A Deeply Fractured US

[QV]

Liberal group appeals ruling letting Trump stay on ballot to Michigan Supreme Court

A liberal group is appealing a ruling that allows former President Donald Trump to stay on the Michigan primary ballot to the state supreme court.

apnews.com

This is all theatre. Just like when he supposedly over fed the koi fish or sold nuke secrets to enemies.

The campaign against Trump will be 100% Trump is Hitler incarnate from now to next November. In fact I bet it is difficult for many on here to even criticize Trump's platform.

 

[Remius]

Liberal group appeals ruling letting Trump stay on ballot to Michigan Supreme Court

A liberal group is appealing a ruling that allows former President Donald Trump to stay on the Michigan primary ballot to the state supreme court.

apnews.com

This is all theatre. Just like when he supposedly over fed the koi fish or sold nuke secrets to enemies.

The campaign against Trump will be 100% Trump is Hitler incarnate from now to next November. In fact I bet it is difficult for many on here to even criticize Trump's platform.

He maybe should stop quoting Hitler though…

 

[Fishbone Jones]

But on what grounds? If it will be a 9 to 0 decision and it won’t be on party grounds, what part of the law is erroneous or is faulty in Colorado’s specific case for intelligibility to be on the ballot? Or is it only Democrat judges that decide along party lines.

I don't know what grounds. I am not that barrack room lawyer That's why I keep saying I'll wait to hear what the SCOTUS has to say. They are the real experts and final arbiters. Not anyone here, who are just giving opinions based on their own layman's reading of the law

You bring up the judges and Governor being Democrats. In this case is it a partisan issue in your mind? And if so then how does that square with your prediction of a potential 9-0 SCOTUS decision on the issue NOT a being partisan in any way? And are they telling people who they can and cant vote for or are they simply affirming the regulations that state who can be on the ballot in Colorado?

Yes, because the Colorado SC is partisan. I expect hope the SCOTUS won't be. The SCOTUS decision will be based on the Colorado decision. It is Colorada determining who you can vote for, not SCOTUS, however they vote.

That seems to me to be the more prudent COA. And likely why a lot of Democrats are uncomfortable with this current route.
If that decision was to vote for Biden (which they did before) that was and would be right decision or the wrong decision?
On what grounds would it be immoral?
.
The decision to vote for Biden was based on the population's vote. Not four people.

Immoral? Probably just my old fashioned scruples and sense of fair play. Not being a pseudo legal beagle, it's all I have to go on.
I agree to an extent but Trump is not yet the ballot choice so no one has been removed, only shown to be ineligible.
Only shown to be ineligible by Colorado Democrats. Again, not by SCOTUS. Not yet, we'll see

 

[Remius]

I don't know what grounds. I am not that barrack room lawyer That's why I keep saying I'll wait to hear what the SCOTUS has to say. They are the real experts and final arbiters. Not anyone here, who are just giving opinions based on their own layman's reading of the law

Which is why asked the question after your statement. Your statement was « The SCOTUS is going to put it in the shitter, no matter what Colorado says. ». You don’t know why, but they will. Ok.

Yes, because the Colorado SC is partisan. I expect hope the SCOTUS won't be. The SCOTUS decision will be based on the Colorado decision. It is Colorada determining who you can vote for, not SCOTUS, however they vote.

Why is it partisan? Because they came to decision you feel is wrong? What makes SCOTUS experts as you say above and Colorado’s court not? I ask because I don’t know the answer or the arguments that would lead to your conclusion. Three Democrat appointed judges dissented. It wasn’t a unanimous decisions.

Only shown to be ineligible by Colorado Democrats. Again, not by SCOTUS. Not yet, we'll see.

Once again you bring up democrats. Keeping in mind again that the Democrat court had three dissenters. If being a Democrat defines them as partisans the. I doubt the SCOTUS will be unanimous using that logic. Not counting the judges that those people deem to be RINOs.

The decision to vote for Biden was based on the population's vote. Not four people.

So their decision was the right one. As long as we can agree that people’s voting decisions are right regardless of who they vote for.

Immoral? Probably just my old fashioned scruples and sense of fair play. Not being a pseudo legal beagle, it's all I have to go on.

Fair enough.

And thanks for answering.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Correct me if I’m wrong. But you seem to be suggesting that it’s not correct or useful to try to establish what a word or phrase was understood to mean by the drafting legislators at the time a law was written, when trying to determine how that legislation should be interpreted later? When 14(3) was written. “Officer” and”engage in insurrection” was understood to mean something specific. Everything in a law is. It’s hard to argue that the law can be correctly applied if it’s not correctly interpreted, and that it can be correctly interpreted if the courts don’t seek to understand the contemporary meaning of the words that ended up on paper. “Natural born citizen…” “well regulated militia…” Constitutional law can’t help but grapple with this constantly.

It should be, if there was consistency that judges as a profession enforced among themselves. Over 20+ years now of being interested in US politics and the associated legal travails, I've concluded that judges heed "legislative intent" when it suits the argument they're trying to make, and ignore it when it doesn't.

Famous case in point: PPACA's mandate, for which a penalty could be assessed. Legislators and the president were repeatedly insistent that it was a penalty, not a tax. No ambiguity whatsoever about the intent or the legislation. Come the day the entire act is at risk of being thrown out (because it had no severability clause - a reminder that legislators have to be specific) because the penalty is about to fail a test of constitutionality, and Roberts decides to ignore the repeatedly and clearly stated intent of legislators and recast the penalty as a tax. And obviously four other justices were willing to go along with that selective disregard of legislative intent.

The "AHA!" moment over one conversation also doesn't tell us how many legislators were content with the provision the way it turned out because they in fact did not want the president specifically mentioned.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But on what grounds? If it will be a 9 to 0 decision and it won’t be on party grounds, what part of the law is erroneous or is faulty in Colorado’s specific case for intelligibility to be on the ballot? Or is it only Democrat judges that decide along party lines?

One of the common reasons for the USSC taking up a case is when there are conflicting outcomes. One case has landed one way, and some half-dozen or so (exact number escapes me) have landed the other way.

If people are tempted to assume the CO majority has it correct, they ought reasonably to first consider that the national majority is more correct.

 

[KevinB]

One of the common reasons for the USSC taking up a case is when there are conflicting outcomes. One case has landed one way, and some half-dozen or so (exact number escapes me) have landed the other way.

If people are tempted to assume the CO majority has it correct, they ought reasonably to first consider that the national majority is more correct.

Pendant: SCOTUS is the correct term

 

[brihard]

Pendant: SCOTUS is the correct term

Pedant: Pedant is the correct term. A pendant is something you buy for your wife when you did something stupid.

 

[KevinB]

Pedant: Pedant is the correct term. A pendant is something you buy for your wife when you did something stupid.

I’m going to blame my phones autocorrect.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Oh, you guys

 

[Brad Sallows]

Pedant: Pedant is the correct term. A pendant is something you buy for your wife when you did something stupid.

Pendant is the correct term when discussing legal details, because matters are always to and fro.

 

[KevinB]

More on the Trump document fiasco.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1737614629847937059

Honestly compartmentalized programs “above” TS/SCI are common, but not common to be carelessly handled, or unaccounted for. Generally we are talking about NLI stuff there.

 

[KevinB]

TBH given what some in the IC referred to a Treason by former President Trump I wasn’t shocked at this revelation. Especially since it has been confirmed already by video and audio evidence that the former President also shred information from these files with foreigners. As well as the allegations that his son in law sold information to the Saudi’s that led to the death of several assets in the ME.

 

[WLSC]

TBH given what some in the IC referred to a Treason by former President Trump I wasn’t shocked at this revelation. Especially since it has been confirmed already by video and audio evidence that the former President also shred information from these files with foreigners. As well as the allegations that his son in law sold information to the Saudi’s that led to the death of several assets in the ME.

I don’t know if I should be angry, sad of laughing of disbelief.

 

[brihard]

More on the Trump document fiasco.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1737614629847937059

Honestly compartmentalized programs “above” TS/SCI are common, but not common to be carelessly handled, or unaccounted for. Generally we are talking about NLI stuff there.

The existence of such material is quite openly known within the S&I community or anyone who studies it, but super awkward when it gets disclosed in any detail in a public process… but yeah, any of the co defendants (eg Nauta) can get absolutely fucked if they think they have any justifiable reason to have discovery of the contents of such material. This is pure fishing to try to jam up the court process and to get charges dropped for fear of exposing classified material in court- classic ‘graymail’.

 

[KevinB]

The existence of such material is quite openly known within the S&I community or anyone who studies it, but super awkward when it gets disclosed in any detail in a public process… but yeah, any of the co defendants (eg Nauta) can get absolutely fucked if they think they have any justifiable reason to have discovery of the contents of such material. This is pure fishing to try to jam up the court process and to get charges dropped for fear of exposing classified material in court- classic ‘graymail’.

Unlike you up North we have some fairly efficient methods of dealing with this.

Personally I’m a fan of single vehicle crashes…

 

[IKnowNothing]

TBH given what some in the IC referred to a Treason by former President Trump I wasn’t shocked at this revelation. Especially since it has been confirmed already by video and audio evidence that the former President also shred information from these files with foreigners. As well as the allegations that his son in law sold information to the Saudi’s that led to the death of several assets in the ME.

There's a potentially huge inflection point coming in human history.
Regardless of what comes of the court cases, what can be publicly disclosed, proven in a court of law etc- there is a cadre of individuals with access to the information that know the truth of just how egregious whatever actions were, whether or not said actions actually happened, and what the threat the future could hold. No parsing through media bias or bureaucratic leaks, just the leadership of the national security apparatus having to make decisions. If it comes to that, those decisions (and how they implement them) will shape human history for the foreseeable future.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As well as the allegations that his son in law sold information to the Saudi’s that led to the death of several assets in the ME.

I suppose those allegations merit investigation, while allegations against the Bidens do not.

 

[brihard]

I suppose those allegations merit investigation, while allegations against the Bidens do not.

Hunter Biden is being arraigned in January on nine federal felonies. Joseph Biden is the subject of a congressional impeachment investigation.

Also, a special counsel investigated the allegations that Biden had mishandled classified documents. Hunter Biden was interviewed in that.

So..?

 

[dapaterson]

POTUS says: Yo, dudes need to chillax.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1738204811781165252