- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/7/24 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is a fresh Constitutional issue with no real precedents.
No shite. Gee, I wonder why.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 9:53 am to Longhorn Actual
It just seems to be slam dunk.States do not have the authority to interfere with Federal elections.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:00 am to Jcpau
quote:
States do not have the authority to interfere with Federal elections.
States have immense authority to regulate elections. The Supreme Court has recently given the states incredible powers in this area. A Presidential election isn't even a "federal" election. Electors who vote for the President are chosen via state election.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:01 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
They will soundly reject it. 9-0 or 8-1 with Soto being the lone dissenter. It won’t be close. It’s patently absurd on its face.
Completely agree. For me the question is what precedent are they looking to establish?
One where a POTUS cannot be criminally charged while in office (which I think is the right answer - that’s what impeachments and elections are for - esp given the adage - “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. It makes political targeting reality )
Or do they intentionally leave that door open?
This post was edited on 1/7/24 at 10:03 am
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:05 am to BobBoucher
quote:
One where a POTUS cannot be criminally charged while in office (which I think is the right answer - that’s what impeachments and elections are for - esp given the adage - “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. It makes political targeting reality )
Or do they intentionally leave that door open?
We're talking about the Colorado case. None of that will be addressed in the majority opinion.
Now the DC case? They will have to decide a lot of those issues.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:11 am to Wednesday
They are between a legal rock and a hard place, W, as if they do not slap this down then it opens the floodgates for Red States following suit re Dem candidates and the whole electoral system imploding. As a legit power, they would lose credibility.
And like with Roe v Wade, if they do the right thing to avert electoral dysfunction, then the Left screams bloody murder and pushes their 'stack the Court' MO.
Runaway train.
And like with Roe v Wade, if they do the right thing to avert electoral dysfunction, then the Left screams bloody murder and pushes their 'stack the Court' MO.
Runaway train.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:23 am to Wednesday
Isn't that like 95% of the way decisions come down? With someone different writing the majority opinion.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:23 am to Fun Bunch
The reason for the delay is based on research necessary to support the overwhelming opinion in denying the states from overturning Democracy in America. The Democrats want to deny the American public in the right to vote.
8-1 or 9-0 .....
8-1 or 9-0 .....
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:38 am to Wednesday
Two justices will definitely side with Colorado, and they were diversity appointments.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:45 am to Wednesday
Reversed 8-1, with Affirmative Action Jackson being the dissenter.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 10:46 am to CamdenTiger
quote:
will be a 9-0 smackdown reversal of this idiotic, political decision. The reason is that no one has been charged with the crime they are accusing him of; like no other participants now in jail for those actions from Jan 6, that they are accusing Trump of committing. I guess he acted alone, lol. Secondly, the 14th Amendment clause is only enforceable by Congress, not a State Judiciary. It’s clearly unconstitutional…
In reality, you’re right.
By, it’s 2024, and the past several years we’ve been in an alternate reality.
I hope you’re right, but I see Jackson and Soto being in the minority, and not having 9-0.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 11:01 am to Wednesday
The United States Constitution no longer matters to a large number of people.
Power and control are all that do.
The only reason it'll be 9-0 is if 2 or 3 Justices who'd normally go along with it decide that it's so bad, they can't invent a reason to dissent.
Based on past rulings, that's a pretty high bar.
Power and control are all that do.
The only reason it'll be 9-0 is if 2 or 3 Justices who'd normally go along with it decide that it's so bad, they can't invent a reason to dissent.
Based on past rulings, that's a pretty high bar.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 12:58 pm to Wednesday
9-0 rejecting Colorado’s move to ban from ballot
Otherwise you will see partisan moves in other states both way. Since Trump was not convicted of the “crime” no grounds to take off ballot. Congress has power to convict and bar re-election
Otherwise, Florida/Texas ect will bar Biden “because he didn’t uphold the constitution” with respect to border ect
Ultimately, with the power to vote, the people (ultimate jury of his peers) should decide if he wins or not
Otherwise you will see partisan moves in other states both way. Since Trump was not convicted of the “crime” no grounds to take off ballot. Congress has power to convict and bar re-election
Otherwise, Florida/Texas ect will bar Biden “because he didn’t uphold the constitution” with respect to border ect
Ultimately, with the power to vote, the people (ultimate jury of his peers) should decide if he wins or not
Posted on 1/7/24 at 1:59 pm to tigeraddict
will the supremes sanction the states fracking with the election as was done to about 10 southern states in the '90's. States fracking around should be required to have any voting changes approved prior to implementation
Posted on 1/7/24 at 2:07 pm to Wednesday
It will be a very convoluted decision that will be in Trump's favor, but it will be cobbled together from like pieces of 4 different opinions. It's going to be a weird one.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think it's 7-2 just so that the 2 dissenters can write their opinion. I'm guessing Sontamayor and KBJ.
I'm no lawyer, but I agree w/ this on slightly different grounds; KBJ is a Marxist, and Sotomayor is the dumbest jurist to ever sit on the SCOTUS bench.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 2:35 pm to Wednesday
Roberts is probably a redacted name from Epstein island
Posted on 1/7/24 at 3:55 pm to Wednesday
I think the OP is pretty close, with just a few changes:
The majority opinion will state the clause does not apply to a POTUS who never took oath for a different political office before becoming POTUS.
That finding, though, will leave open the question of the clause's applicability to other political figures, both State and Federal.
Thomas will write a concurring opinion expressly stating the facts of the case do not support finding Trump engaged in insurrection. Alito might join him.
Others will not address the factual finding except to say Trump was not granted sufficient due process.
At that point I think many of you will be surprised by the mix of opinions. This is not really a conservative or liberal issue; it is a question of what exactly the Republican Congress in the 1860s was trying to accomplish.
Some will say that by repealing sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress was ceasing Enforcement of Section 3. Others will fall right in line with the law review article written by the Federalist Society members and leave open the possibility of disqualifying people for lower offices.
There are so many potential issues, I can't see just a blanket ruling that the clause does not apply to a President.
The majority opinion will state the clause does not apply to a POTUS who never took oath for a different political office before becoming POTUS.
That finding, though, will leave open the question of the clause's applicability to other political figures, both State and Federal.
Thomas will write a concurring opinion expressly stating the facts of the case do not support finding Trump engaged in insurrection. Alito might join him.
Others will not address the factual finding except to say Trump was not granted sufficient due process.
At that point I think many of you will be surprised by the mix of opinions. This is not really a conservative or liberal issue; it is a question of what exactly the Republican Congress in the 1860s was trying to accomplish.
Some will say that by repealing sections 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress was ceasing Enforcement of Section 3. Others will fall right in line with the law review article written by the Federalist Society members and leave open the possibility of disqualifying people for lower offices.
There are so many potential issues, I can't see just a blanket ruling that the clause does not apply to a President.
This post was edited on 1/7/24 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 1/7/24 at 4:25 pm to Dday63
I say 9 to 0.
Roberts will try to get everyone aboard on this one.
While there are a few idiots on the court who may wish to dissent, I believe others on the court will get them in line.
But this is 2024 and Jackson is a diversity hire...
Roberts will try to get everyone aboard on this one.
While there are a few idiots on the court who may wish to dissent, I believe others on the court will get them in line.
But this is 2024 and Jackson is a diversity hire...
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News