Politics And Current Events

[Shyster]

What would happen if Trump and Biden both get the nom and both die before the election?

I believe in the case where a nominee for president dies after the party convention but before the election, the political party would select a replacement candidate. So the DNC and the RNC would pick replacement candidates. RNC Rule 9 also says that the RNC has the option to reconvene the national convention in order to fill the vacancy, at which I assume the delegates pledged to the deceased candidate would be free to vote for someone else. I don't see that the DNC has an equivalent "reconvene the convention" rule.

[Pavel Bure]

I haven't had a chance to listen yet, but those who did listen to today's SCOTUS argument seem pretty uniform in predicting that the Court will reverse the Colorado Trump ballot ban. Note: former Solicitor General Kaytal released a book in 2019 titled Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump, so he's not a fan.

Reading it does seem like they were very focused on if a state can make the decision. It seems that the majority of questions were focused on that aspect and from a more broad view how it would impact future elections. Reading between the lines the concern is the absolute f*ckery that could and most likely would arise from allowing the states to decide.

From an emotional side it’s disappointing because Trump did plan to take the country in a non-democratic fashion. Heck an entire power point outlined the plan along with various other collaborators in various states. Unfortunately congress won’t support the constitution as a 2/3 majority and we can look forward to Trump being on the ballot.

[eddy]

Interesting, thanks. I suppose there's a realistic chance of that happening

[faftorial]

So Tucker's interview went well.

TC is under consideration to be Trump's running mate.

[mac5155]

That presser was something huh

[faftorial]

Yeah, he needs to step aside.

But as others have said, I'd still vote for him over Trump.

[King Colby]

Oh man. Not good

[Kaiser]

So Tucker's interview went well.

Unless he stumbled off the roof of hotel moskva, not well enough.

[Kaiser]

I haven't had a chance to listen yet, but those who did listen to today's SCOTUS argument seem pretty uniform in predicting that the Court will reverse the Colorado Trump ballot ban. Note: former Solicitor General Kaytal released a book in 2019 titled Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump, so he's not a fan.

Reading it does seem like they were very focused on if a state can make the decision. It seems that the majority of questions were focused on that aspect and from a more broad view how it would impact future elections. Reading between the lines the concern is the absolute f*ckery that could and most likely would arise from allowing the states to decide.

From an emotional side it’s disappointing because Trump did plan to take the country in a non-democratic fashion. Heck an entire power point outlined the plan along with various other collaborators in various states. Unfortunately congress won’t support the constitution as a 2/3 majority and we can look forward to Trump being on the ballot.

It was also disappointing that they said more than once, "If you keep one candidate off the ballot, then you just have the other party removing the other candidate from the ballot, it would be chaos!" Well no ****, IF they did something to justify being removed that is. Apparently the CO representative didn't think of that response.

[faftorial]

So Tucker's interview went well.

Unless he stumbled off the roof of hotel moskva, not well enough.

He's a useful stooge so he gets to live for another day.

[Shyster]

It was also disappointing that they said more than once, "If you keep one candidate off the ballot, then you just have the other party removing the other candidate from the ballot, it would be chaos!" Well no ****, IF they did something to justify being removed that is. Apparently the CO representative didn't think of that response.

Who decides whether the removal is justified?

[Kaiser]

It was also disappointing that they said more than once, "If you keep one candidate off the ballot, then you just have the other party removing the other candidate from the ballot, it would be chaos!" Well no ****, IF they did something to justify being removed that is. Apparently the CO representative didn't think of that response.

Who decides whether the removal is justified?

I imagine the supreme court, since they're hearing this.

Donald Trump, was he an insurrectionist? Can he be on the ballot? Joe Biden, (Whatever they would try to remove him for).

[Shyster]

If only the SCOTUS can decide whether the removal was justified, then it's not up to the states, it's up to the SCOTUS. The appellees are arguing that the decision was up to the state of Colorado. Conceding that it would ultimately be up to the SCOTUS would have been against their position. That's why the lawyer didn't say that.

[Kaiser]

If only the SCOTUS can decide whether the removal was justified, then it's not up to the states, it's up to the SCOTUS. The appellees are arguing that the decision was up to the state of Colorado. Conceding that it would ultimately be up to the SCOTUS would have been against their position. That's why the lawyer didn't say that.

Highlighting why it was a dumb argument to make. They had to know it would be challenged, and that "insurrection" would be micro-scoped. Unless of course...They're completely incompetent and ruled by partisan emotions.

[Shyster]

Whether January 6 was actually an insurrection was barely mentioned at oral argument, and I don't think it will really come up in the final decision. I don't think the Court will even reach the question.

I expect the Chief will write the primary opinion (or it could be per curiam), and it will be at least 7–2 if not more that disqualification under Section 3 of the 14A only applies through a process set by Congress, which currently would be a criminal conviction for insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, and that Section 3 is not otherwise self-executing and is not something that the states can determine on their own in the absence of a conviction under § 2383 (or any other statute Congress may pass to enforce Section 3). I would expect some concurrences on whether the President is an "officer of the United States," but that won't be as many.

[mac5155]

Yeah, he needs to step aside.

But as others have said, I'd still vote for him over Trump.

[DigitalGypsy66]

[Pavel Bure]

It was also disappointing that they said more than once, "If you keep one candidate off the ballot, then you just have the other party removing the other candidate from the ballot, it would be chaos!" Well no ****, IF they did something to justify being removed that is. Apparently the CO representative didn't think of that response.

Who decides whether the removal is justified?

They were good points. We already saw the potential consequences from allowing the states to decide with Texas threatening to remove Biden due to the border situation. Despite the conservative lean of the court this pending decision seems to be logical and in line with the constitution.

[Troy Loney]

I will vote for Biden's handlers over Trump.

I’m struggling to understand the opposing perspectives on this.

I can only plausibly wrap my head around maybe 3.

1. Have an interest in maintaining status quo (vote Biden)
2. Have a material interest in Republican tax and economic policies (banks, hedge funds, tech oligarch, resource extraction) (vote trump)
3. Want to see the world burn (white nationalist, angry online person, love the trump show) vote Trump

[CBear3]

Right, the Amendment was basically to overrule the former Confederate states that sent legislators who were formerly a part of the cause. It stems from the 39th Congress's refusal to seat southern Democrats that had been elected from those states, giving Congress the ability to overrule the "rebel" states. The Republicans of that time were not thinking that the states themselves would self police it, because of the adversarial nature of Reconstruction.

[CBear3]

As an aside, the Jill Biden is a monster stuff is awful. Most of those people still worship at the feet of Reagan.

[count2infinity]

Source of the post the Jill Biden is a monster stuff is awful

What did she do?

[CBear3]

Source of the post the Jill Biden is a monster stuff is awful

What did she do?

Trotting out her dementia riddled husband...

[tifosi77]

The issue is no court has found him guilty of criminal insurrection. So a state finding somebody guilty without going through a legit criminal trial and deciding that person can't be on the ballot for a federal office is bogus. I was never in favor of the Colorado ruling. It's something that was never going to end well for dems.

Whether he is guilty of insurrection was barely discussed compared to other issues as Tif mentions above.

This isn't a criminal question. I wish people would stop bringing this up.

It's a qualification issue. Think of it like a flow chart. Were you born in the United States? Y/N ---- If, Y, then.............. Are you at least 35 years of age? Y/N --- If Y, then.............. Have you lived in the United States for the trailing 14 years? Y/N --- If Y, then have you ever taken an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution as an officer of the United States and while so disposed did you refrain from engaging in insurrection against the same? Y/N

A single "N" in that flow disqualifies you.

The "Y/N" to that last question does not require a criminal conviction, the word choice in the Amendment is 'engaged in' not 'convicted of'. I believe the current law that defines the federal crime of insurrection was not passed until Harry Truman was President. (I do not know its legislative history, if it superseded an older part of the US Code, but that's potentially a gap of almost 100 years of operation for the Insurrection Clause absent even the possibility of a criminal conviction, never mind a predicate.)

But while that Y/N question does not require a criminal conviction, it does require an answer.

Colorado election officials didn't come to this conclusion willy nilly or in unilateral arbitrary fashion. This came about as a result of a lawsuit filed by voters in CO. There was a week-long adversarial court proceeding, there was evidence presented, I believe a defense was mounted, a record was established, and appeals were made. It was like a whole thing happened to make this determination. I don't think there's any federal-level architecture in place to verify the other qualifications (age, place of birth, etc), which are also set forth in the Constitution, so I'm not sure how suddenly this insurrection component will bring about the death of the Republic if states are left to make that determination via their own appropriate mechanisms, as CO did.

[tifosi77]

What would happen if Trump and Biden both get the nom and both die before the election?

It varies by party and state-by-state law.

Remember: You're not voting for President and Vice-president. You're voting for the electors who will vote for President and Vice-president.

*sigh*

Edit: Didn't see Shyster's reply