The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[oldbadger]

I can't calm down. I am a liberal snowflake. I care about things like democracy, human rights and equality. I take rape seriously.

But which is it? Is he an honest person who means what he says, or is he a fat stupid racist sexist rapist who says disgusting things and lies constantly so we shouldn't pay him any attention?

Yes, yes yes...to all that.
But Colorado tried to remove him from their voting because he 'engaged in insurrection' and he was never convicted of that by any criminal court.
In the UK we hear that the whole Supreme Court judged that he could stand there and everywhere else unless by a vote by Congress.

Most impartial folks never believed that he could be removed, just as we posted here a few weeks ago.

 

[F1fan]

All of you with TDS can speculate all you want about Congress doing anything about Trump, isn't going to happen.

All that matters is that the majority of voters in swing states reject Trump for president.

That should end all the delays in his numerous trials.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wouldn't hold your breath. If by "US District Attorney" you mean the federal Attorney General, I suppose you could make the case that this law applies analogously to that person for federal office holders. But the AG is appointed by the President. So if Trump becomes President, he'll appoint a MAGA yes-man to that position. Which means likely nothing will happen internally at the US DoJ to threaten Trump's Presidency at that point.

No, I'm pretty sure it would be this guy:

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Left Coast]

No, I'm pretty sure it would be this guy:

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Presidency is not an office of just DC. It's a federal office over the entire country. So I doubt that sort of case would be a local DC district issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Presidency is not an office of just DC. It's a federal office over the entire country. So I doubt that sort of case would be a local DC district issue.

The act puts the duty on "the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office." I'm pretty sure the Attorney General wouldn't meet this definition.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

As he should. There is a bipartisan bill sitting there that the Republicans could vote on today, that has pretty much everything they want in it. Biden said he'd sign it immediately after it passed through Congress.
They're not doing it because Trump told them not to, so they have something to run on this election cycle.
That means it's the Republicans who apparently don't care about open borders, so long as they can use it to their own advantage.

The ball's in the Republicans' court. They own this now.

No it is in Bidens court. He has the power right now to implement more border security measures. Such as remain in Mexico policy or start building the wall. There are good reasons the republicans didn't vote for the bill. It really did nothing to stop illegal immigration. It allowed the President to override anything in that bill if they wanted to. Here is a link to how Biden has reversed border security as President

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Biden-Admin-Actions-Undermining-Border-Security.pdf

If Trump did it under his admin why does Biden need another law?

 

[Left Coast]

The act puts the duty on "the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office." I'm pretty sure the Attorney General wouldn't meet this definition.

The President holds his office across all districts. He's just as much the President in my district in California as he is in the District of Columbia. I can't think of anyone else whose legal scope would apply to a federal office holder aside from the AG.

 

[Laniakea]

**** them for letting a traitor run and making it clear states rights regarding elections are for Red States.

Nobody is above the law, and the SCOTUS (even all the liberals there) agreed to let democracy (letting the people actually vote for the candidate of their choice) remain in place.
No need to be bitter about that, especially if we don't want to see democracy overthrown.

 

[Laniakea]

As he should. There is a bipartisan bill sitting there that the Republicans could vote on today, that has pretty much everything they want in it. Biden said he'd sign it immediately after it passed through Congress.
They're not doing it because Trump told them not to, so they have something to run on this election cycle.
That means it's the Republicans who apparently don't care about open borders, so long as they can use it to their own advantage.

The ball's in the Republicans' court. They own this now.

Have you even read the bill to find out what's in it, or would you prefer the Pelosi method of finding out what's in it?
We know how biden and his people work. Put out a bill called something conservatives want, only for it to contain anything but those things. Take the "Inflation Reduction Act" as an example, which had nothing to do with reducing inflation, but everything to do with forcing people to have electric cars, electric stoves, and electric everything else.
Learn a lesson from that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it is in Bidens court. He has the power right now to implement more border security measures. Such as remain in Mexico policy or start building the wall. There are good reasons the republicans didn't vote for the bill. It really did nothing to stop illegal immigration. It allowed the President to override anything in that bill if they wanted to. Here is a link to how Biden has reversed border security as President

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Biden-Admin-Actions-Undermining-Border-Security.pdf

If Trump did it under his admin why does Biden need another law?

Biden said he's happy to sign the legislation, once passed. And hurry up about it.

James Lankford, a Republican, crafted the bill a couple of months ago. Republicans got what they want in that bill. So, why won't they vote on it?
Because Dear Leader said so. Because they think it would make Biden look good. So they suddenly don't like it anymore.

Sorry, ball's in the Republican's court. They can whine and cry all they want, but they got what they wanted, and rejected it for political reasons. They own it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nobody is above the law, and the SCOTUS (even all the liberals there) agreed to let democracy (letting the people actually vote for the candidate of their choice) remain in place.
No need to be bitter about that, especially if we don't want to see democracy overthrown.

So, if we don't want to see democracy overthrown, everyone should allow the guy who tried to overthrow democracy .... run for President again?
Wha?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you even read the bill to find out what's in it, or would you prefer the Pelosi method of finding out what's in it?
We know how biden and his people work. Put out a bill called something conservatives want, only for it to contain anything but those things. Take the "Inflation Reduction Act" as an example, which had nothing to do with reducing inflation, but everything to do with forcing people to have electric cars, electric stoves, and electric everything else.
Learn a lesson from that.

I know it was crafted by a Republican, that the Republicans used to like it, that it contains pretty much everything the Republicans want and have been complaining about, and that they rejected it because Trump said so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The President holds his office across all districts. He's just as much the President in my district in California as he is in the District of Columbia.

So maybe any and every US attorney is required to pursue his removal?

I can't think of anyone else whose legal scope would apply to a federal office holder aside from the AG.

I get how the AG could be seen as the boss of all the US attorneys of all the districts, but is he a "district attorney of the United States" himself?

Procedurally, the law specifies that it's "the circuit or district court of the United States in such district" that has to issue the order of removal. Every district and circuit has specific US attorneys assigned to it to represent the federal government on matters before the court.

 

[Watchmen]

I talked about due process and said the Supreme Court would unanimously overturn Colorado. I said this months ago and was raked over the coals here.

 

[Kathryn]

That's what trials are for.

And all the hassle and expense of them.

 

[esmith]

So, if we don't want to see democracy overthrown, everyone should allow the guy who tried to overthrow democracy .... run for President again?
Wha?

Your bias is showing

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And all the hassle and expense of them.

If you think trying traitors is expensive, you should see how much it costs to let them get away with it.

 

[Kathryn]

If you think trying traitors is expensive, you should see how much it costs to let them get away with it.

I'm not talking about Trump for what it's worth. I thought it was a joke when he began running for President and I am appalled by him, to be honest. I think he is an awful person.

 

[Left Coast]

So maybe any and every US attorney is required to pursue his removal?



I get how the AG could be seen as the boss of all the US attorneys of all the districts, but is he a "district attorney of the United States" himself?

Procedurally, the law specifies that it's "the circuit or district court of the United States in such district" that has to issue the order of removal. Every district and circuit has specific US attorneys assigned to it to represent the federal government on matters before the court.

This is why I question whether the law is even applicable to the Presidency. There is no single district in which the President holds office. He holds office in all of them.

Something for lawyers to hash out, I suppose. I continue to doubt if anything will happen legally if Trump is elected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not talking about Trump for what it's worth.

Neither am I.

I'm talking about these people and those who gave them aid and comfort:

The document, the California Democrat Pete Aguilar said, “explains that a confidential informant in the Proud Boys [extremist group] told the FBI the Proud Boys would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance.

“The witness whom the FBI affidavit refers to stated that other members of the group … said that anyone they got their hands on would have been killed, including Nancy Pelosi”, the House speaker.

Politicians were not killed, or dragged through the streets of Washington. But the mob that smashed its way into Congress gave every indication of trying.

Pence was 40ft from mob on January 6: ‘Vice-president’s life was in danger’

Committee hearing details how Trump whipped up hostility towards Pence for refusing to overturn election

www.theguardian.com