasn't actually started or gotten involved in fighting against them...YET.  That's FAR more concerning in my opinion in regards to what COULD cause an insurrection than what Trump did on January 6th.  

[zil2]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

taking Trump off the Ballet

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, zil2 said:

Oops...yep.

[LDSGator]

11 hours ago, zil2 said:

That’s awesome. Lol 

[NeuroTypical]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Now, it is NO SECRET on these forums that I am not a fan of Trump.  I think it should be clear then that I feel these moves are absolutely politically slanted.  I DO NOT know who sent all the briefs, but I expect a majority to be those who would already be opposed to Trump more strongly than I am, not due to what he has supposedly done with any insurrection, but simply due to his other actions.

You can read all the briefs here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html  

As of the time I'm posting this, there are dozens of "brief amicus curiae".  I read through the first dozen or so, and they were just about all in favor of Trump, making arguments like you're making.    Perhaps some opposing briefs are in the ones I haven't read through. 

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You can read all the briefs here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html  

As of the time I'm posting this, there are dozens of "brief amicus curiae".  I read through the first dozen or so, and they were just about all in favor of Trump, making arguments like you're making.    Perhaps some opposing briefs are in the ones I haven't read through. 

That is actually interesting to hear.  The push FELT like they wanted a certain type of slant.  In fact, it felt like if you were supposed to write one that suggested that Trump could be taken off the ballot.  I obviously (as seen from my post above) object to that line of reasoning. 

That said,

I have not read them.  I know my post above would be poorly accepted (not formatted right, and everything I stated is based on appearances, feelings and opinion which normally are not acceptable in these types of briefs...so not acceptable at all) but I felt like screaming in the wind about it. 

The Court (in my opinion) prefers facts and precedence. 

I haven't read the briefs though so I am unsure how they present such things. 

[NeuroTypical]

Hey, this is a good place to scream into the wind.  

That link is really interesting, as it gives us regular folk a look into the inner workings of SCOTUS and how they go about getting ready to think and reason and create findings and rulings that impact all our lives.   I have no idea if the Trump-on-the-ballot issue is similar to other cases they prepare for, but I'm having fun watching it go by. 

70 amicus curiae briefs submitted so far.  I only scanned through the first dozen or two.  But there are plenty, from all over the place.  There are plenty from both sides.  

Quote   Jan 03 2024 Brief amici curiae of Senator Steve Daines & National Republican Senatorial Committee VIDED. Jan 05 2024 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, West Virginia, 25 Other States, and the Arizona Legislature Jan 05 2024 Brief amici curiae of Republican National Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee Jan 09 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman Jan 11 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Landmark Legal Foundation Jan 11 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Vivek Ramaswamy Jan 15 2024 Brief amicus curiae of David E. Weisberg Jan 16 2024 Brief amici curiae of Public Interest Legal Foundation, et al. Jan 16 2024 Brief amici curiae of Ryan Binkley, Binkley for President 2024, et al. in support of neither party Jan 16 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Kurt T. Lash Jan 16 2024 Brief amicus curiae of William Jones Jan 17 2024 Brief amici curiae of 102 Colorado Registered Electors Jan 17 2024 Brief amici curiae of Children's Rights Legal Scholars and Advocates in support of neither party Jan 17 2024 Brief amici curiae of Devin Watkins and Charles Watkins Jan 17 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Jack Coben in support of neither party Jan 17 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Pearl O. Madrial Jan 17 2024 Brief amicus curiae of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Jan 17 2024 Brief amicus curiae of The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Akhil Reed Amar, et al. in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of America's Future, et al. Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Brennan Center for Justice, et al. in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Edward B. Foley, et al. in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III, et al. Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Former United States Attorneys Robert S. Brewer, et al. Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Gavin M. Wax, New York Young Republican Club Inc., et al. Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Kansas Republican Party and 32 Other State and Territorial Republican Parties Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Professors and Legal Scholars in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Republican National Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Senator Steve Daines & National Republican Senatorial Committee Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of Terpsehore “Tore” Maras, et al. Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of The Secretaries of State of Missouri, et al. in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amici curiae of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and 177 Other Members of Congress Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida, Inc. Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Chuck Gray, Secretary of State of Wyoming Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Condemned USA Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Derek T. Muller in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of James Madison Center for Free Speech Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Kansas Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Larry Kidd Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Professor James T. Lindgren Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York in support of neither party Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of The Honorable Peter Meijer Jan 18 2024 Brief amicus curiae of U.S. Term Limits in support of neither party Jan 22 2024 Brief amicus curiae of G. Antaeus B. Edelsohn Jan 26 2024 Brief amici curiae of Professors Orville Vernon Burton, et al. Jan 29 2024 Brief amici curiae of American Historians Jan 29 2024 Brief amici curiae of J. Michael Luttig, et al. Jan 29 2024 Brief amicus curiae of Brian J. Martin Jan 30 2024 Amicus brief of Common Cause submitted. Jan 30 2024 Amicus brief of Floyd Abrams, Bruce Ackerman, Maryam Ahranjani, Lee C. Bollinger, Erwin Chemerinsky, Alan Chen, Kent Greenfield, Martha Minow, and Geoffrey R. Stone submitted. Jan 30 2024 Amicus brief of Marc Racicot, William Weld, Christine Todd Whitman submitted. Jan 30 2024 Amicus brief of Professor Kermit Roosevelt submitted. Jan 30 2024 Amicus brief of Professors Carol Anderson and Ian Farrell submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Capitol Police Officers Present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Constitutional Accountability Center submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Constitutional Law Professor Mark A. Graber submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of David P. Cullenberg, Bryant "Corky" Messner, William C. Saturley submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Experts in Democracy submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Former Colorado Secretary of State Mary Estill Buchanan submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Former Republican Members of Congress submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Josh Autry submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Michael T. Worley submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Professor Sherrilyn Ifill submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of Retired State Supreme Court Justices submitted. Jan 31 2024 Amicus brief of San Francisco Taxpayers Association, The Honorable Pete McCloskey & The Honorable Quentin L. Kopp submitted.   Maybe I'm a geek, but I find it fascinating to look through these as a layperson.

Edited January 31 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

On 1/8/2024 at 6:37 AM, Carborendum said:

I just found it kinda funny that Colorado & Maine removed Trump from the primary ballots (and, by extension, the final ballots).  It probably wouldn't have much of an effect because those states would likely go to Biden anyway.  So, just what are they thinking?

Well, according to SCOTUS, they were thinking the wrong thing.

Quote

responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.

[Bolding and underlining mine.]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf