LaxPower Back-Up Stick

So, software security firm hired by Trump Campaign to find fraud in 2020 election speaks: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... of-vpx.cnn

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 3:01 pm So, software security firm hired by Trump Campaign to find fraud in 2020 election speaks: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... of-vpx.cnn

So the courts got it right. It was all a lie. But we are still looking at Trump/Lake 2024 -- the Big Lie Ticket. Nice. Thanks GOP.

Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

... should cause a stir. Would guess this will find its way up the line of appeals.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:55 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

... should cause a stir. Would guess this will find its way up the line of appeals.

It's on its way directly to SCOTUS already - Orange Fatso team just announced it

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

Vivek going all in, and pulled this strategy within hours :

https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/17 ... a82I2GssRg

I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:00 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

Vivek going all in, and pulled this strategy within hours :

https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/17 ... a82I2GssRg

Translation: "only Republicans are allowed to use slimy, underhanded tactics to gain power. I'm SHOCKED to find gambling in this establishment".

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:34 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:00 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

Vivek going all in, and pulled this strategy within hours :

https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/17 ... a82I2GssRg

Translation: "only Republicans are allowed to use slimy, underhanded tactics to gain power. I'm SHOCKED to find gambling in this establishment".

just playing catch up.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:41 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:34 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:00 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

Vivek going all in, and pulled this strategy within hours :

https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/17 ... a82I2GssRg

Translation: "only Republicans are allowed to use slimy, underhanded tactics to gain power. I'm SHOCKED to find gambling in this establishment".

just playing catch up.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:28 pm I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

C’mon Bill. This is The Sam and Neil Show. Facts aren’t an obstacle. Just ask the Bremerton School District.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:28 pm I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

C’mon Bill. This is The Sam and Neil Show. Facts aren’t an obstacle. Just ask the Bremerton School District.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:00 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

Vivek going all in, and pulled this strategy within hours :

https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/17 ... a82I2GssRg

.... smarmy is such a brave standup guy.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:28 pm I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

Neal Katyal predicts SCOTUS will uphold Colorado decision.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:23 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:00 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:23 pm Colorado Supremes just ruled that Trump is to be removed from the ballot. Let’s see, does the full faith and credit clause apply to that decision?

Vivek going all in, and pulled this strategy within hours :

https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/17 ... a82I2GssRg

.... smarmy is such a brave standup guy.

Don't let the door hit your sorry rump on the way out, Smarmy.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:27 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:28 pm I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

Neal Katyal predicts SCOTUS will uphold Colorado decision.

Well, Neal is smarter than me and has a lot more Supreme Court experience than I do, but I’m sticking to my guns.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:38 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:27 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:28 pm I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

Neal Katyal predicts SCOTUS will uphold Colorado decision.

Well, Neal is smarter than me and has a lot more Supreme Court experience than I do, but I’m sticking to my guns.

... I'm with you. Intellectually and legally Katyal makes a good case, but my gut says you can't trust the scumbags on the court.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:38 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:27 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:28 pm I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

Neal Katyal predicts SCOTUS will uphold Colorado decision.

Well, Neal is smarter than me and has a lot more Supreme Court experience than I do, but I’m sticking to my guns.

Can anyone play this out for me; say that the SCOTUS agrees with the CO finding, how do other states act?

CU88a wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 6:54 am

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:38 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:27 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 8:28 pm I think this case presents the Court with a real hot potato, much more of one than the immunity case. That one, it seems to me, is rather easy. You rule the president is not immune from criminal prosecution for actions occurring during his term if they are outside of the scope of his constitutional duties.

But the 14th amendment case is pretty dicey. Seems pretty clear that an “officer” should include the president. The trial court made a finding of fact that Trump committed insurrection. Usually appellate courts don’t disturb the trial court’s findings of fact. I think the Supreme Court will try to find some way to duck this case while at the same time leaving Trump on the ballot. How they do that, I don’t know.

Neal Katyal predicts SCOTUS will uphold Colorado decision.

Well, Neal is smarter than me and has a lot more Supreme Court experience than I do, but I’m sticking to my guns.

Can anyone play this out for me; say that the SCOTUS agrees with the CO finding, how do other states act?

Not sure of the effect of this decision on other states. But if the SCOTUS affirms the decision, it'll make it much easier to carry this into other states and do likewise. Doesn't the Supremacy Clause come into play here if the Supremes affirm? Full faith and credit?

I think the process goes like this for now:

Trump Campaign appeals and asks the Court to extend the Colorado Supreme Court's stay of the effect of its ruling during the pendency of the appeal to SCOTUS; the Court will likely grant a stay or a continuation of the current stay.

Court issues a briefing schedule for the Petitioners (Trump Campaign) and Respondents (GOP Voters who brought the case in the Colorado courts).

Court entertains friend of the court -- Amicus -- motions, of groups and people asking to be permitted to let the court know their views on the issue.

Court sets an argument date.

The Court will be faced with a panoply of serious questions of constitutional law, and not only whether Trump triggered the insurrection clause in Section 3 of Article 14. Trump defenses below included whether this poses a political question unsuitable for the courts to deal with; whether these plaintiffs have standing to pursue the remedy here; whether Section 3 is self-executing or requires state or federal enabling legislation; and probably other defenses -- all before they reach the merits of Section 3.

Not sure how they dodge this. Not sure how they creditably avoid affirmation of the factual finding (on a clear and convincing evidence standard) that Trump engaged in or committed insurrection, and not sure how they could exclude the Presidency from the "offices" to which the Section 3 bar applies.

And of course, not sure this is the best way to remove the malignancy of this person from our politics. A sound vote rejecting him would, of course, be best. But this is the process of the law; the creators of the post-civil war constitution provided a standard against which candidates could be judged. The Colorado trial court engaged in a five day trial at which evidence was submitted by both sides, defenses were interposed, and argument was made by both parties. The Judge made findings under an enhanced, more rigorous standard of proof than in ordinary civil trials. The Colorado Supreme Court made its ruling. There will be an appeal. That is what the country understands as due process, the basic skeleton of the rule of law. Gonna be very interesting.

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.