Age is irrelevant. Its about capacity - both physically and mentally. Biden has neither. Trump has both. Biden needs to sleep 9-10 hours every night. Trump gets by on 4-5. Cognitively Trump is sharp. Biden is mush. If he wasn't POTUS he'd be wearing a bracelet or a tag with his address on it.
Breaking!!! - CO Supreme Court strikes Trump from ballot.
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Mental capacity is something you might want to explore more fully, pal
...
Trump was always outspoken and to a degree obnoxious. His behavior has become even more erratic and intemperate. That's a sign of aging.
I think anyone here that knows me I don't get into the business of extrapolating what Trump says or repeating Rachel Maddow or another's interpretation of what he said. However, there is a big difference between 78 and 70 particularly when you have never been known for self-restraint and temperateness.
Last edited:
Earp, you know fuck all about law.
There was a judicial hearing on Trump's eligibility and there was a judicial decision. There you go!!! Done!!!
And there were dissents. Dissents are common on multi judge panels. Majority always wins. That's how it is and how it has always been.
So that's it, Earp. Due process. It doesn't require what you think of as a "trial" with gavels and dingdongs and bingle-bongles or whatever tf else you imagine is necessary. The judges read affidavits and depositions and whatever else was filed and it heard argument and the judges found the state met the standard of proof in a civil proceeding.
So how much more of the board's time are you going to waste with your junior kindergarten "I watched Law and Order and this is nothing like that at all" nonsense today??
Trump also plays to an audience of people like KDouglas. So Trump has ever incentive to become dumber and less organized over time because that's how his audience is.
mandrill, you are either not a well-educated lawyer or a lawyer who can't put partisanship aside to offer a professional and impartial opinion about the law.
What are you going to say if the Supreme Court and possible some liberal members vote to overturn using reasoning from the dissenting Colorado judges? The fact is anyone with a reasonable amount of knowledge and education can read and understand the dissenting opinion to make a judgement. I'm afraid you are going to here a lot about due process whether you care to or not. Enjoy this little Colorado judicial indulgence while it lasts.
I don't give a fuck that you think you are special because of your legal background. Man-up and offer impartial knowledge about the law if your legal background is important to you on social media. I can't help you beyond that.
It's all semantics. An insurrection trial would be Federal. The Colorado Court is a sideshow.
Which is another question. Jack Smith isn't prosecuting Trump for insurrection. We would have to see where the defrauding the government indictment goes and how a conviction would be applied.
The consitution does not say convicted of insurrection. There was a hearing after which the court made a finding that the provisions of the 14th amendment had been met. Of course the SCOTUS may disagree. The logical implication of your post is that a dem appointed judge cannot impartially trie a republican but a republican appointed judge could. Presumably the opposite would be true in your view which leads to the conclusion that there really is no justice but only a partisan facsimile. I for one do not accept that although from time to time there are certainly some judges who let their partisanship cloud their decisions.
Any democracy should be afraid of people acting against the democracy.
So you would go against the democratic process of letting the people decide through the election process as to who becomes their leader?
Are you a causal democracy supporter or do you believe democracy is not a hobby when it suits your purpose?
Seems I missed the first 10 seconds or so of the trailer sound. It's led by Texas and California, but there are 19 other states involved. (So it is just that the two biggest have a lot of weight.)
So that's a bit more coherent than two randomly non-neighbor states with fairly different politics. (Maybe it is a water situation? That would affect the Southwest.)
They probably also want to make it somewhat ambiguous to not piss people off - but it is hard to do a second civil war movie and have no politics in it.
And this is the crux of the argument for a lot of people.
What is the correct way to determine that the provisions of the 14th amendment have been met?
US precedent is that these kinds of determinations are up to the individual states.
But not always, so there is some wiggle room there.
Is SCOTUS even going to address that larger question? (My bet is no.)
Wyatt has made it clear he thinks the standard should be conviction of the Federal crime of insurrection and nothing else. (Which given the previous uses of the amendment, would mean articulating a new standard that would have resulted in some of those previous uses being incorrect.) Despite the large change that would involve, that's not a totally irrational standard by any means. But it is one SCOTUS would have to explicitly mandate and argue for if that is what it wants to decide.
Part of the democratic system is having rules for qualifying to run as a politician.
Are you against democracy with rules?
I would expect that half the US is horrified by this movie and half quite excited.
But you can't make it look like an instruction manual.
I agree, but I think we live in a time in America where you have to demonstrate this in an appropriate court. That would be my personal preference too. Additionally, the "due process" clause of our Constitution ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") is an important clause that has traditionally been debated a great deal by courts. We will see if the U.S. Supreme Court bridges that topic in this case.
No offense, I would save your breath arguing with me about due process . Due Process was brought up by the dissenting Supreme Court Justices of Colorado. So it's in play here.
It really depends on how well their opinions are reasoned and framed to support a decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court Justices might have biases as all men and women do, but they have lifetime tenure to the highest judicial body in the land which frees them from political pressure. The Colorado Supreme Court justices have to survive retention votes (in a Democratic state) and possibly seek/entertain future judicial appointments to a Federal Court from Democratic political leaders.
I'm not really sure what your argument is here. As described above, I'm not saying all decisions are partisan. I'm saying decisions can be impacted by biases which you yourself acknowledge in your final statement.
You seem to be trying to navigate in this precarious territory where you and others here agree the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn it, but Wyatt cannot stand to be be correct on any level. That's fine. You don't have to acknowledge that any of my arguments make sense if that makes you comfortable here. The U.S. Supreme Court will opine. Their word will likely be clear and most definitely will be final.
It's A24 so I doubt they are trying to make a movie that is deliberately polarizing, but who the fuck knows.
They may just figure controversy will sell tickets no matter what.
But this doesn't necessarily include a trial and a finding of guilt to a criminal standard.
We both know the USSC has been stacked.
Can you show me where it says that the CO SC justices have to survive "retention votes"? Genuinely curious, as this is unheard of in the Anglo-Canadian system.
And I'm pretty sure the dissenting CO judges have been short-listed by the GOP for future federal judicial appointments. It cuts both ways.
But there are already rules.
This is just a rule that you dislike because it disqualifies your hero. So you're sulky about the rule.
I agree with what Valcazar just wrote. The 14A doesn't facially require a criminal finding of guilt. If the USSC says that the 14A applies only after a criminal conviction, then I would shrug and say "That's a logical, but not inevitable interpretion of the 14A."
C'mon, Wyatt. Lose gracefully without taking a tantrum for once.
While I agree with you Trump's behavior can be erratic, such as his recent animus towards Rep. Chip Roy, I don't think that has anything to do with aging. He's still cognitively sharp. Years of business negotiations have him tried and tested. The real estate business is pretty cut throat and if you're not on the ball it can sink you.
