Donald Trump

domalino said:
I think it’ll be 7-2. Kavanaugh and ACB on trumps side.

But then maybe they’ll just decline to hear it if Trump will lose, it’s less embarassing for everyone given Trump will be campaigning on his 3 Supreme Court appointments it would be awkward if Gorsuch fucks him.

But can he campaign if he loses this? More states will follow.


Honestly I just can’t get a feeling either way on this one. The law should be clear, but he always gets away with things, so I’m going to assume Trump will be successful until he’s not.

I also think there’s some merit in the idea it will be bad if he’s struck off. Long term it will be good, reality and law has to catch up with MAGA eventually, but imagine Trump with nothing to lose - he’s not going to go quietly, there could be a lot of scenes like Jan 6th all over the Republican heartland.

I’d much rather a Biden win over Trump in an election over Biden beating Haley or De Santis with trumps mob thinking the deep state blocked him.

But then again…they’ll think that even if he loses fair and square again…
Click to expand...
Is this why Haley and Santos are going at each other, as well as Trump, as they know there maybe a chance that he’s out?
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
Agree that a rationale reading of the laws would lead anyone, unbiased, to conclude the state has the right to exclude Trump under the insurrection clause.

But.

There is just enough to give a biased judge a reason. If you read the clause is specifically calls out some roles, but not the POTUS. That's enough to give the right wingers cover. It ignores the mass of reason why that's not a valid reading of the intention. But its enough to make this a question of how far do they want to go to help him.

Click to expand...

I don’t think this holds up, it’s been spread because of the need to tell both sides, but the president of the United States is referred to as an office loads of times in the constitution, probably tens of thousands of times (literally) in established law and when you’re elected you take the oath of office etc.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I don't think it does really. Ask what happened to Nixon when the Watergate tapes case went to the SC. 8-0 against (Rehnquist recused himself since he'd worked for the administration). Nixon sputtered on about how the justices he put there (Blackmun and then not sure of the others) "failed to support him" but the Court was furious with Nixon for his rhetoric about the Court. In this case, we have plants like Thomas and Alito but I wouldn't it put it past the others to give Trump a right padding here. And as @SkyBlueFlux points out, constitutional conservatives aren't in any kind of bind jurisprudence-consistency-wise unless they support Trump here.
Click to expand...

Fair.
I was looking for the right word - maybe 'crosshairs' is better than 'bind'.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
Agree that a rationale reading of the laws would lead anyone, unbiased, to conclude the state has the right to exclude Trump under the insurrection clause.

But.

There is just enough to give a biased judge a reason. If you read the clause is specifically calls out some roles, but not the POTUS. That's enough to give the right wingers cover. It ignores the mass of reason why that's not a valid reading of the intention. But its enough to make this a question of how far do they want to go to help him.

Click to expand...

"The President is exempt from the constitution" on this point seems to me (as a non-American) such a crazy argument, I can't get my head round the idea that anyone would support it.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
"The President is exempt from the constitution" on this point seems to me (as a non-American) such a crazy argument, I can't get my head round the idea that anyone would support it.
Click to expand...
Probably because the integrity measures leading to the inauguration ensure that the President has impeccable standards.

I’m not sure the Constitution(s) were written for modern day politics.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
If Trump couldn’t run, due to his multiple issues, who would be the front-runners?
Click to expand...

De Santis and Haley.

De Santis can only win if Trump is kicked out, because he’s just Trump lite and scores highly as a 2nd choice but has almost no unique supporters.

Haley is trying to position herself as a step less nuts than those 2 and is trying to pick up all the republicans who won’t vote for Trump and any “independents” (ie the closet republican ones not the actual middle of the road people). So in theory she could compete against Trump in a way De Santis just can’t.

But Trump is 45 points ahead of them in the polling.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
Agree that a rationale reading of the laws would lead anyone, unbiased, to conclude the state has the right to exclude Trump under the insurrection clause.

But.

There is just enough to give a biased judge a reason. If you read the clause is specifically calls out some roles, but not the POTUS. That's enough to give the right wingers cover. It ignores the mass of reason why that's not a valid reading of the intention. But its enough to make this a question of how far do they want to go to help him.

Click to expand...
Saying the intention was to exclude the President from that amendment is actually absurd. For what possible reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.