How big

[WrestlingRasta]

16 minutes ago, jross said:

Where is the compromise with a popular vote enabling metros to decide what is best for them is best for all?

 

I wasn’t saying that is happening, my comment is more general in nature. 
 

But…to answer your question, the compromise in the popular vote is that it is decided by the majority. It’s only “me against the metros” if you want to make it that way. 

[mspart]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Is a 'conviction' needed to keep someone off the ballot for not being a citizen or 35 years old? No. Same situation. Sorry that its confusing.  

A trial was held. Testimony was offered for and against. A judge made a decision. That's it. If SCOTUS upholds it, which they should, then he doesn't get to play president anymore. 

To your 1st paragraph, no it is not the same situation at all.   Sorry that is confusing.   Are you saying it is a judgement call that a person is a citizen or 35 years old?  Those 3 point, are objective things that there is no debate about.  Period.   Whether Trump incited an insurrection or not is a judgement issue, not objective truth.   The CO court saying he did is essentially convicting him without judicial due process.   And that is objective truth. 

To your 2nd paragraph, a trial was held and found Trump guilty of insurrection.   Yet he was not charged at said trial and was not present at said trial.   Apparently you don't see anything wrong with that but that action is antithetical to what the justice system is supposed to be about.   Essentially Trump was deprived of getting his name on the ballot without due process because 4 of 7 justices "think" he was involved in an insurrection and  made that decision without a trial specifically for that purpose.   Due process is protected in the 5th amendment.  

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

To your 1st paragraph, no it is not the same situation at all.   Sorry that is confusing.   Are you saying it is a judgement call that a person is a citizen or 35 years old?  Those 3 point, are objective things that there is no debate about.  Period.   Whether Trump incited an insurrection or not is a judgement issue, not objective truth.   The CO court saying he did is essentially convicting him without judicial due process.   And that is objective truth. 

To your 2nd paragraph, a trial was held and found Trump guilty of insurrection.   Yet he was not charged at said trial and was not present at said trial.   Apparently you don't see anything wrong with that but that action is antithetical to what the justice system is supposed to be about.   Essentially Trump was deprived of getting his name on the ballot without due process because 4 of 7 justices "think" he was involved in an insurrection and  made that decision without a trial specifically for that purpose.   Due process is protected in the 5th amendment.  

mspart

Helped to insight an insurrection is not the issue. He did do that. But that is beside the point. The plain text reads, 'shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.' Its the aid and comfort part. He did all the other things too. Of which there is little doubt. A criminal conviction is not needed for a constitutional violation. This one unfortunately comes with a penalty of not having the opportunity to finish what they started. He's a poor leader, with poor ideas, poor imagination, poor choice in a supporting cast(in that no one with any integrity or isn't in on the grift, will work with him, that should tell you something, even Bill Barr and that's a low standard). 

If SCOTUS overrules the decision, they're credibility will be shot for a generation or longer. If they uphold it, it will rightly cause a mess with the election process. But we'll figure it out. One of the other crappy candidates will win. 45 will run as a write in or 3rd party candidate and break the GOP for good. Can't happen soon enough, honestly. Y'all need to get your sh together. Letting a 70+ year old infant fun your party has caused some damage. 

Ps. isn't the Speaker giving aid and comfort by blurring the faces of those that broke into the capital but may not have been charged yet? Would be interesting if LA brought that up in a court case. Who else would be able to win that vote? 

[mspart]

Again, it is opinion that Trump did all this.   His rights are being taken away without due process and being charged with a crime. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/politics/indictment-trump-jan-6-violence.html

The Charges That Were Notably Absent From the Trump Indictment

An indictment this week did not accuse former President Donald Trump of inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol, but it did show that some close to him knew violence might be coming.

There was something noticeably absent when the special counsel, Jack Smith, unsealed an indictment this week charging former President Donald J. Trump with multiple conspiracies to overturn the 2020 election: any count that directly accused Mr. Trump of being responsible for the violence his supporters committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The indictment asserted that as violence erupted that day, Mr. Trump “exploited the disruption,” using it to further his goal of stopping the certification of his loss in the election. But it stopped short of charging him with actually encouraging or inciting the mob that stormed the building, chasing lawmakers from their duties.

And that last sentence is the issue at hand.   Not even the DOJ has gone as far as CO supreme court.   The DOJ in their reasonable judicial analysis decided not to charge because they could not prove it.   The CO supreme court in their reasonable judicial analysis decided to strip Trump of being on the ticket because they could just say he did something the DOJ is not willing to try in court.   Yes, the optics do not just seem bad, they are bad.  

mspart

[mspart]

I just saw this. 

https://www.mediaite.com/news/foxs-turley-argues-that-all-9-scotus-justices-should-overturn-trump-ballot-ban-too-important-not-to-speak-as-one/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said that all nine justices seated on the United States Supreme Court should sign on to an opinion overturning the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to kick Donald Trump off of its 2024 ballot on Wednesday, arguing that it was “too important not to speak as one” on this question.

The Centennial State jurists released an opinion on Tuesday taking Trump off its ballot on the grounds that the 14th Amendment disqualified him from holding the presidency again. On America Reports Wednesday afternoon, Turley listened to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold submit that Trump shouldn’t have a “get out of jail free card” on the issue of insurrection and strenuously objected to her premise.

“Well, it’s a curious argument because it’s not a get out of free card because there is laws governing insurrection and incitement. And notably, Trump was not charged with that,” noted Turley. “You had a very motivated special counsel in Jack Smith who hit Trump with anything he could. But he conspicuously left out incitement, insurrection, sedition because he couldn’t prove it, because the evidence is not there. So that only adds to the problems here.”

He continued:

But the real issue for the Supreme Court is far more fundamental and frankly chilling. You know, this country is the most successful and stable constitutional system in history. And now, after two centuries of that, what these four justices have done is to introduce a destabilizing element in that system. And it’s going to go to the Supreme Court, and this may be the ultimate challenge for Chief Justice Roberts. I don’t have much question they will overturn this decision, but they should do it unanimously. They should do it in one voice, all nine, and not divide on this. It’s too important not to speak as one.

I'll just say I agree. 

mspart

 

[PortaJohn]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

If SCOTUS overrules the decision, they're credibility will be shot for a generation or longer.

Thats just your opinion and not necessarily fact

[ThreePointTakedown]

33 minutes ago, mspart said:

I just saw this. 

https://www.mediaite.com/news/foxs-turley-argues-that-all-9-scotus-justices-should-overturn-trump-ballot-ban-too-important-not-to-speak-as-one/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said that all nine justices seated on the United States Supreme Court should sign on to an opinion overturning the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to kick Donald Trump off of its 2024 ballot on Wednesday, arguing that it was “too important not to speak as one” on this question.

The Centennial State jurists released an opinion on Tuesday taking Trump off its ballot on the grounds that the 14th Amendment disqualified him from holding the presidency again. On America Reports Wednesday afternoon, Turley listened to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold submit that Trump shouldn’t have a “get out of jail free card” on the issue of insurrection and strenuously objected to her premise.

“Well, it’s a curious argument because it’s not a get out of free card because there is laws governing insurrection and incitement. And notably, Trump was not charged with that,” noted Turley. “You had a very motivated special counsel in Jack Smith who hit Trump with anything he could. But he conspicuously left out incitement, insurrection, sedition because he couldn’t prove it, because the evidence is not there. So that only adds to the problems here.”

He continued:

But the real issue for the Supreme Court is far more fundamental and frankly chilling. You know, this country is the most successful and stable constitutional system in history. And now, after two centuries of that, what these four justices have done is to introduce a destabilizing element in that system. And it’s going to go to the Supreme Court, and this may be the ultimate challenge for Chief Justice Roberts. I don’t have much question they will overturn this decision, but they should do it unanimously. They should do it in one voice, all nine, and not divide on this. It’s too important not to speak as one.

I'll just say I agree. 

mspart

 

(insert just as many if not more articles and quotes contradicting the position you articulated here)

I agree 

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Thats just your opinion and not necessarily fact

Well phrased

[Plasmodium]

I don't know enough about constitutional law to keep up with the experts on this here BBS.

I do know what has happened so far is legal, binding and happening in parallel all across the country. It is very consequential. Personally, I prefer Trump on the ballot. However, SCOTUS is the authority and all will accept their decision because the law is the law and it applies to the stoner state as much as it does to Trump.

[Le duke]

The electoral college is tyranny. Can you please explain.

Wyoming gets one electoral vote per ~150,000 people. The Dakotas, one per 190k and 210k. Alaska, one per 175k.

In Texas or California, it’s one per 500,000+. NJ, one per 439k, PA one per 490k.

Rural, low population areas are given unreasonably high representation in the electoral college.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Wyoming gets one electoral vote per ~150,000 people. The Dakotas, one per 190k and 210k. Alaska, one per 175k.

In Texas or California, it’s one per 500,000+. NJ, one per 439k, PA one per 490k.

Rural, low population areas are given unreasonably high representation in the electoral college.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Alaska and Wyoming can get together and swing an election?

Is this why candidates spend so much time campaigning in Wyoming & Alaska? 

[VakAttack]

7 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Incorrect.  It is textualist/originalist to read and interpret the entire Amendment, as well as anything else that would explain the writer’s intent.  At the time it was written it was perfectly understood that it pertained to the Civil War.  The men affected by it were well known to have been associated with the Southern war effort.  They didn’t, nor could they, deny it.  Even so, enough controversy arose that Congress found it necessary to write a statute the next year.  A statute that the Colorado court ignored.  I believe that when the Supreme Court deals with this case it’ll be said to be textualist/originalist, and will go against the Colorado court, and you. 

It is not, when:

 

1. The text of the section in question is self-executing on it's face.

2. You literally, when making your argument, had to add language to the existing text to make it say what you wanted to say.  That is literally the opposite of textualism or originalism.  Sure, maybe the Court will SAY it's textualist, but that doesn't make that true.  The Justices change their arguments all the time to suit their needs in a given moment.  Look no further than their public comments on Roe v. Wade prior to being sat on the Court, all of them calling it settled law and saying they would respect stare decisis, but as soon as they had enough votes...not so settled law.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg at times argued SHE was an originalist., which is obviously patently absurd.

3. In your insistence on ignorance, you're ignoring that the Constitutional argument vs. the statute at 18 USC 2383.  18 USC 2383 (the "Treason, Sedition, Insurrection, etc." statute) is a criminal proceeding.  The penalty of not being able to hold office is not a criminal proceeding (neither is impeachment).  Let me give you an example:

Lets say you, Offthemat, are just being obstinate about an argument that you are ill-informed on and have to Google constantly to get information that you hope supports your position and you just keep regurgitating it, over and over again.  In this completely hypothetical situation, you're just insistent on being so ridiculously ingrained and entrenched on a position that I became enraged and punched you in your hypothetically stupid face.  Like I just hypothetically whaled on your hypothetically stupid, stupid face.  Now, I could be charged with a crime because of said whaling, arrested, and prosecuted.  Now, lets say somehow, I was acquitted of said whaling.  You could still sue me civilly for the savage beating I laid on you, and you could still win and be awarded some amount of money to make up for the hypothetical ass-whupping I had laid on you.  Even though I wasn't convicted of the same crime in a criminal court!

[Plasmodium]

5 hours ago, Paul158 said:

The electoral college is tyranny. Can you please explain.

It is unjust because it amplifies the voice of some at the expense of others.  For example, a voter in Wyoming carries the same weight as about 4 Californians.  The majority shouldn't be subject to the will of the minority.  Crazy.  There is no tyranny of the majority, but there certainly is a tyranny of the minority. In our time, it is quite literally MAGA.  Decidedly minority, but running the show.  I felt oppressed and highly resentful when Trump was in office.

The electoral college also suppresses the vote by removing incentive to vote.  Pointless to vote for president in Oklahoma or California.

Additionally, there is potential to override the outcome in an entire state as the GOP was and is threatening to do. We shouldn't be so naive as to think that won't happen.  Most of the people on this BBS probably want it to happen.

[PortaJohn]

13 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Wyoming gets one electoral vote per ~150,000 people. The Dakotas, one per 190k and 210k. Alaska, one per 175k.

In Texas or California, it’s one per 500,000+. NJ, one per 439k, PA one per 490k.

Rural, low population areas are given unreasonably high representation in the electoral college.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our founding fathers weren't dopes.  The electoral college was created to prevent a democratic mob, offset low informed voters, and stop a populist president from taking power.  

[Plasmodium]

13 minutes ago, ionel said:

So Alaska and Wyoming can get together and swing an election?

Is this why candidates spend so much time campaigning in Wyoming & Alaska? 

Why would they spend any time?

[Plasmodium]

4 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Our founding fathers weren't dopes.  The electoral college was created to prevent a democratic mob, offset low informed voters, and stop a populist president from taking power.  

Or as a convenient, practical implementation of the 3/5ths compromise.

[PortaJohn]

11 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Or as a convenient, practical implementation of the 3/5ths compromise.

That is ridiculous and lacks an understanding of history.  But go ahead expound on this continued talking point you've yet to explain in detail 

[Plasmodium]

Just now, PortaJohn said:

That is ridiculous and lacks an understanding of history.  But go ahead expound on this continued talking point you've yet to explain in detail 

It is not ridiculous.  It is fact.

[jross]

41 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

For example, a voter in Wyoming carries the same weight as about 4 Californians. 

There is stronger evidence for God than I had imagined.

[jross]

42 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

there certainly is a tyranny of the minority

Are we talking about the Electoral College or Dylan Mulvaney?  Dylan is a minority with the power to get people canceled.  

Life is confusing.  Who can tell if minority voices are good or bad?

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

It is unjust because it amplifies the voice of some at the expense of others.  For example, a voter in Wyoming carries the same weight as about 4 Californians.  The majority shouldn't be subject to the will of the minority.  Crazy.  There is no tyranny of the majority, but there certainly is a tyranny of the minority. In our time, it is quite literally MAGA.  Decidedly minority, but running the show.  I felt oppressed and highly resentful when Trump was in office.

The electoral college also suppresses the vote by removing incentive to vote.  Pointless to vote for president in Oklahoma or California.

Additionally, there is potential to override the outcome in an entire state as the GOP was and is threatening to do. We shouldn't be so naive as to think that won't happen.  Most of the people on this BBS probably want it to happen.

The bicameral legislature exists specificly to prevent the majority rule and give the minority a say. It is a fundamental element of our representative democracy. Always has been. This is not a MAGA invention. This is an always and everywhere thing.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing

[Plasmodium]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The bicameral legislature exists specificly to prevent the majority rule and give the minority a say. It is a fundamental element of our representative democracy. Always has been. This is not a MAGA invention. This is an always and everywhere thing.

 I didn’t say MAGA invented anything.  MAGA simply is.

[Wrestleknownothing]

18 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

 I didn’t say MAGA invented anything.  MAGA simply is.

Its a feature, not a bug.

[JimmyBT]

On 12/21/2023 at 4:06 PM, Plasmodium said:

It is unjust because it amplifies the voice of some at the expense of others.  For example, a voter in Wyoming carries the same weight as about 4 Californians.  The majority shouldn't be subject to the will of the minority.  Crazy.  There is no tyranny of the majority, but there certainly is a tyranny of the minority. In our time, it is quite literally MAGA.  Decidedly minority, but running the show.  I felt oppressed and highly resentful when Trump was in office.

The electoral college also suppresses the vote by removing incentive to vote.  Pointless to vote for president in Oklahoma or California.

Additionally, there is potential to override the outcome in an entire state as the GOP was and is threatening to do. We shouldn't be so naive as to think that won't happen.  Most of the people on this BBS probably want it to happen.

Get rid of states then.  Why bother ??

[Plasmodium]

24 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

Get rid of states then.  Why bother ??

States serve other purposes.