LOL TRUMP

[sys]

Do we agree that approval numbers only matter relative to the party the candidate belongs to? No one gives a eff what their approval numbers are in the other party, do they?

no, i don't think so.  most partisans will vote for a candidate of their chosen party, even if they don't particularly approve of them.  but the margins matter.

[CNS]

The only way Trump doesn’t get the nomination is if he has a stroke or something of the like. Even then, there would be a discussion.

[Trim]

Some of you people didn’t want him to die when he got covid.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If he gets convicted and some swing states take him off of their ballot because he's not eligible under the Constitution, I could see the Republican party going with someone else at the convention.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

If he gets convicted and some swing states take him off of their ballot because he's not eligible under the Constitution, I could see the Republican party going with someone else at the convention.

Since when did abiding by The Constitution make any difference to them?

[Pete]

Fair point

[Pete]

I think Trumps only threat is the “he isn’t eligible” thing, if he gets convicted. I could see the Koch’s really pushing that, and it’s clear the supreme court is already pro-Koch with their willingness to immediately hear the Jack Smith case question on whether they can prosecute Trump.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Upon further reflection, I think the gop actually leans more heavily on the Constitution. After all, there are countless instances of the Will of the few outweighing the will of the many. The only way you can lose the popular vote and still win the presidency is thru the machinations of the framers of the Constitution

[Rage Against the McKee]

The GOP doesn't care at all about the constitution, but if a state like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin takes him off of the ballot, the GOP will go with someone who has a mathematical chance of winning.

[Pete]

The GOP doesn't care at all about the constitution, but if a state like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin takes him off of the ballot, the GOP will go with someone who has a mathematical chance of winning.

Georgia will be interesting, obviously.

In Georgia, a person convicted of a felony may face restrictions in their civil rights, including the right to hold public office, unless their civil rights have been restored. This restoration process can vary.

Georgia has certain restrictions on the rights of felons, particularly in relation to voting and holding public office. For example, Georgia law typically requires a period of 10 years to pass from the completion of a felon’s sentence before they can run for state office. This period also involves conditions like adhering to the terms of the sentence, completing any probation or parole, clearing fines, and possibly obtaining clemency or a pardon

 
Under Georgia’s Constitution, Governor Brian Kemp couldn’t pardon Trump even in the unlikely event he wanted to. Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Justin Kase Photography/Shutterstock
In the MAGA fantasy for how Donald Trump will outfox his persecutors, there’s a simple Plan B that will come into play if he wins the 2024 presidential election while still facing federal criminal charges. The 46th president will either pardon himself (a controversial proposition) or he’ll order the Department of Justice to suspend any further proceedings against him and his cronies.

These remedies will not, however, be available to short-circuit state criminal proceedings like those he is facing in Fulton County, Georgia. And worse yet, if he is convicted in Georgia, a pardon is more or less out of the question. Yes, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is a Republican, albeit a Republican who is a bitter enemy of Trump and a likely witness against him in the Fulton County proceedings. But Georgia’s constitution gives the exclusive power of pardoning not to the governor (as is the case in most states) but to an appointed five-member Board of Pardons and Paroles serving seven-year terms. (This change was made in the 1940s after a governor was credibly accused of selling pardons). Georgia’s system, moreover, limits applications for a pardon to those who have already served at least five years of their sentences. There is a separate provision for commuting sentences, but it involves a very high burden of persuasion that the trial producing the sentence involved a miscarriage of justice.


When these realities of Georgia’s pardoning system began to sink in, Trump flacks immediately called on Georgia’s Republican legislature to “fix” the problem by giving the governor the pardoning power most of his peers enjoy. But that would require a constitutional amendment initiated by a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the legislature, and Republicans simply do not have the votes.

[Pete]

NOT SO FAST!

In summary, no state can lawfully impose additional eligibility criteria for presidential candidates beyond those specified in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, convicted felons are not barred from appearing on the ballot as a candidate for president in any state in the U.S. 

So, everyone will sue, it will go to the Supreme Court and they are likely to say Trump can run.

[LickNeckey]

https://www.brandeis.edu/now/2023/april/eugene-debs-tom-doherty.html

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1736565998856347763

[Rage Against the McKee]

NOT SO FAST!

In summary, no state can lawfully impose additional eligibility criteria for presidential candidates beyond those specified in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, convicted felons are not barred from appearing on the ballot as a candidate for president in any state in the U.S. 

So, everyone will sue, it will go to the Supreme Court and they are likely to say Trump can run.

Well, if he's convicted of insurrection, I don't see how even this Supreme Court could determine that he could run for office under the current wording of the 14th amendment. I think the gray area is whether he can be on the ballot at this point when he hasn't been convicted yet.

[Dugout DickStone]

so does he really reek to high heaven?

[Pete]

Looks like I had the Supreme Court figured wrong on the Jack Smith request for early review of whether Trump has immunity.  With the court deciding to not conduct an early review it might push the time back so that the underlying case will not be able to be concluded before an election, and could effectively remove Trump from prosecution risk (he’ll almost certainly attempt to pardon himself as well, if elected).

I thought the Koch’s would get their way and get an early review.  Perhaps I am missing something about their larger plan?

Maybe the Supreme Court has reason to believe the appeals court will work nights and weekends to get their decision done super fast, and then the Supreme Court can just avoid the spotlight and refuse to review the appeals court decision? I’m grasping here…

[chum1]

I've seen people saying that the delay will only be a few weeks.

[Pete]

Peggy Po:  The appeals court did demand a quick reply from Trump, so maybe bros on the Supreme Court are talking with bros on the appeals court and maybe everyone is in agreement to make this snappy?

[Pete]

I've seen people saying that the delay will only be a few weeks.

AND there was no dissenting opinion to their choice not to take this up and skip the appeals level.  That is probably the indicator.

[Pete]

I mean, if I am on the SC I want the appeals court to rule and then weigh in on it for posterity sake.  Get as many levels of folks as you can all singing from the same song book.

[Dugout DickStone]

Considering he smells super bad I can imagine either court wanting him to be in their courtroom.

[Spracne]

I've seen people saying that the delay will only be a few weeks.

AND there was no dissenting opinion to their choice not to take this up and skip the appeals level.  That is probably the indicator.

Granting immediate review would have been an extraordinary action, and it's very rare to see written dissents from a denial of review. I wouldn't read much into that. I think it's more likely that they'll let the D.C. Circuit say "no immunity for you," and then refuse to take up the appeal. 

[Pete]

I've seen people saying that the delay will only be a few weeks.

AND there was no dissenting opinion to their choice not to take this up and skip the appeals level.  That is probably the indicator.

Granting immediate review would have been an extraordinary action, and it's very rare to see written dissents from a denial of review. I wouldn't read much into that. I think it's more likely that they'll let the D.C. Circuit say "no immunity for you," and then refuse to take up the appeal. 

That works for me.

[Dugout DickStone]

3 years later he’s concocted a new immunity argument.  But after you claim you did nothing wrong, claiming immunity from wrong doing is dumb af.

[CNS]

What would be best for the country?  Court decision to remove from ballot or heart attack?