How to prevent another Jan 6? Boot Trump,from the ballot!

Just gonna let this one sit here while y’all take in the logic of this opinion.

Given what’s playing out in the courts, the MAGArmy may need another cause to fight for, because their violent days are rapidly coming to an end.

https://apple.news/AsdbgY2TNStyqfZGKL_5rHA

Booting Trump from the ballot is the best way to prevent a second Jan. 6
The Supreme Court has the power to stop MAGA from finding another excuse for violent insurrection

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Thursday over whether or not Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot, as both the plain language and rich history of the 14th Amendment undeniably show is legally required. If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, it will be strictly due to their thorough corruption and politicization. As Vox's legal reporter Ian Millhiser argues, the arguments for keeping Trump on the ballot are "embarrassingly weak." Anyone who doubts this should re-read the Constitution, which couldn't be clearer: Anyone who has "previously taken an oath" of office and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" cannot run again.

If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, it will be strictly due to their thorough corruption and politicization.

In the face of bulletproof legal reasoning against Trump, many of the nervous nellies who don't want to see the law followed have shifted tactics, warning that following the Constitution is simply too dangerous because MAGA-Americans will have a tantrum over it. On Monday, Politico published an expert round-up with headlines that made it seem like the threat of violence is simply too great to go forward with enforcing the law. "Mass far-right protests involving gun-toting vigilantes," warns one dire pullquote. "'National divorce' would gain new momentum," blares another. "Trigger serial, overlapping waves of resistance," threatens yet another.

If one didn't read past headlines — and the response on social media suggests most did not — this all seems like scary stuff indeed. In reality, however, most of these experts were not that worried about some violent MAGA uprising — if the Supreme Court does the right and proper thing. Additionally, most of these folks actually argue that fear of MAGA violence is not a reason to avoid the legally sound decision, because even if there is violence, the need to preserve our Constitution and democracy far outweighs that concern. Plus, as I've argued before, if you give in to MAGA threats, all you're doing is encouraging them to use violence to undermine democracy even more.

But really, the arguments run deeper than that, for one simple reason: The single best way to prevent future MAGA violence, especially in the long term, is to take Trump off the ballot.

But despite Trump's self-pitying hyperbole, the response to Tuesday's decision from the MAGA base was .... nothing.

The potential for violence will only grow as Election Day draws nearer, as the MAGA movement feels the end of democracy coming closer to their grasp. The sooner their hopes of a Trump dictatorship are dashed, the less likely they will be able to respond with the organization and outrage necessary to make another January 6 happen.

As much as he wishes otherwise, Trump simply doesn't have a standing army to mount a military coup. Any effort to steal the 2024 race will have to look like his efforts to steal the 2020 race: By cheating and defrauding the electoral process to illegally seize power. Trump turned to violence after the 2020 election only after exhausting every avenue to get judges and state officials to steal it for him. This time around, he's likely to encourage violence much sooner, to make up for not having presidential authority to mount a pressure campaign. As long as Trump is on the ballot, there are multiple targets he can direct MAGA terrorists toward in his efforts to steal the election. He's already prompting them to attack polling booths in urban and minority neighborhoods. The haphazard efforts to target vote-counting centers could be more organized this time around. If President Joe Biden wins again, the state-level certification ceremonies of Biden electors could be threatened. And, of course, there could be more violence in and around January 6, 2025, as Trump will undoubtably once again pressure Congress to steal the election for him.

On Sunday, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, seeded the possibility of another Capitol insurrection on ABC News, by arguing that the outcome should not be determined by the voters in those states. Instead, he proposed "the U.S. Congress should have fought over it" instead of simply accepting the will of the voters. By pushing the idea that Congress can and should have the power to throw out an election they don't like, Vance is starting the rationalization process that could very well lead to another riot.

All Republican coup ideas depend on the assumption that it will be a close enough election to steal. If Trump isn't on the ballot, it wrecks all their plans.

There may be a lot of angry redhats out there, but there won't be any evident way to use violence to affect the outcome. January 6 happened because they were given real reason to believe they could steal the election by blocking the counting of votes. So sure, there may be some lashing out if Trump is taken off the ballot, but without a plan for how their violence will change the outcome, a lot fewer Trump supporters will be willing to take the risk.

One expert Politico interviewed did note that removing Trump from the ballot would likely prevent violence, no matter how furious it would make his supporters.Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that Trump's campaign "will probably generate so many violent incidents," and that if Trump loses, "his disbelieving supporters are likely to engage in major violence." While there may be some incidents of violence if he's taken off the ballot, she points out that they will be diffuse, making it much easier for law enforcement to deal with than a centralized attack like we saw on January 6. Basically, MAGA will be violent one way or another, but much less so without a goal — stealing the election for Trump — that the violence is meant to achieve.

Kleinfeld's point about how the potential for violence is lower the further away from the election got bolstered on Tuesday, when the D.C. appeals court ruled that Trump is not immune from prosecution for January 6. As expected, Trump reacted to the verdict with his usual all-caps posts on Truth Social. He's clearly implying someone else should risk their life or freedom in reaction, while he sits safely at Mar-a-Lago.

But despite Trump's self-pitying hyperbole, the response to Tuesday's decision from the MAGA base was .... nothing. None of the gun-toting vigilantes clashing with leftists that we were warned about. People didn't even really leave their houses to protest. Even the response on Twitter, which has turned into a rat's nest of MAGA-fried idiocy under Elon Musk's leadership, was surprisingly muted. It's not because they were taken by surprise, either. The decision has been anticipated for weeks, but no one in MAGA world seemed to have used that time to organize any kind of response, much less a violent one. It's a reminder that months out from the election is a low point in MAGA energies, which means that it's also the best chance of heading off future violence at the pass by removing him from the ballot.

No doubt detractors will dismiss this argument as partisan wishcasting from someone who wants Biden to win. In reality, however, it would not be great for Biden if Trump is removed from the ballot soon. Biden's best chance of winning in November is against Trump. If the Supreme Court moved quickly to take Trump off the ballot this month, that would give Republicans a chance to nominate someone, such as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has a much better chance at winning.

Deep down inside, the power players in the GOP know that this would be a huge relief. They all live in constant terror that they'll be the next Republican whose career is sacrificed to appease Trump's endless appetite for ruining members of his own party. As former vice president Mike Pence would know, it's often Republicans who are in danger if Trump sends his goons to commit violence on his behalf. If the Supreme Court was smart, they'd take this chance to get rid of him for good so they can move forward with garden variety Republicans that share all their backwards views, but don't enforce their will so much with violence.

Due process?

Equal protection under the law?

Will of The People?

Due process?

Equal protection under the law?

Will of The People? Originally Posted by ICU 812

The Left cares nothing for those old outdated concepts.

Their sole aim is to keep Trump off the ballot. Period.

He’s gotten due process and has been protected to a higher level than any gangster in US history.

Will of the people … twice rejected. 91 times indicted.

Poor Trump. Such a victim!

LOLLING!

The Left cares nothing for those old outdated concepts.

Their sole aim is to keep Trump off the ballot. Period. Originally Posted by Jackie S

For the sake of America, this should be the GOPs sole aim.

Just gonna let this one sit here while y’all take in the logic of this opinion... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Thanks for that. Imma nick Ian's line "If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, it will be strictly due to their thorough corruption and politicization" which he repeated twice. Imma include it my tactics of the lame. Just not sure if it should go above 'Call them Racists' or below yet.

I suspect he is a 'court packer' advocate. No word on his fudge stance as of yet. On the upside, Ian has managed to avoid the last 3 rounds of layoffs at Vox, despite his Constitutional mis-interpretation of a Constitutional Republic versus a Democracy. I did rather enjoy his twisting in the wind aura. I wonder how he feels about jettisoning O'Biden, sooner rather than later. Does he have a plan for that?

Regardless, he seems a bit skeered about something and it danged sure ain't of loosing a few, what he passes as, Republicans along the way. I'm all for loosing some RINOs, sooner rather than later, but I'll withhold the classic Marxist mantra "By Any Means Necessary" at this point in time.

He’s gotten due process and has been protected to a higher level than any gangster in US history.

Will of the people … twice rejected. 91 times indicted.

Poor Trump. Such a victim!

LOLLING! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

... And yet - LEADING in the Polls! ...

... Yer opinion-piece there, mate... It SCREAMS at
desperation to get Trump off the ballot by any means
- even by begging the Supreme Court - and Republicans
to do it. ... ...

... Hmmmm.... Why the article? ... We keep hearing
that Trump will be EASY to beat - so, WHY the Fear??

#### Salty

Trump is an insurrectionist. Biden isn’t sending him to jail. The American people are sending him to prison.

Trump is an insurrectionist. Biden isn’t sending him to jail. The American people are sending him to prison. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Trump hasn't been convicted and sentenced and probably won't be.

The American people aren't sending Trump to jail ..... the more they indict Trump and try to deny voters the legal right to vote for him, the more his polling numbers rise ..... so let the dipshit lawyers and judges keep on fucking with Trump, because the more they do that, the more American voters will flood the polls this November ..... and then the American people will be sending him back to the White House .....

Trump is an insurrectionist. Biden isn’t sending him to jail. The American people are sending him to prison. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

... What did Trump insurrect?? When was the insurrection??

And the American People are sending Trump to prison??
Seeing-as Trump is LEADING in the polls, please explain
WHICH American People are sending Trump to prison.

You want to prevent another 6 Jan? ... Don't let the
FBI/DOJ set things up. - And make sure to call up the
National Guard to help with crowd and traffic control.

#### Salty

The Supreme Court’s Colorado Trump Test

A 9-0 ruling against Colorado’s decision to banish Donald Trump from the ballot would be best for the country and the Court.

By The Editorial Board
Updated Feb. 7, 2024 7:49 pm ET

Donald Trump and his opponents have embroiled the Supreme Court in this year’s election politics, and the Court’s first test comes Thursday when the Justices consider the Colorado Supreme Court’s decree barring the former President from the state’s ballot. The Justices can help democracy with a unanimous ruling against Colorado.

The Colorado court voted 4-3 in December to disqualify Mr. Trump under Section 3 of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, also known as the Insurrection Clause. The four Justices held that Mr. Trump engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” on Jan. 6, 2021, based largely on evidence from the House Jan. 6 special committee. Maine’s secretary of state has made a similar ruling, though several other states have ruled in Mr. Trump’s favor on the question.

The easiest way to dispatch Colorado’s ruling is with a textualist analysis that the President isn’t covered by Section 3. This is the argument that David Rivkin and Lee Casey make nearby, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has made the same case in these pages.

The argument is that the President isn’t an “Officer of the United States” as defined by the Constitution. Earlier versions of Section 3 included the President and Vice President, but these offices were scrapped from the final text. That’s in part because the 14th Amendment’s authors were mainly worried that Confederate rebels would be elected to Congress, and that President Andrew Johnson would appoint them to executive-branch offices.

The Constitution’s Appointments, Commission and Impeachment Clauses separately refer to the President and “officers of the United States.” If the President were an officer, these clauses would be superfluous or illogical. Article II gives the President the power to appoint “Officers of the United States” with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President doesn’t nominate himself.

As Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’”

Mr. Trump and several friend-of-the-court briefs also make a compelling argument that Section 3 isn’t self-executing—meaning that Colorado’s Supreme Court cannot by itself disqualify Mr. Trump or anyone else it deems an insurrectionist.

Section 3 notably doesn’t authorize state courts or officials to enforce its provisions or specify a process for determining whether individuals have “engaged in insurrection” and how to disqualify them from serving in government. Instead, the 14th Amendment empowers Congress to “enforce” Section 3 by enacting “appropriate legislation.” Congress did so in 1870 by requiring federal prosecutors to bring writs of quo warranto to disqualify office holders.

Congress later repealed most of this law. What remains is a federal criminal statute punishing insurrection, which says anyone “who engages or assists in an insurrection... shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” But Mr. Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection, and neither has anyone else who has been charged with other crimes in connection to Jan. 6.

A risk for the future is that other partisans will define insurrection down to disqualify their political opponents. As former Attorneys General Ed Meese, Bill Barr and Mr. Mukasey argue in a friend-of-the-court brief, “without a clear statutory definition, the types of presidential actions that might be deemed an ‘insurrection’ are virtually limitless.”

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey make another crucial point, which concerns the uniformity among states in qualifications for the Presidency. If Colorado is upheld, and a handful of other states follow, the 2024 election will be a patchwork electoral quilt. Mr. Trump will be on some state ballots and not others. This would be tremendously polarizing politically. But as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has ruled that while states can determine election procedures, they can’t change the qualifications for federal office in the Constitution.

The best course for the country would be for the Justices to settle this case on the narrow legal issues, and not to enter the political fight over whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection. The Justices don’t need to go there if they find that Section 3 doesn’t cover the President. A 9-0 decision would send a unified message to the country that Colorado is wrong on the law.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...tion-244d9ca0?

...
Seeing-as Trump is LEADING in the polls, please explain
WHICH American People are sending Trump to prison.


#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Once again I ask you to take a course in Market Research 101 so you can understand how lacking in knowledge you are about polls.

The Supreme Court’s Colorado Trump Test

A 9-0 ruling against Colorado’s decision to banish Donald Trump from the ballot would be best for the country and the Court.

By The Editorial Board
Updated Feb. 7, 2024 7:49 pm ET

Donald Trump and his opponents have embroiled the Supreme Court in this year’s election politics, and the Court’s first test comes Thursday when the Justices consider the Colorado Supreme Court’s decree barring the former President from the state’s ballot. The Justices can help democracy with a unanimous ruling against Colorado.

The Colorado court voted 4-3 in December to disqualify Mr. Trump under Section 3 of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, also known as the Insurrection Clause. The four Justices held that Mr. Trump engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” on Jan. 6, 2021, based largely on evidence from the House Jan. 6 special committee. Maine’s secretary of state has made a similar ruling, though several other states have ruled in Mr. Trump’s favor on the question.

The easiest way to dispatch Colorado’s ruling is with a textualist analysis that the President isn’t covered by Section 3. This is the argument that David Rivkin and Lee Casey make nearby, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has made the same case in these pages.

The argument is that the President isn’t an “Officer of the United States” as defined by the Constitution. Earlier versions of Section 3 included the President and Vice President, but these offices were scrapped from the final text. That’s in part because the 14th Amendment’s authors were mainly worried that Confederate rebels would be elected to Congress, and that President Andrew Johnson would appoint them to executive-branch offices.

The Constitution’s Appointments, Commission and Impeachment Clauses separately refer to the President and “officers of the United States.” If the President were an officer, these clauses would be superfluous or illogical. Article II gives the President the power to appoint “Officers of the United States” with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President doesn’t nominate himself.

As Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’”

Mr. Trump and several friend-of-the-court briefs also make a compelling argument that Section 3 isn’t self-executing—meaning that Colorado’s Supreme Court cannot by itself disqualify Mr. Trump or anyone else it deems an insurrectionist.

Section 3 notably doesn’t authorize state courts or officials to enforce its provisions or specify a process for determining whether individuals have “engaged in insurrection” and how to disqualify them from serving in government. Instead, the 14th Amendment empowers Congress to “enforce” Section 3 by enacting “appropriate legislation.” Congress did so in 1870 by requiring federal prosecutors to bring writs of quo warranto to disqualify office holders.

Congress later repealed most of this law. What remains is a federal criminal statute punishing insurrection, which says anyone “who engages or assists in an insurrection... shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” But Mr. Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection, and neither has anyone else who has been charged with other crimes in connection to Jan. 6.

A risk for the future is that other partisans will define insurrection down to disqualify their political opponents. As former Attorneys General Ed Meese, Bill Barr and Mr. Mukasey argue in a friend-of-the-court brief, “without a clear statutory definition, the types of presidential actions that might be deemed an ‘insurrection’ are virtually limitless.”

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey make another crucial point, which concerns the uniformity among states in qualifications for the Presidency. If Colorado is upheld, and a handful of other states follow, the 2024 election will be a patchwork electoral quilt. Mr. Trump will be on some state ballots and not others. This would be tremendously polarizing politically. But as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has ruled that while states can determine election procedures, they can’t change the qualifications for federal office in the Constitution.

The best course for the country would be for the Justices to settle this case on the narrow legal issues, and not to enter the political fight over whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection. The Justices don’t need to go there if they find that Section 3 doesn’t cover the President. A 9-0 decision would send a unified message to the country that Colorado is wrong on the law.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...tion-244d9ca0? Originally Posted by lustylad

Trump should be on the ballot unless SCOTUS determines that his actions on January 6 should make him ineligible. This is a 6-3 Conservative court and if they say he should not be on the ballot that says it all. I doubt it will happen.

The Left cares nothing for those old outdated concepts.

Their sole aim is to keep Trump off the ballot. Period. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The Will of the people vs. the breaking of laws.

If someone broke a law and killed the most terrible person, say a Jeffrey Dahmer type of guy, would they be subject to legal prosecution if it was a popular thing that Jeffrey was killed?

when the rights of American's are violated, and the person who violates those rights has a group of supporters who think it's a good thing/ or a popular thing; did it in fact nullify the act of violation of rights, such as the right to life or trial etc?

when votes of an entire state, or in this case several states were attempted to be changed by request - er demand in fact, was it an attempt to disenfranchise those voters who didn't vote for a specific candidate and their rights?

What if it was someone who tried to nullify your vote?

How would you feel about that, or does it only count when the voters rights who are being infringed upon are from one side or the other?

Popularity and the law are two none-intertwined things, and they are in place while justice is supposed to be blind. That's why there is a presumption of innocence. The legal thing and the popular thing are not the same thing. The will of the people is subject to following the law, unless you are part of the grab your torch and pitchfork group.

message to all politicians- If you don't like penalties, stop criming.