Donald Trump

[SkyBlueFlux]

I am not particularly well informed on the actual mechanics of US government but if the cretin was to order, for example, a pre-emptive strike nuclear strike on e.g. North Korea, are you saying that action could be blocked? As I understand it he would have completely legal and autonomous authority to order this. But as I say, I am not well informed so could be wrong.

My understanding (not an expert) is that, yes, theoretically he has unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons however he cannot coerce or compel anybody in his command to do something that is unlawful or illegal.

Most people agree that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is almost certain to be unlawful.

So does he have the authority? Yes. But he would need a really good argument to get senior military officials to obey an order like that.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't buy in to these generalisations. The idea that the Muslim vote is one big bloc that will vote 100% for Trump is BS.

I didn't mean to imply that they would, and neither would they need to. If Biden had a big majority amongst Muslims in 2020 - and he did - and now he has the support of only circa 20% of them, then that spells big trouble.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Trump will be the next president. God help us all.

I cannot see the Supreme Court - especially given its Republican leaning - having the stones to uphold the rulings of Colorado and Maine, given the civil unrest that would surely ensure if they decide to bar him from standing. They will surely bottle it.

And it seems no matter what sins he is convicted of, MAGA are just brainwashed that it's all a stitch up. Half of them or more still think he won in 2020.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Indeed. The Court has been amenable to Conservative thinking but less amenable when it comes to Trump the individual. Whether that pattern continues remains to be seen.

That is the big question. You would think that there would be a limit to how far out of their way they will go to help him out. The presidential immunity question will give us a good idea. Any logical reading of it would conclude no one is above the law so a president does not have broad immunity. But if they decide the other way its get out of jail free for Trump on j6.

 

[Chippy_boy]

That is the big question. You would think that there would be a limit to how far out of their way they will go to help him out. The presidential immunity question will give us a good idea. Any logical reading of it would conclude no one is above the law so a president does not have broad immunity. But if they decide the other way its get out of jail free for Trump on j6.

I would give it ZERO chance the presidential immunity claim will stick. There's no way on earth they will uphold that. I doubt Trump or his lawyers even believe so either - they will just use it as another lie to say that the whole system is rigged against him, drumming up even more support from MAGA.

The more nuanced question is what they will do with 14th amendment section 3. Any objective reading of that makes it clear he's barred. The Supreme Court makes legal interpretations and rulings. It does not seek to review evidential conclusions made by more junior courts. And since the courts in Maine and Colorado have heard all the evidence and concluded in a proper court of law that Trump did engage in insurrection, then the SC should not revisit that conclusion. Then, the only question is one of law - should the very clear wording of A14.S3 which bars any prior officer who has engaged in insurrection, apply to a former president? It's impossible to credibly argue that it should not, so they are in a bit of a hole.

It should be a slam dunk that he is barred. But I suspect they will bottle it.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I would give it ZERO chance the presidential immunity claim will stick. There's no way on earth they will uphold that. I doubt Trump or his lawyers even believe so either - they will just use it as another lie to say that the whole system is rigged against him, drumming up even more support from MAGA.

The more nuanced question is what they will do with 14th amendment section 3. Any objective reading of that makes it clear he's barred. The Supreme Court makes legal interpretations and rulings. It does not seek to review evidential conclusions made by more junior courts. And since the courts in Maine and Colorado have heard all the evidence and concluded in a proper court of law that Trump did engage in insurrection, then the SC should not revisit that conclusion. Then, the only question is one of law - should the very clear wording of A14.S3 which bars any prior officer who has engaged in insurrection, apply to a former president? It's impossible to credibly argue that it should not, so they are in a bit of a hole.

It should be a slam dunk that he is barred. But I suspect they will bottle it.

Of course they will bottle it, he put them there. This is the inherent flaw in their daft system which removes the seperation of powers

 

[Chippy_boy]

Of course they will bottle it, he put them there. This is the inherent flaw in their daft system which removes the seperation of powers

You'd hope that anyone intelligent enough and senior enough to make it to Supreme Court judge, would be above any partisan nonsense, wouldn't you though? If not, we might as well just lob them all a bung.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

You'd hope that anyone intelligent enough and senior enough to make it to Supreme Court judge, would be above any partisan nonsense, wouldn't you though? If not, we might as well just lob them all a bung.

There were far more intelligent and superior judges that he could have chosen over that welly Kavanugh and the woman with the stary scary eyes

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I would give it ZERO chance the presidential immunity claim will stick. There's no way on earth they will uphold that. I doubt Trump or his lawyers even believe so either - they will just use it as another lie to say that the whole system is rigged against him, drumming up even more support from MAGA.

The more nuanced question is what they will do with 14th amendment section 3. Any objective reading of that makes it clear he's barred. The Supreme Court makes legal interpretations and rulings. It does not seek to review evidential conclusions made by more junior courts. And since the courts in Maine and Colorado have heard all the evidence and concluded in a proper court of law that Trump did engage in insurrection, then the SC should not revisit that conclusion. Then, the only question is one of law - should the very clear wording of A14.S3 which bars any prior officer who has engaged in insurrection, apply to a former president? It's impossible to credibly argue that it should not, so they are in a bit of a hole.

It should be a slam dunk that he is barred. But I suspect they will bottle it.

I agree that the SC will not argue the “facts of the case”, as in the decision of the lower courts that Trump incited an insurrection. They are not going to overule that finding. I also agree the “president is not an officer” argument is simply bad.

But as I’ve mentioned before, they do have another more legally ambiguous avenue which is to determine whether Trump has been subjected to sufficient due process. This is what the Dem judges in Col SC who voted against in the 4-3 decision argued. There is no predetermined standard of due process for 14.3 so you could argue that any judges decision in a court of law is sufficient (as in Trump’s case), but you could also argue that such a decision to enforce 14.3 must be subjected to a higher standard such as a jury trial, or meet some higher judicial threshold like criminal conviction before it can be enforced.

If they are going to try and save Trump I’m 99% certain this is the argument they’ll use.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I agree that the SC will not argue the “facts of the case”, as in the decision of the lower courts that Trump incited an insurrection. They are not going to overule that finding. I also agree the “president is not an officer” argument is simply bad.

But as I’ve mentioned before, they do have another more legally ambiguous avenue which is to determine whether Trump has been subjected to sufficient due process. This is what the Dem judges in Col SC who voted against in the 4-3 decision argued. There is no predetermined standard of due process for 14.3 so you could argue that any judges decision in a court of law is sufficient (as in Trump’s case), but you could also argue that such a decision to enforce 14.3 must be subjected to a higher standard such as a jury trial, or meet some higher judicial threshold like criminal conviction before it can be enforced.

If they are going to try and save Trump I’m 99% certain this is the argument they’ll use.

Agree and why the 14.3 is possibly a long shot.... However there is the prospect that either Jan 6th case could then become sufficient due process. And he could become ineligible latter in the year.

 

[The blue phantom]

Odds on favourite now with every bookie to become president. There's some really good money to make if you think he won't get the job.