Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
SCOTUS and trump
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
Feb 8, 2024 17:05:15   #
DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods
 
My opinion and only that an opinion. The court has only one option under the law.
Say correctly that state primaries are state business and federal government has no place In that process.
Even in the general e******n who ever the Republican Party nominated is up to the Republican Party. Heck in some states they don’t even have primaries.
If and when trump Wins a general e******n then the federal court can decide if he is eligible under the 14 th amendment to serve. Isn’t that what the 14th talks about . Serving. Not running and not winning or losing an e******n .

Reply
Feb 8, 2024 17:43:36   #
tramsey Loc: Texas
 
It seems to me that this whole thing is a little preliminary. Under our laws he is innocent until proven guilty and that hasn't happened yet. So we are arguing about keeping an innocent man from running

Reply
Feb 8, 2024 17:50:06   #
DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods
 
That’s not what’s before the court is it ?

Reply
 
 
Feb 8, 2024 20:42:45   #
tramsey Loc: Texas
 
I think so - Whether or not he is on the b****t for Colorado and that is what I am talking about. Also I think the federal courts should keep their nose out of states business

Reply
Feb 8, 2024 21:25:55   #
Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!
 
tramsey wrote:
It seems to me that this whole thing is a little preliminary. Under our laws he is innocent until proven guilty and that hasn't happened yet. So we are arguing about keeping an innocent man from running


Just a little correction, nobody’s innocent until proven guilty. They have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Reply
Feb 8, 2024 23:25:32   #
DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods
 
tramsey wrote:
I think so - Whether or not he is on the b****t for Colorado and that is what I am talking about. Also I think the federal courts should keep their nose out of states business


Sorry I misunderstood you.
Agree, none of feds business at this time

Reply
Feb 8, 2024 23:31:11   #
pendennis
 
Even the Court's most liberal justices were highly skeptical of Colorado's argument.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to take away the states' powers, not enhance them. And even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time, stated the Amendment was about the 1861-1865 war and excluding its participants from getting into power during the post-war era.

Reply
 
 
Feb 9, 2024 06:14:52   #
National Park
 
DennyT wrote:
My opinion and only that an opinion. The court has only one option under the law.
Say correctly that state primaries are state business and federal government has no place In that process.
Even in the general e******n who ever the Republican Party nominated is up to the Republican Party. Heck in some states they don’t even have primaries.
If and when trump Wins a general e******n then the federal court can decide if he is eligible under the 14 th amendment to serve. Isn’t that what the 14th talks about . Serving. Not running and not winning or losing an e******n .
My opinion and only that an opinion. The court ha... (show quote)


Given the facts before the Court (e.g., no criminal conviction for s******n or some related charge), I would be shocked if the Supreme Court says he can't run for office. That said, if there were a criminal conviction before the e******n, it would be awfully bizarre if he were allowed to run but not serve if he were to win the e******n. That would create a political crisis that would make J****** 6 look like a child's game of tiddlywinks. But that's Donald Trump, the man who manages to create chaos wherever he goes.

Reply
Feb 9, 2024 06:18:58   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
DennyT wrote:
My opinion and only that an opinion. The court has only one option under the law.
Say correctly that state primaries are state business and federal government has no place In that process.
Even in the general e******n who ever the Republican Party nominated is up to the Republican Party. Heck in some states they don’t even have primaries.
If and when trump Wins a general e******n then the federal court can decide if he is eligible under the 14 th amendment to serve. Isn’t that what the 14th talks about . Serving. Not running and not winning or losing an e******n .
My opinion and only that an opinion. The court ha... (show quote)


In my opinion you are totally wrong and you will see even the liberal justices join with the conservatives to knock Colorado down.

Reply
Feb 9, 2024 08:56:41   #
Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!
 
DennyT wrote:
My opinion and only that an opinion. The court has only one option under the law.
Say correctly that state primaries are state business and federal government has no place In that process.
Even in the general e******n who ever the Republican Party nominated is up to the Republican Party. Heck in some states they don’t even have primaries.
If and when trump Wins a general e******n then the federal court can decide if he is eligible under the 14 th amendment to serve. Isn’t that what the 14th talks about . Serving. Not running and not winning or losing an e******n .
My opinion and only that an opinion. The court ha... (show quote)


Well this is not the first time you've been wrong actually you've been wrong many times.

Reply
Feb 9, 2024 09:00:47   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
National Park wrote:
Given the facts before the Court (e.g., no criminal conviction for s******n or some related charge), I would be shocked if the Supreme Court says he can't run for office. That said, if there were a criminal conviction before the e******n, it would be awfully bizarre if he were allowed to run but not serve if he were to win the e******n. That would create a political crisis that would make J****** 6 look like a child's game of tiddlywinks. But that's Donald Trump, the man who manages to create chaos wherever he goes.
Given the facts before the Court (e.g., no crimina... (show quote)


Just what criminal conviction are you speaking of, Trump has not been charged with i**********n and many of the other charges he faces do not rise to the levels at which the constitution would prohibit him from running.

Reply
 
 
Feb 9, 2024 09:27:14   #
DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
Just what criminal conviction are you speaking of, Trump has not been charged with i**********n and many of the other charges he faces do not rise to the levels at which the constitution would prohibit him from running.


What does conviction. Have to do with the matter?
Everyone is focused on the word “ i**********n. But the last clause says”…… given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. ””
Referring to the constitution . Trump by doing nothing for hours to uphold the constitution in accordance with the oath he took violated that.
Even in his follow up speech yesterday he bragged about what he said before and and the end but omitted that he did nothing. “ during” .

In any case this is not about holding office is about running in a “ primary “ which is purely a state issue. Heck some states don’t even have primaries. The Republican Party doesn’t even need a primary to nominate a person. In fact I don’t believe there were any primaries until the early party of the 20th century.

Reply
Feb 9, 2024 09:38:40   #
pendennis
 
DennyT wrote:
What does conviction. Have to do with the matter?
Everyone is focused on the word “ i**********n. But the last clause says”…… given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. ””
Referring to the constitution . Trump by doing nothing for hours to uphold the constitution in accordance with the oath he took violated that.
Even in his follow up speech yesterday he bragged about what he said before and and the end but omitted that he did nothing. “ during” .

In any case this is not about holding office is about running in a “ primary “ which is purely a state issue. Heck some states don’t even have primaries. The Republican Party doesn’t even need a primary to nominate a person. In fact I don’t believe there were any primaries until the early party of the 20th century.
What does conviction. Have to do with the matter? ... (show quote)


Quote:
...shall have engaged in i**********n or r*******n against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof...


Just what kind of "i**********n" did the President engage? There were no armed "i**********nists" present, only the DC/C*****l p****e. The President requested activation of the DC National Guard, but was denied by Pelosi. Just what was his obligation? The r****rs didn't k**l anyone; that distinction belongs to the cops.

Reply
Feb 9, 2024 10:04:14   #
Frank T Loc: New York, NY
 
pendennis wrote:
Just what kind of "i**********n" did the President engage? There were no armed "i**********nists" present, only the DC/C*****l p****e. The President requested activation of the DC National Guard, but was denied by Pelosi. Just what was his obligation? The r****rs didn't k**l anyone; that distinction belongs to the cops.


Once again, you are confused.
The Speaker of The House does not have authority over nor the capability to direct the National Guard.
In fact, Pelosi did ask for military assistance, including the National Guard, along with the Senate Majority Leader.

Further:
The President of the United States is the sole commanding officer of the District of Columbia National Guard (D.C. National Guard). The President delegates the authority to activate the D.C. National Guard to the Secretary of Defense, who then delegates it to the Secretary of the Army.

So in conclusion: It was Donald Trump who refused to activate the National Guard, whether by design or neglect.

Have a very MAGA day.

Reply
Feb 9, 2024 10:14:03   #
National Park
 
pendennis wrote:
Just what kind of "i**********n" did the President engage? There were no armed "i**********nists" present, only the DC/C*****l p****e. The President requested activation of the DC National Guard, but was denied by Pelosi. Just what was his obligation? The r****rs didn't k**l anyone; that distinction belongs to the cops.


Dead wrong about Pelosi rejecting a request from Trump to activate the National Guard. Trump did say during a 30-second call on Jan. 5 with then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller that “they” were going to need 10,000 troops on J*** 6, according to a statement Miller provided to a House committee in May 2021. But Miller added that there was “no elaboration,” and he took the comment to mean “a large force would be required to maintain order the following day.” There is no evidence that Trump signed any order requesting 10,000 Guard troops, let alone 20,000, for J*** 6. Trump has never produced any such evidence.

https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-check-did-pelosi-reject-trumps-request-for-national-guard-troops-on-january-6/ states the following:

A v***l Instagram post from Donald Trump Jr. claims that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused Donald Trump’s “request for a national guard presence” during the J****** 6 Capitol i**********n. This isn’t the first time this particular claim has gone v***l. In February 2021, as reported by the Washington Post, during a Fox news interview with Steve Hilton, President Donald Trump claimed that he “requested” 10,000 National Guard troops to be deployed to the Capitol, but that his request was rejected by Pelosi.

In Trump’s words: “I requested … I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, and [said] I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready. They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake.”

The claim that Pelosi rejected Trump’s request for a National Guard presence on J****** 6 is false.

“The speaker of the House does not have the power to block an order from the commander in chief,” Drew Hammil, deputy chief of staff for Pelosi, told The Dispatch Fact Check via email. “This is fiction.”

Josh Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, similarly told The Dispatch Fact Check that “the speaker does not have control of any branch of the armed services.”

“The National Guard can only be activated by the president or a governor,” Huder added. “In the case of D.C., it can only be mobilized by the president of the United States.”

A statement from Ryan McCarthy, secretary of the Army under Donald Trump, on the “National Guard response to timing and coordination with other States,” does not mention Trump’s request for a National Guard presence, nor does it mention anything about Pelosi rejecting the alleged request. A section of the statement reads:

During a rapidly evolving situation Wednesday J*** 6, the Department Defense was fielding uncoordinated calls from hundreds of elected officials requesting and offering assistance to respond to the unprecedented breach of the U.S. Capitol Building. The Army and the D.C. National Guard were coordinating with the federal C*****l P****e and the local D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to assist with an immediate response. Secretary McCarthy first spoke with Governor Hogan at 4:40 p.m. on J*** 6, where he thanked Governor Hogan’s offer to provide support. Secretary McCarthy thanked Gov. Hogan for his support and ensured him his service members will be taken care of and provided a point-to-point contact.

Also, it’s with noting that during the first day of hearings by the J****** 6 c*******e, Rep. Liz Cheney said: “Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets. But Mike Pence did each of those things.”

Reply
Page 1 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.