Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 2:33 pm

Don't take another runner...

I've already said SCOTUS will overrule.

The question is, on what grounds?

It won't be a relitigation of the facts.

I believe the US. Supreme Court will rely on Justice Samour's dissent.  Samour said:

"Now it is undoubted that those provisions of the constitution which deny to the legislature power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or to pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are inconsistent in their spirit and general purpose with a provision which, at once without trial, deprives a whole class of persons of offices . . . for cause, however grave. These astute words, uttered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase a century and a half ago, eloquently describe one of the bedrock principles of American democracy: Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law. Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection—there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office. Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America’s democracy that sets this country apart. The decision to bar former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”)—by all accounts the current leading Republican presidential candidate (and reportedly the current leading overall presidential candidate)—from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine."
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:09 pm

I believe the US. Supreme Court will rely on Justice Samour's dissent.  Samour said:

"Now it is undoubted that those provisions of the constitution which deny to the legislature power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or to pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are inconsistent in their spirit and general purpose with a provision which, at once without trial, deprives a whole class of persons of offices . . . for cause, however grave. These astute words, uttered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase a century and a half ago, eloquently describe one of the bedrock principles of American democracy: Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law. Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection—there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office. Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America’s democracy that sets this country apart. The decision to bar former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”)—by all accounts the current leading Republican presidential candidate (and reportedly the current leading overall presidential candidate)—from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine."

GRIFFIN IS NOT PRECEDENT!

If SCOTUS goes that route, it will invalidate state law. I don't think they want to have anything to do with that...

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 2:14 pm

9-0 no way.  Here's how I'm going to call it:
Sonia Sotomayor,  - affirm
Clarence Thomas - reverse
John G. Roberts - reverse
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. - reverse
Elena Kagan - affirm (in between licking twat).
Amy Coney Barrett - reverse
Neil M. Gorsuch - reverse
Brett M. Kavanaugh - reverse
Ketanji Brown Jackson - affirm.

So, who do you think will be the liberal defector?

I think if it doesn't go 9-0 you'll have Kagan joining the reversal.
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 2:11 pm

"The majority" would be "it".

Yes
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:17 pm

GRIFFIN IS NOT PRECEDENT!

If SCOTUS goes that route, it will invalidate state law. I don't think they want to have anything to do with that...

It was merely a quote from an old case, because the writer liked the way it sounded, to eloquently state that Donald Trump was not afforded due process of law.  And without due process of law, without a trial and conviction on "insurrection", Colorado (and other foolish states) violated Donald's due process rights.

Lack of due process is more easily applied across the board to other states who try and keep Trump of their ballots.  Anyway, I think the SCOTUS will decide something like that.

HOWEVER, if you think they will find in Trump's favor, but disagree with me on what they will hinge their decision on - - - - lay it out for me brotha!
 
 
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm

It was merely a quote from an old case, because the writer liked the way it sounded, to eloquently state that Donald Trump was not afforded due process of law.  And without due process of law, without a trial and conviction on "insurrection", Colorado (and other foolish states) violated Donald's due process rights.

It wasn't an "old case"..

It was a "letter"
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm

It was merely a quote from an old case, because the writer liked the way it sounded, to eloquently state that Donald Trump was not afforded due process of law.  And without due process of law, without a trial and conviction on "insurrection", Colorado (and other foolish states) violated Donald's due process rights.

Lack of due process is more easily applied across the board to other states who try and keep Trump of their ballots.

There's good reason why Sec. 3 does not require conviction.
 

Cedar » 09 Jan 2024, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:19 pm

I think if it doesn't go 9-0 you'll have Kagan joining the reversal.

YIKES!  So, you're saying I might have to take back my smarmy remark about Kagan?  I'm betting i won't.
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 3:40 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:40 pm

There's good reason why Sec. 3 does not require conviction.

But, other parts of the constitution require due process.  Still, you claim that the court will reverse, but don't believe what I've said.  So, on what grounds do you think the court will reverse?
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 3:39 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:39 pm

It wasn't an "old case"..

It was a "letter"

No.  It's not a letter.  It is an old case.  https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/re ... s.0007.pdf
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:46 pm

No.  It's not a letter.  It is an old case.  https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/re ... s.0007.pdf

I was in error.
You are correct. 

That said, it is not binding outside the "circuit".

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:41 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:41 pm

YIKES!  So, you're saying I might have to take back my smarmy remark about Kagan?  I'm betting i won't.

She warned of the dangers of the court looking political after Roe v Wade was overturned, so I think she'll need need to reverse to save face. I could be wrong.
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm

It was merely a quote from an old case, because the writer liked the way it sounded, to eloquently state that Donald Trump was not afforded due process of law.  And without due process of law, without a trial and conviction on "insurrection", Colorado (and other foolish states) violated Donald's due process rights.

Lack of due process is more easily applied across the board to other states who try and keep Trump of their ballots.  Anyway, I think the SCOTUS will decide something like that.

HOWEVER, if you think they will find in Trump's favor, but disagree with me on what they will hinge their decision on - - - - lay it out for me brotha!

Everyone seems to forget Trump was tried for insurrection and the Senate acquitted him.
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:43 pm

But, other parts of the constitution require due process.  Still, you claim that the court will reverse, but don't believe what I've said.  So, on what grounds do you think the court will reverse?

They have to find a pretext. In order to contain the mess, my guess is that they will try to fudge up some twaddle about POTUS not being an "officer", perhaps with language to make it a "oncie" as with Bush v Gore in 2000.

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 10:48 am

To avoid such a patchwork, a majority of the justices is likely to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment.

Have you read as much as a word of the Colorado decision?

no fill us in please 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 3:37 pm

It was merely a quote from an old case, because the writer liked the way it sounded, to eloquently state that Donald Trump was not afforded due process of law.  And without due process of law, without a trial and conviction on "insurrection", Colorado (and other foolish states) violated Donald's due process rights.

Lack of due process is more easily applied across the board to other states who try and keep Trump of their ballots.  Anyway, I think the SCOTUS will decide something like that.

HOWEVER, if you think they will find in Trump's favor, but disagree with me on what they will hinge their decision on - - - - lay it out for me brotha!

He was afforded the Due Process allowed for under Colorado law.

BuckNaked » 09 Jan 2024, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:16 pm

no fill us in please

Read it.

Thank me.

Now.
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:11 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:11 pm

I was in error.
You are correct. 

That said, it is not binding outside the "circuit".

Its the freaking Supreme Court!!! No other case law is "binding" on them.  ****, they even overturned Roe v. Wade - and that was a Supreme Court Decision.  So, I don't know what your point is by saying its not "binding"?
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:16 pm

He was afforded the Due Process allowed for under Colorado law.

And, you base this on what, exactly?  One of the dissenting judges disagrees with you, and explained why.  So, you better have something better than what he has to say on that topic.  Regardless, of what you may come up with, I still think that will be a focal point of the SCOTUS's decision. 

Again, if you think there is some OTHER basis for the SCOTUS to reverse it, please do tell!  This is the third time I've asked. 
 
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 4:32 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:32 pm

Its the freaking Supreme Court!!! No other case law is "binding" on them.  ****, they even overturned Roe v. Wade - and that was a Supreme Court Decision.  So, I don't know what your point is by saying its not "binding"?

Because it matters...

It didn't invalidate Sec. 3, it merely requalified an entire class.

Grifty isn't a class...