(December 29, 2023 at 12:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(December 29, 2023 at 9:40 am)Nanny Wrote: I find the orange idiot insufferable, but Maine got this dead wrong. Trump is technically not running for president at the moment. He's running to be his party's nominee for president. A politician from the other party decided Republicans can't nominate who they choose. Bad optics for sure, but this is doomed to failure under judicial review.
Trump has not been adjudicated to have taken part in an insurrection. He is charged, and with that come a presumption of innocence, even for the cheeto.
According to some interpretations of the relevant clause, adjudication isn’t necessary. It’s - constitutionally - enough to have ‘…engaged in insurrection or rebellion…’.
Any removing him from the primary ballots makes a good deal of legal and political sense. If he stays on the ballot and crushes it in the primary, and is then removed from the general, it gives him ammunition about ‘ignoring the will of the voters’, blah blah blah.
Boru
These are all good points, and it really can be argued either way. I think a criminal conviction will be a much stronger basis than a civil finding (which is what Colorado's judgement is) because of the stricter evidentiary standard along with the fact that it would likely be settled by jury vote. For those reasons it would also be harder to attain. Absent that, his followers will be able to whine that it wasn't proven (and of course they'll likely do that anyway).
Another issue is that Constitutionally, state legislatures have the power to regulate all elections inside that state (subject to Congressional oversight). The Constitution, notably, makes no mention of oversight by SCOTUS. This opens the possibility, slim though it may be, that the Roberts Court finds itself lacking standing to adjudicate the matter.
