They can only be called the Party of Responsibility if it’s within the America region. Otherwise it’s legally required to be called Sparkling Hypocrisy.
If the individual states don’t allow him on their ballot although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress how long is it before the pre-election period is just red states eliminating blue nominees?
although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress
It’s not a legal trial, it’s not a law, it’s an amendment to the constitution. No finding of guilt by a court is required.
This is bad precedent.
Blocking a presidential candidate from a states ballot because they violated the 14th amendment by engaging in an insurrection is bad precedent? Your argument is a little silly, Republicans already work in contradiction to the laws and constitution, doesn’t mean Democrats or the American people in general should not follow them.
What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?
Did Biden participate in an insurrection? Unless some very big news went under the radar Republicans can’t disqualify Biden under the 14th amendment. That’s what you’re not seeing.
Your argument is don’t uphold the 14th amendment to the constitution because Republicans might try to unlawfully disqualify Biden from the ballot? I don’t believe you don’t understand how absurd that is.
What are they trying to impeach Biden for right now?
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president without being convicted by congress or the court.
I understand it’s an unpopular opinion but this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
Elections aren’t run by the federal government, they’re run by the states. Also, Trump is not disqualified for “breaking a law”, he’s being disqualified under the terms of the 14th amendment section 3. He took an oath as president to support the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president
Isn’t that what state’s rights is all about?
Do you believe that only certain things should be state’s rights?
Who decides which is which and if it’s the feds that do that would that mean that states have no rights?
Are you just going to skip over the main part of what I said there?
this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it?
Thanks. It’s a legit question though. A rogue Secretary of State could try but you know it’ll land in court and the Judiciary will decide based on the merits of the case.
Personally I support this precedent being set. We should uphold our laws to protect our country. If a Democrat ever lands in a similar situation then this precedent will be good to have had set.
But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn’t think it applied, but I’m an idiot on my couch with no legal training.
Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn’t announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren’t anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.
Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.
Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.
The more states that block him, the better the argument that the Supreme Court should decline to intervene and let the state decisions stand.
Perfect time to use the “states rights” catch to make their heads spin
Oh, but it’s only about states’ rights when it is convenient for conservative arguments. Otherwise it’s just federal power all the way down.
They can only be called the Party of Responsibility if it’s within the America region. Otherwise it’s legally required to be called Sparkling Hypocrisy.
If the individual states don’t allow him on their ballot although he hasn’t been found guilty by courts or congress how long is it before the pre-election period is just red states eliminating blue nominees?
This is bad precedent.
It’s not a legal trial, it’s not a law, it’s an amendment to the constitution. No finding of guilt by a court is required.
Blocking a presidential candidate from a states ballot because they violated the 14th amendment by engaging in an insurrection is bad precedent? Your argument is a little silly, Republicans already work in contradiction to the laws and constitution, doesn’t mean Democrats or the American people in general should not follow them.
What’s stopping the republicans from doing the same to Biden?
That’s what the people who are taking offence to what I’m saying are not seeing.
Did Biden participate in an insurrection? Unless some very big news went under the radar Republicans can’t disqualify Biden under the 14th amendment. That’s what you’re not seeing.
Your argument is don’t uphold the 14th amendment to the constitution because Republicans might try to unlawfully disqualify Biden from the ballot? I don’t believe you don’t understand how absurd that is.
What are they trying to impeach Biden for right now?
My argument is one person should have the ability to disqualify someone from running for president without being convicted by congress or the court.
I understand it’s an unpopular opinion but this is going to backfire when republicans start going after the democratic nominee for anything they imagine and they control the Secretary of State and state Supreme Court.
Elections aren’t run by the federal government, they’re run by the states. Also, Trump is not disqualified for “breaking a law”, he’s being disqualified under the terms of the 14th amendment section 3. He took an oath as president to support the constitution and then engaged in insurrection.
Isn’t that what state’s rights is all about?
Do you believe that only certain things should be state’s rights?
Who decides which is which and if it’s the feds that do that would that mean that states have no rights?
Are you just going to skip over the main part of what I said there?
This is the important part but you’re just going to not address it?
Is it too hard?
On what grounds would they be removed? They can’t kick somebody off the ballot if it won’t stand up in court.
I wish I had your optimism.
Thanks. It’s a legit question though. A rogue Secretary of State could try but you know it’ll land in court and the Judiciary will decide based on the merits of the case.
Personally I support this precedent being set. We should uphold our laws to protect our country. If a Democrat ever lands in a similar situation then this precedent will be good to have had set.
But then the argument is we shouldn’t follow the law because the GOP might break it
No, it’s to follow the law wisely knowing the conservatives will weaponize the precedent.
Does following the law wisely mean not enforcing it?
I told you my reasoning, I clarified it and if you’re looking for an argument about it you’re not getting it from me.
Have a nice day and thanks for the conversation.
I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can’t deal with that, that’s your business
I just asked a non confrontational question. If you can’t deal with that, that’s your business
Honestly do you think that will matter? What’s to stop the Supreme Court from saying we are the final say and no one can block him?
Nothing, I think they will do it.
But the GOP likes to pretend it is about states rights and Neil Gorsuch ostensibly has a lower court ruling related to this that would seem to favour blocking Trump. I have read the opinion And I didn’t think it applied, but I’m an idiot on my couch with no legal training.
I’m not sure it matters yet. Are the parties even required to have primaries? What keeps them from just choosing at the convention?
No.
The people.
Both parties used to have a much more closed process that didn’t announce a winner until their convention. The public primaries weren’t anything more than a preference poll. Voters punished them both for it so severely that they changed.
deleted by creator
When some states allow him and some block him, that’s the argument for the Court to step in.
Normally, I’d agree that a split encourages them to take the case, but political questions are extremely thorny. The fact that all these states are using their own processes to decide how to regulate their own elections tilts toward the system working the way it’s supposed to IMO.
Both of these arguments presuppose that principles and precedent are important factors for the current conservative majority to consider. Evidence says otherwise.