LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 16 minutes ago, nick76 said: It’s not removing, it’s about not being eligible just like being under 35 or being a foreign national would make you ineligible to be on the ballot. Being determined by parties that he was an insurrectionist they used this to make him ineligible but Supreme Court decided it wasn’t the States right to do this. That’s not removing him, it’s just saying he was ineligible. The decision not to remove him was unanimous and the reasoning given by the liberal judges was pretty persuasive that it would just be a partisan weapon used every electoral cycle to remove your political opponent. Let the people decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 31 minutes ago, bickster said: Not if that person was responsible for an insurrection aimed at overturning the will of the people. There are many reasons all over the world that people aren't allowed to be an elected representative. For example bankrupts cant be an elected MP in the UK, neither can judges or police officers or active service personnel The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision that he is eligible to stand. The US runs their system as they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 29 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: Yeah, because trying to prevent the certification of the 2020 election result and inciting a fascist mob to storm the houses of Congress is absolutely 100% compatible with the high office of the Republic he wishes to lead. Aside from everything else he does to demean politics, spread disinformation and add support to the most evil dictator today, Vladimir Putin All of those things are reasons for why people may choose not to vote for him in a future election. Far better to let people come to the correct decision themselves then tell them you are making the decision for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 15 Moderator Share Posted March 15 4 minutes ago, LondonLax said: The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision that he is eligible to stand. The US runs their system as they see fit. No they didn't, they came to a unanimous decision that the state didn't have the power to make that decision, only congress could do that. And that is a completely different matter. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, LondonLax said: The decision not to remove him was unanimous and the reasoning given by the liberal judges was pretty persuasive that it would just be a partisan weapon used every electoral cycle to remove your political opponent. Let the people decide. Yep agree to your first paragraph with caveats, they said that Congress should decide if a person was ineligible under that condition and not others including States. Also given they answered the question more than the narrow question that was asked and went into great details about parameters, they also never said he wasn’t an insurrectionist. So Congress could make him ineligible if they so decide (never going to given who control the house). Let the people decide was never the question, it was just whether a person was eligible to be considered or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 This will also change very quickly for him if he is convicted for a felony. It is a very different legal case then and one I don't think he wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 5 minutes ago, bickster said: No they didn't, they came to a unanimous decision that the state didn't have the power to make that decision, only congress could do that. And that is a completely different matter. Their interpretation of the issue was politically expedient. They could have chosen to interpret states to have the rights to establish their own electoral systems if they wished, there was plenty of legal opinion supporting their right to do this prior to the case being decided. The reasoning given for why the liberal justices decided the way they did was because they were worried red states would decide to bar Democrat candidates and blue states would decide to bar Republican candidates and democracy would no longer function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 15 Moderator Share Posted March 15 3 minutes ago, LondonLax said: Their interpretation of the issue was politically expedient. They could have chosen to interpret states to have the rights to establish their own electoral systems if they wished, there was plenty of legal opinion supporting their right to do this prior to the case being decided. The reasoning given for why the liberal justices decided the way they did was because they were worried red states would decide to bar Democrat candidates and blue states would decide to bar Republican candidates and democracy would no longer function. So the Supreme Court didn't decide that Trump SHOULD be on the ballot then? Glad we've cleared that up 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 15 VT Supporter Share Posted March 15 (edited) Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that his manifesto quite clearly stated that if he won, he would end democracy. Be careful what you wish for. Godwin's Law invoked. Edited March 15 by mjmooney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 14 minutes ago, bickster said: So the Supreme Court didn't decide that Trump SHOULD be on the ballot then? Glad we've cleared that up No I don’t believe I ever made that claim. There is no established reason why he should not be on the ballot. The entire US population will decide his eligibility for presidency not 9 people on a court. Ultimately that will result in a much more satisfactory outcome for US society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 15 VT Supporter Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, LondonLax said: The entire US population will decide his eligibility for presidency not 9 people on a court. Ultimately that will result in a much more satisfactory outcome for US society. Not if he wins, it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted March 15 Administrator Share Posted March 15 19 minutes ago, LondonLax said: Their interpretation of the issue was politically expedient. They could have chosen to interpret states to have the rights to establish their own electoral systems if they wished, there was plenty of legal opinion supporting their right to do this prior to the case being decided. The states do run their own "election systems". They always have. Citizens vote within their state and then members of the state electoral college votes for the president. They are supposed to vote according to the wishes of their electorate, but this is not required in law and different states do this part differently (some states have all electors vote for the winning candidate in their state, some vote reflecting the split of their electorate). This is the very core of at least one of the criminal cases he's fighting where he tried to install fake electors. The SCOTUS has decided that for article 14.3, the states do not run their own election. I can assume that a deal was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 minute ago, mjmooney said: Not if he wins, it won't. I genuinely think it would be worse if the 3rd of the US who passionately support Trump were told they were denied their opportunity to vote form him. I think you’d be looking at civil disobedience and even the possibility of civil war type outcomes. That would be even worse than another 4 years of Trump should he somehow actually win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, limpid said: The states do run their own "election systems". They always have. Citizens vote within their state and then members of the state electoral college votes for the president. They are supposed to vote according to the wishes of their electorate, but this is not required in law and different states do this part differently (some states have all electors vote for the winning candidate in their state, some vote reflecting the split of their electorate). This is the very core of at least one of the criminal cases he's fighting where he tried to install fake electors. The SCOTUS has decided that for article 14.3, the states do not run their own election. I can assume that a deal was done. It was not a deal that was done. It was just a case of turning a blind eye because the result of ruling the other way would have lead to a far worse outcome for the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 24 minutes ago, LondonLax said: The entire US population will decide ... Not in the US system. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 8 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: Not in the US system. Well they run the system as they see fit. We have a similar thing in Australia for deciding the members of our upper house. It’s not decided on pure democracy, it is weighted towards all states having equal representation regardless of their actual population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: All of those things are reasons for why people may choose not to vote for him in a future election. Far better to let people come to the correct decision themselves then tell them you are making the decision for them. It's not a case of disagreeing with a candidate's tax policy here, or their social values. It is fundamentally seeing them as a weapon being used by to create an authoritarian regime. Besides, you misinterpreted my original point. I was not saying he should be banned from the ballot. I was saying shame on the GOP for selecting him as their candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 minute ago, Captain_Townsend said: It's not a case of disagreeing with a candidate's tax policy here, or their social values. It is fundamentally seeing them as a weapon being used by to create an authoritarian regime. Besides, you misinterpreted my original point. I was not saying he should be banned from the ballot. I was saying shame on the GOP for selecting him as their candidate. The GOP old guard are spineless. They needed to stand up to him when they had the chance rather than thinking they could somehow tag along. Trump will destroy the Republican Party the same way Boris Johnson ran the Tories onto the rocks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Agree 100%, social media seems to have driven traditional Conservative parties absolutely insane! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 14 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: Agree 100%, social media seems to have driven traditional Conservative parties absolutely insane! That is true for aspects of the left too. Critical Theories for example. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts