Trumpers don't really have an argument that insurrectionists can still run for office. It's as clear a constitutional hurdle as being 35 years old. Their only actual argument is that Trump's efforts to steal the election that culminated on J6 did not amount to an "insurrection." While i think a very unconvincing argument can be made in good faith that it wasn't, i also think most Republicans do not actually argue in good faith and instead simply vomit out whatever their ------- media ecosystem feeds to them.

Trump is the nominee. To remove h8m from a ballot in any state is a direct action to subvert democracy.

Not if he's an insurrectionist you pathetic tool.

You don't get to nominate constitutionally ineligible people to the presidency and then cry that people enforcing the document you claim to worship are the ones subverting democracy. The ONLY question is whether Trump engaged in insurrection (with a tangential administrative question of who has the power to enforce that provision).

#45 The rest of my post clarified that admittedly inartful statement.

#48 Why can you only read 10% of my posts?

You've concluded he's ineligible.

No. I leave open the possibility that he is not an insurrectionist as that term was intended to mean. My point is that's the only real question here, and that the arguments i've seen to date are not all that convincing. Claiming that enforcing this rule is an affront to democracy is a joke. It's an actual rule that does DQ someone so we only need to determine whether it applied.

The State of California concluded he's eligible.

To my knowledge the CA Sec of State only determined that she does not have legal authority to take action on eligibility, not that he is in fact eligible and did not engage in insurrection. If you are aware of a more substantive eligibility determination in California please share it here.

*applies

Why are they all women?
#53 | Posted by libs_of_dr

Why are 96% of mass shooters men?

Women are actually pretty cool, you should interact with one of them someday.

it would seem more states agree with that statement vs the declaration "He's an insurrectionist ---------!!!"

How many state authorities actually engaged in a substantive consideration of whether he engaged in insurrection and determined he did not, versus simply saying "i dont personally have the power to do this thing you're asking me to do?"

I think the VAST majority has been the latter.

a little subjective.....I don't know, really

It's not subjective at all. A merits determination (as you implied these are) is different from not reaching the merits because of standing, lack of jurisdiction, etc. The suggestion was that states are finding that Trump did not commit insurrection, and that simply isn't the case in almost all of these challenges.

I didn't see a link to the actual statement issued by the California Secretary of State.

That's because the California Sec of State only determined that, under the California Constitution, she does not have the power to enforce the 14th Amendment and bar someone from the ballot. If Eberly actually posted her decision he would have to stop lying about her reaching the merits of whether Trump engaged in insurrection.

#87 If you think the distinction between jurisdictional abstention and a merits determination is "subjective" then you have zero business even participating in this discussion.

Joe can provide a link to her statement where she actually says that.

You're asserting that states really believe he's ineligible but they don't feel they possess the authority to remove him. Sounds like a reasonable and realistic possibility.

But do you have any actual evidence of that?

Not how it works ------. YOU said, all the way back at #48, that "45 other states have decided he's eligible." The heavy implication there is that 45 states actually considered whether Trump engaged in insurrection and decided that he did not. It is on YOU to prove that this actually happened, not on the people calling you a moron for saying it.

But if you think "substantive consideration"....those 2 words....is not subjective...

Substantive consideration was an obvious reference to a determination on the merits to anyone who can read. I suppose that excludes you.

BTW since you insist on bringing up my personal life. I have always offered to post a redacted bar card or similar evidence of a JD if you'll agree to never post here again. RCade has to be in on it and ban your IP. Until you're game for that, shut the ---- up about my personal life.

you insisted along with some other morons here that the insurrection clause was as clear as the age requirement.

I always left room for interpretation of the word "insurrection." Repeatedly clarified that throughout the thread. Not my fault you can't read.

Nobody asked me, but my prediction is SCOTUS will issue something a lot more narrow or tame than anyone expects, but it will have the unstated effect of providing Trump with many more months of delay and additional appeals.

Something like, "Presidents and ex-Presidents are immune for official acts. We need not reach the question today of whether the acts at issue in this case were "official acts" because of the way we intentionally narrowed the question for this appeal in our order granting cert. Have fun litigating that one in the lower courts Jack. Toodles for now!"

No one has been charged with or found guilty of insurrection

There was no criminal statute against insurrection when the 14th Amendment was written. By failing to define it, the drafters left it to judges and ballot officials to define themselves.

"Originalists" can swallow that.