• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Gee, I posted about this too. And provided a link. It is still there.
Click to expand...

You provided a link but made false claims about what your link said ... Gee .. :)

You claimed my definition of mens rea was bogus according to this link .. so post from this link where it says what you claim. Sorry friend - lying about your opponents claims is not going to make the fact that you are wong any less True.

Prove your claim and show us that you are not intentionally lying -- cite from your link where my definition of mens rea is shown to be bogus - or admit your claim was a made up falsehood.
 
S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
He doesn't do sites. He thinks that he is a source. I have requested multiple times that he finds a valid source. That is what I did. I used a neutral source that showed his interpretation of mens rea was wrong. He ignored the post. Now he demands that I do his homework for him.

I also found precedent of others that were taken off the ballot. One was not guilty of any crimes at all. He was not in the Confederate Army, he but he was still banned from holding office. He ignored that as well.


I suppose one has to ignore the case law and sources one demands if one wants to keep making the same false claims.
Click to expand...

Now lying behind about me behind back I .. tsk tsk It is you who lied about what your source stated .. which obviously I did not ignore having had to look at it to know that you lied about your source showing my definition of mens rea was "Bogus"

cite from you link where my definition of mens rea is shown to be bogus .. or admit your to your intentional deception and falsehood.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sargonski said:
You provided a link but made false claims about what your link said ... Gee .. :)

You claimed my definition of mens rea was bogus according to this link .. so post from this link where it says what you claim. Sorry friend - lying about your opponents claims is not going to make the fact that you are wong any less True.

Prove your claim and show us that you are not intentionally lying -- cite from your link where my definition of mens rea is shown to be bogus - or admit your claim was a made up falsehood.
Click to expand...
Nope. If you didn't understand it you should have said so. If I was wrong you should have quoted my post and shown how it was wrong. Why didn't you do either of those?

Now it looks as if you are trying to use deceit instead of doing your homework.


The two posts are still there, the burden of proof is still on you.
 
J

JIMMY12345

Active Member
We Never Know said:
This could stir up a **** storm.

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

"The legal debate about whether or not former President Donald Trump should be allowed to appear on the 2024 ballot has made its way before the Supreme Court.

The court distributed John Castro v. Donald Trump to the justices for conference on Wednesday ahead of the upcoming term, which will begin on October 2. Conference is to take place on September 26 and the case is expected to be decided on or before October 9.
Castro, a tax attorney running for the Republican nomination next year, sent his petition to the Supreme Court last month, asking the justices to answer whether political candidates can challenge the eligibility of another candidate of the same party running for the same nomination "based on a political competitive injury in the form a diminution of votes.

The lawsuit is seeking to argue that Trump should not be allowed to run for the White House based on section three of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. While Trump has not been charged with insurrection, Castro is pointing to Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol riot."

www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Supreme Court to decide whether to kick Trump off ballot

Castro v. Trump, a case challenging Trump's candidacy with the 14th Amendment, is expected to decided by the justices on or before October 9.
www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Click to expand...
Trump must be allowed to run.In fairness he could well win.USA voters have short memories.Also Trump does not have to deliver solutions to bring back American jobs if he does win - which is an impossibility given how cheap other countries are.He just has to promise to do so.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sargonski said:
Now lying behind about me behind back I .. tsk tsk It is you who lied about what your source stated .. which obviously I did not ignore having had to look at it to know that you lied about your source showing my definition of mens rea was "Bogus"

cite from you link where my definition of mens rea is shown to be bogus .. or admit your to your intentional deception and falsehood.
Click to expand...
When have you ever linked a source in this thread? Why haven't you properly responded to my posts? I will PM my info to others, but they probably read it. You won't apologize for your false claims about me and it looks like you won't go back and do your homework.

You could show that I am wrong so easily, if I was wrong. Instead we have more false claims and personal attacks.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have very strong doubts that a state can independently take someone off the ballot in the federal part of the ballot.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
JIMMY12345 said:
Trump must be allowed to run.In fairness he could well win.USA voters have short memories.Also Trump does not have to deliver solutions to bring back American jobs if he does win - which is an impossibility given how cheap other countries are.He just has to promise to do so.
Click to expand...
How is that "fair"? The discussion of this thread is whether he constitutionally cannot run. Arnold Schwarzenegger is constitutionally banned from running for President. Is that fair?
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
metis said:
I have very strong doubts that a state can independently take someone off the ballot in the federal part of the ballot.
Click to expand...
States have a lot of authority to conduct elections. Many who claim Trump won in 2020 are citing how some states broke their own laws in how they allowed voters to cast ballots. Of course they ignore that the states had their own authority to change their laws, which is funny. Of course their real gripe is that new laws allowed more people to vote due to the pandemic, and the conservatives vried foul. Why? Because much of their aim over the last few decades is to make voting harder, which means less turnout in certain minority communities, and that means they have an advantage.

It does remain to be seen whether a state election board can remove a person from a ballot until the Supreme Court decides. Experts in law have said that a state could remove a 33 year old from a ballot for president since the constitution says the candidate has to be at least 35. So states are in flux until the SC rules on whether Trump's actions involving the 2020 election is relevant to the 14th amendment.

I have no idea if they will accept the case, but if they do they will have to decide about his conduct, not the law. The law is clearly stated, it is Trump's actions that are the question, and to my mind it is clear his intention was fraud. Is fraud the same as insurrection? If so, then states will have no choice but to remove him from ballots. Trump couldn't even run as a write in candidate. Even if Trump got 60% of the popular vote, if he is ineligible from the presidency, just as if he was 33.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
F1fan said:
Experts in law have said that a state could remove a 33 year old from a ballot for president since the constitution says the candidate has to be at least 35.
Click to expand...
But that's already in the Constitution so there's really no question about that. However, "insurrection" really is quite vague as it's open to interpretation.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
metis said:
But that's already in the Constitution so there's really no question about that. However, "insurrection" really is quite vague as it's open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
That is still ultimately a decision for the SC. Were Trump's actions on January 6th bad enough to make him part of the attempted insurrection or not. To me the answer is yes.
 
S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
fantome profane said:
Nice toss. But what is your point?

Do you remember when Mitch McConnell said
"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day."

We have a criminal justice system in this country."
Click to expand...

"What is your point" - Stalin had a criminal justice system as well - Iran has a criminal justice system - as does Saudi Arabia - and all kinds of Political pundits willing to stand up and make self serving political statements in favor of the establishment party line.

Time to answer your own question friend - the point saying that our 3rd world kangaroo court .. constitutes a criminal justice system .. is what.. are you trying to give Putin a run for his money or something ?

and what is the point of bringing up one of the political clowns participating in the political witch hunt .. as if this shows some kind of guilt of the witch being hunted ? ding ding .. the doorbell ring .. have to be naive indeed to buy that line. Reminds me of the fellow who couldn't figure out that one needs to be convicted of the crime of "insurrection" before punishment is given - barring ol Carrot Top from the Ballot.

Where is the crime friend ? .. why you want to condemn an innocent man .. with totalitarian police state tactics .. condoning this witch hunt .. and violation of the rule of law .. and illegitimacy of authority.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
metis said:
But that's already in the Constitution so there's really no question about that. However, "insurrection" really is quite vague as it's open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Right. It sucks that the writers of the amendments were so vague. Oddly they are quite clear in their simplicity. For example the 2nd amendment says that citiuzens can own guns for the sake of forming militias, but the Supreme Court has simplified the amendment further by ignoring the militia part as a qualified for the ownership. What with the SC do to interpret the 14th? Will it simplify and consider Trump's fraudulent intentions as bad faith against democracy? Or will it require a jury to convict of a crime that they also consider to be intended in the text?

Subduction Zone said:
That is still ultimately a decision for the SC. Were Trump's actions on January 6th bad enough to make him part of the attempted insurrection or not. To me the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
For a text that is pretty clear at face value we have a SC that tends to wiggle around all sorts of agendas. Even the originalists have deviated from originalism as they ignore the "militia" part of the 2nd amendment. WTF?

I say forget sports betting, let's gamble on SC rulings, because we can't really predict much these days. Apart from Alito (a far right hardliner out for power) and Thomas (doesn't want to disappoint his beloved insurrectionist wife), the others have been unpredictable.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
F1fan said:
Right. It sucks that the writers of the amendments were so vague. Oddly they are quite clear in their simplicity. For example the 2nd amendment says that citiuzens can own guns for the sake of forming militias, but the Supreme Court has simplified the amendment further by ignoring the militia part as a qualified for the ownership. What with the SC do to interpret the 14th? Will it simplify and consider Trump's fraudulent intentions as bad faith against democracy? Or will it require a jury to convict of a crime that they also consider to be intended in the text?


For a text that is pretty clear at face value we have a SC that tends to wiggle around all sorts of agendas. Even the originalists have deviated from originalism as they ignore the "militia" part of the 2nd amendment. WTF?

I say forget sports betting, let's gamble on SC rulings, because we can't really predict much these days. Apart from Alito (a far right hardliner out for power) and Thomas (doesn't want to disappoint his beloved insurrectionist wife), the others have been unpredictable.
Click to expand...
What is a militia to you?

To me its armed citizens that can be called upon to help in time of need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top