The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection

U.S. Supreme Court decisions are uniform throughout the United States. When state courts meddle in federal decisions that they aren't authorized to in the Constitution, the decisions are not uniform. Especially when that one state is filled with dope smokers.U.S. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the president, state courts are not, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, state court justices are not. State Courts have no business making federal decisions that affect voters of other states.

A few years ago, Trump was making a big deal out of claiming that Obama was not qualified to be president. So now some folk are saying that Trump is not qualified to be president.As they say, what goes around comes around.There does not seem to be any doubt that Trump participated in an unsuccessful insurrection. And the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment seems quite clear.Personally, I would find it more satisfying for Trump to be rejected by the voters rather than for a court to decide this.We both know that Colorado was not likely to vote for Trump anyway. So the court decision doesn't really affect anything. This is all a tempest in a teapot.

As presented in the table in Message 322, which you claimed to already know, judges are appointed in 14 blue states and 12 red states. You're not complaining about the Colorado approach because there's anything actually wrong with it. You're complaining about it because you don't like their recent primary ballot ruling.But if Colorado Supreme Court rulings are flawed because their justices are appointed, then Supreme Court rulings in the red states of Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah are equally flawed. As are SCOTUS's, such as Heller and Dobbs and all the rest of there rulings all the way back to the beginning of the Republic. The CNN article also says, "These comments aren't entirely accurate," in response to claims that the judges are unelected, which is exactly what you've been claiming. Why are you thanking them for confirming that you're wrong and that what we've been telling you is true? Only a deluded mind could conclude that the CNN article supports what you've been saying here.--Percy

You are very confused. What you originally said was: Theodoric replied in the very next Message 311 telling you that only one justice is unelected and that she'll be facing election next year. In contrast, you've been a font of misinformation, partial information, and contrived partisan complaints. I was actually speaking generally. That's why I said "someone". You're inventing your own definition. I'll just move past the rest of your argument that is based upon it. The 14th amendment was passed in reaction to the Civil War, but nowhere does it limit its application to that event. It doesn't even mention the Civil War.More importantly, none of those excluded from office after serving the Confederacy were ever convicted of insurrection or treason. This was a key issue addressed by the Colorado Supreme Court in their ruling: what is required for deeming someone as having participated in an insurrection? That's why they stayed their own ruling, on the assumption that it would be appealed to the Supreme Court. The facts seem to argue that Trump engaged in insurrection in four ways: a) Pressing for the creation of fake slates of electors; b) Pressuring his vice-president to reject legitimate slates of electors and accept false ones; c) Pressuring state attorneys general to manipulate vote counts; d) Incitement to violently obstruct a congressional process. You asked this before. Courts can only consider cases that come before them. So far I think Trump's ballot qualifications have been challenged in 5 or 6 states. The Michigan Supreme Court just rejected the case in that state on procedural grounds, pointing out that state law doesn't include Constitutional qualifications for their primaries. They pointed out that a primary only decides who runs in the regular election, not who serves in office. They stated that the case can be brought again after the primary should Trump win, at which point it would be an issue of federal law and of the Constitution. Federal law and the Constitution provide the criteria. The Colorado ruling made that perfectly clear. Unlike Michigan, Colorado law is specific about the qualifications for primaries, making them the same as the Constitution. That difference is why Michigan rejected their case on procedural grounds while Colorado agreed to hear theirs. Yes, of course. Yes, of course. As I mentioned above, this is why the Colorado Supreme Court stayed their own ruling, because they felt strongly that the Supreme Court should have an opportunity to weigh in. Is it too complicated for you that both red and blue states appoint justices? I hope we all want judges deciding cases based on the law, whether they're appointed or elected. Again, neither were those disqualified from federal office after the Civil War. Certainly more on the left than on the right, but many, many people are very concerned about what might happen in a second Trump presidency, especially given his words of the past month. You raise a good point: Are those with great concerns about a second Trump presidency alarmed by what he says or by what he does? Let's see if I have a good answer. Here's a list of what I think Trump has done to cause such great alarm:

• Prevented a peaceful transfer of power for the first time in U.S. history.
• Fomented distrust in U.S. elections.
• Made it okay to be racist ("Very fine people on both sides.")
• Reinstated the federal death penalty.
• Caused a great many covid deaths by making people doubt the efficacy of isolation, masks and vaccines. The last is ironic since his administration helped initiate the covid vaccine efforts.
• Lowered taxes on the rich more than anyone else.
• Reduced health care subsidies.
• Increased tariffs, apparently under the mistaken impression that it was foreign countries that pay the tariffs and not the people of the U.S.
• Increased work requirements for recipients under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) resulting in nearly a million people losing access to food aid.
• Coopted much land in national parks for exploitation.
• Reduced the percent of people who could qualify for overtime from 30% of workers to 15%.
• Loosened environmental standards that resulted in an increase in pollution, particularly greenhouse gases.
• Rolled back fuel efficiency requirements for the auto industry.
• Imposed tighter restrictions on legal immigration.
• Rolled back banking rules designed to prevent another 2008-style banking crisis.

This seems like quite a lot to be alarmed about. Comparisons between administrations are difficult because each deals with different challenges. During the Trump administration the unemployment rate fell from 4.7% to 3.5% in early 2020, but then covid hit and the unemployment hit a high of 14.7% in April of 2020. By the time Trump left office it was 6.3%.Under Biden the rate continued to drop to a low of 3.4%. At present it's 3.7%.The Biden administration has had to deal with the effects of the high deficits that were run during covid under both Trump and Biden. Inflation rose to a high of 9.1% in July of 2022 but has since steadily dropped to the current 3.1%. It's still too early to tell, but the Biden administration just might have pulled off the amazing feat of bringing down inflation without causing a recession. What most of your criticisms and complaints have in common is that they're untrue.I think the best economic policy is one that maintains a healthy economic environment that encourages wealth creation for everyone generally with no special status for anyone, especially with regard to taxes. Judging by the poverty rate, this isn't true. When Trump took office it was 12.3%, when he left office it was 11.6%, and at present it is 11.5%. However, homelessness has increased during the Biden administration, and I think it should be much more active in this area. How about free and fair elections? That seemed pretty important to you while you were arguing that rulings by unelected judges were suspect. What about our representative democracy with its (until last time) peaceful transfer of power? How about a Justice Department that isn't just the president's law firm? How about courts that can't be swayed by the chief executive? What about equality under the law? How about a Congress that is representative of the people's will? What about a court system that rules according to timeless constitutional principles? How about remaining true to the principles in the Constitution? You're giving the strong impression that you have no idea what a democratic institution is. You should take your "mainstream media" complaints to a thread where they'd be on topic. I'm not sure if you mean only those BLM protest that became riots, or if you mean all BLM protests, but whatever the case, how were they anti-democratic? Are you talking about calls to "defund the police"? If so, how are calls for city governments to redirect funds for non-police activities away from police departments anti-democratic? You really need to find another thread. No political party condones illegal immigration.In my view the Biden administration hasn't been particularly enlightened in its management of border problems. I think our number one priority should be respecting human rights as required not just by international law but by simple humanity. These are all still in the present. The political forces responsible for January 6th are still with us led by the orange one himself, and racism by law enforcement is still with us. First, take it to the right thread.Second, if you're going to rag on the media, at least get it right. Immigration is a frequent news topic. For example, this is from today's Washington Post: US delegation is meeting with Mexico's government for talks on the surge of migrants at the border.--Percy

Biden continued Trump's "remain in Mexico" policy for those requesting asylum until last year. A federal judge restored the policy at the end of last year, which is where things remain at present. This policy is anti-humanitarian and I wish it would end.The number of immigrants entering the country illegally is a percentage of those arriving at the border. More arrivals mean more entering illegally. With increasing numbers of illegals arriving at the border it is inevitable that more would be able to enter, especially since at some point the border patrol just becomes overwhelmed.I don't see why this should just be a problem for border states. The entire country should share in the burden. It shouldn't be necessary for states like Texas (not Florida - not a border state) to have to draw attention to their predicament by sending buses and planes of illegals to non-border states. The federal government should take the lead in negotiating a burden-sharing arrangement between the states. Or Congress could show some leadership and pass a law that in some way distributes the load among the 50 states. That makes no sense. Illegal immigration is a big political headache. What Democratic leadership probably wants more than anything is for some miracle to make the problem just go away. It's an incursion into federal authority and can't be permitted as a matter of principle because it would set a precedent for any state to take federal authority on any matter into its own hands. You're probably right. I expect the Biden administration never expected things to get this bad and that they are very nervous about the impact that immigration issues will have on the 2024 election. I don't understand this one. Aren't the marches south of the border? I don't think the U.S. can do much about illegal immigrants before they arrive at the border, except by enlisting the help of countries like Mexico, Honduras and so forth.But this recalls to memory another area where the Biden administration has fallen down. Shortly after taking office, Harris was charged with responsibility for handling the immigration problem at the source, at the countries illegal immigrants are coming from. I haven't heard anything that she's accomplished. You actually believe the mainstream media is engaged in a cover up of illegal immigration? Are you nuts? Could you at least sometimes take a rational position? You could reasonably argue that the mainstream media is not giving illegal immigration the attention it deserves, but to argue for a coverup just makes you sound irrational. I included what you said about the Colorado ballot issue. My reply was to that, but you responded on completely different topics. Do you have any response about the importance of putting upholding the rule of law above political games? I apologize. My bad. I meant attempted insurrection. Then you're not paying attention. I think what you're actually detecting is that I don't come to Biden's defense on many things. There's a good reason for that: I don't agree with him on many things. Unemployment is at 3.7%, inflation is at 3.14%, and the stock market is near an all time high.--Percy

This has already been explained to you. It is the states that conduct elections, not the federal government. All the states, every single one of them, have laws on the books for how their elections should be conducted. The attorney general in each state is responsible for seeing that those laws are followed.The states' independence in such matters is why, for example, the states of Maine and Nebraska divide their electors according to the vote. In the last election Biden received three of Maine's electors and Trump received one, while Trump received all of Nebraska's electors. All the other states award their electors on a winner take all basis. Maine and Nebraska can go a different route because conducting elections is the responsibility of the states, not of the federal government. SCOTUS justices are appointed by the chief executive, and state SC justices are also appointed by the chief executive. How does being confirmed by the senate remedy that SCOTUS justices are not elected, which was your complaint about the Colorado SC? By your reasoning, isn't the Colorado SC even more democratic than SCOTUS, since after a couple years they must face the voters first hand, while SCOTUS only faces them indirectly through the Senate?Let's say the Colorado SC was confirmed by the state legislature. Would that remove your complaint about their not being elected, and if so why? What is your rationale?And no matter what your answers, if not being elected is a legitimate criticism of the Colorado SC, isn't it also a legitimate criticism of the 25 other states whose SC judges are appointed, 12 of them red states?--Percy

On Christmas day Trump tweeted this on Truth Social:

Donald Trump:

---

Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Biden’s ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and ‘sick’ as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

---

Let's check the above for accuracy and sanity: Trump has no problem with the truth, but only because he has no acquaintance with it.--Percy

Don’t forget that it was Trump who set up the withdrawal from Afghanistan and he boasted that Biden couldn’t stop it.

He wasn't present there, of course he didn't brandish any weapons, and he made this statement during this speech, the only speech that seems to be targeted by the insurrection accusers;

quote:

---

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

---

He hasn't been accused or convicted of an insurrection, so there does seem to be plenty of doubt. If that charge went to trial, it would be over quickly as soon as that quote was presented. That quote wouldn't be covered up in a trial, like it's constantly covered up in the mainstream media. I think all but a very small minority of Democrats feel that way too. Agreed. But if the leading presidential candidate, of both parties, is taken off the ballot by the courts, it sets a dangerous precedent.

I don't like them taking it upon themselves to convict someone of something they haven't been formally accused of. Of only four of them making a decision that millions of voters should actually be making. I'm not saying that's why they are flawed, I don't think any conservative is saying that. It's simple; voters versus the courts. The fact that they are called "unelected" is just a small factual addition to who they are, and what their motives might be. Yes, the CNN article included their far left opinion, which I disagree with. The comments are more accurate than inaccurate, depending on what a persons definition of "election" is. Not a deluded mind, a mind that's able to read at a far left liberal website and separate facts from liberal opinions. I'm thanking them because I know that I'm not the only one that reads what they say, and can sort out their facts from their far left opinions.The various dictionary definitions of the term "election" are mostly pretty vague, and can be understood differently by different political points of view. Most people in the U.S. consider an election to be between TWO or sometimes even more than two people, with one or more people losing the election, and one person winning it.Communists, dictators, and apparently Democrats, don't require their version of an election to involve two people.

quote:

---

A retention election is a type of election where voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. The judge, who does not face an opponent , is removed from the position if a certain percentage of voters (often 50%) indicate that he or she should not be retained.[1]

---

(bolded mine) And;

quote:

---

In a retention election, a sitting judge is listed on the ballot for a yes-no vote. In most cases, judges must receive a majority of yes votes to remain on the bench. If a judge receives a majority of no votes, he or she is removed from the bench and a replacement is selected using the state's method for selecting judges in case of a vacancy. Some states impose supermajority requirements on this vote, requiring judges to receive a threshold higher than 50% on the yes vote to remain in office.

---

Retention election - BallotpediaA yes-no vote. No doubt if a Colorado judge gets more than 50% no votes, then the governor appoints another one. Never two people involved in these "elections".Now for a look at North Korea;The upside-down world of North Korean elections

quote:

---

There is only one choice on a North Korean ballot paper. Voters drop their ballot into one of two boxes — white for “Yes”, and black for “No” — but “No” has never won. 

​

North Koreans had no option but to vote in local elections held in the east Asian dictatorship on Sunday. But while the results were preordained, the process serves as an important ritual binding the people to the regime. North Korea holds regional elections every four years, but only allows a single candidate to stand in each district.

---

The upside-down world of North Korean electionsYes/no votes in Colorado, yes/no votes in North Korea. Could the suggestions on how to vote in these two places be similar? Kim Jong Un - "Ahh-soo, we have erection today! You rike me? You vote yes, or I chopa u head off! Colorado governor Jared Polis - "you like my appointee? You vote no? Then no marijuana for you!

quote:

---

Election; the selection of a person or persons for office by vote:

---

ELECTION Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.comThe "selection" of justices in Colorado were done by appointment, not "retainment". Big difference between "selection" and "retention".This line appears on down in different descriptions of the term in the Collins dictionary;

quote:

---

the selection by vote of a person or persons from among candidates for a position, esp a political office.

---

Just a moment..."CANDIDATES" plural, more than one.So that's the difference. Conservatives believe that an ELECTION involves more than one person, since that's the way it's always done in the U.S involving the voting public. Liberals, including CNN, and dictatorships, believe the term "election" is just as applicable in a one person appointment and retention, as it is to the U.S. standard of two or more people being chosen from.When conservatives point out that Colorado judges are unelected, they're not "wrong".​

It doesn't mention the president either, though it carefully mentions senators and representatives, and ELECTORS of the president and vice-president. It's almost like they never intended for the most popular presidential candidate of all parties to be blocked from the ballot. And it won't survive the Supreme Court. Will it be 6-3? 8-1? 9-0? What did they hope to accomplish with this political stunt? To give the mainstream media fodder to endlessly yammer about how terrible Trump is. "Pressing", "Pressuring", "Incitement"? Free speech? / The first amendment? Maybe that's the reason he's not tried and convicted of insurrection. It's irrelevant to the simple matter of courts versus voters. Prevented? Was it stopped or delayed in any way? Did he resist leaving the White House on January 20th? Free speech. Al Gore and Hillary both cried a lot about their elections. Common throughout most of U.S. history. He would have been criticized no matter what he did on the covid issue. No concrete evidence that a Democrat would have done any better. Risk takers and job creators? A good economy, energy independence? I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that gives congress the authority to expend, on objects of health care, the money of its constituents. Most of this is an undoing of unconstitutional actions of previous administrations, mostly Obama's. It's called small government, the intent of the framers. I was referring more to recent "democratic institutions", much of which you referenced above, "fuel efficiency, environmental standards, overtime regulations, SNAP programs, recreational parks, etc etc. you know, all things that i can't undertake to lay my finger on in the Constitution. What happened on January 20th that wasn't peaceful? Oh, all those things that are big problems in the Biden administration? The Justice Department that refuses to turn over some requested documents by the congressional committee that's investigating Biden's treason? That inspired the impeachment inquiry? I know you invited me to start a thread on that, but I wouldn't know where to start. Especially since every one of the dozen or so opponents I would get would pretend that they know nothing about mainstream media bias. I'm not going to attempt to help them. Biden's and other Democrat's actions suggest otherwise. There's plenty of money and political power involved in getting more and more uneducated people in the U.S. George Soros is probably more politically powerful than Biden. As are the Mexican drug cartels. Being all humane to illegal immigrants is being very inhumane to U.S. citizens who are currently almost $34 trillion in debt, and are having enough trouble as it is, in supporting that debt, and watching it increase. And yes, BLM riots are poised and ready as ever. January 6th type unrest could be poised too, not because of the orange one, but because of the threat of activist courts like Colorado's. It finally is now, now that they have no choice. Record new illegal immigration numbers were happening a month ago, until just the past few days, there were no reports on ABC World News Tonight. Every once in a while this time of year, a sports event covers up that broadcast in my area, so I go to NBC or CBS. They're all the same. It's almost like they get their criteria set by one central source, the Democrat headquarters.​
​

I agree 100% that he shouldn't post like this, he should know that the news media would harp on it over and over and over again. He is of course frustrated at all the hate against him, but it's still stupid of him to post like that.Biden flies into rages at the White House all the time (when he's there and not vacationing) and when Rashida Tlaib screamed "IMPEACH THE MASSEY FURGUSON" (or some words that start with the same letters) these things get little attention in the mainstream media. Trump should better handle what he's up against. I wonder what would happen if a conservative entertainer held up a bloody, severed head of Biden, broadcast all over the internet? I wonder if it would be noticed quickly and passed over like when Kathy Griffin did that with Trump?

CNN is reporting that recordings and emails confirm that Trump's team helped transport fake elector slates.According to the report, Trump campaign operatives learned that fake elector slates from Michigan and Wisconsin were held up in the mail, so they immediately flew into action to transport copies to then-Vice President Mike Pence in time for the congressional elector certification session. Assisting were two Republican congressmen, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Representative Scott Perry (the latter is less certain because at this point only a connection to his aide has been established).This information was already known because of the testimony of former Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro who designed the fake electors scheme. He pleaded guilty in October to conspiracy charges in Georgia and is cooperating with prosecutors, including Jack Smith. What is new is the existence of recordings and emails confirming Chesebro's testimony.--Percy

In a representative democracy, the people vote for candidates to represent them in government. The elected officials then run the machinery of government, which in about half the states includes appointing judges to the bench.You seem to be thinking of a direct or pure democracy where decisions are submitted to the electorate without elected representatives as proxies. This is practical for small towns where they can hold town meetings and put every issue to a vote, but once a population grows much beyond 10,000 this becomes impractical. In New Hampshire only 11 of the 213 towns with town meeting government have a population above 10,000. At the state level where populations are at least a half million government has to be a representative democracy - town meeting style would be completely impractical. That they're not elected has been your main thing. It's exactly what you were saying. You called it undemocratic. Let's see, your precise words from Message 310 were, "Do you believe this action by those 4 unelected judges is a victory for democracy? Is the term 'democracy' being re-defined?"You were not ambiguous. You can change your mind, or you can say you misspoke, but you can't claim you didn't say it. This just repeats your criticism that they're unelected. Using different words doesn't change your meaning. And now you additionally cast aspersions on how appointed judges arrive at their judicial findings. I remind you again that 12 red states also appoint their SC justices. What you're calling an opinion is actually a fact. It is absolutely true that calling the Colorado justices unelected when they have to face retention elections isn't "entirely accurate." Could you at least get on board with facts and stop calling them opinions. As Patrick Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts." Learn it, love it, live it. You are seriously biased and delusional. Putting labels like "far left" and "liberal options" on things is not fact-based argument. There's not a single fact in that paragraph. You're welcome to your opinion, but it isn't based on any real-world data. You've never heard of running unopposed, then. Again, 12 red states appoint their SC justices. They're appointed by the state's elected chief executive, the governor. And I guess you've never heard of a Republican running unopposed.You next go all over the place about election definitions and elections in other countries and so forth, but that's not where the disagreement lies. The disagreement is over your characterization of them as undemocratic. They're not. The justices are appointed by an elected representative of the people, and later they directly face the electorate in retainment elections. In red states as well as blue states.--Percy

Jefferson Davis never brandished weapons.