I have not read the judgement, but given the power the SC just struck down is actually in the Constitution, it is at least complicated. It will necessarily be some sort of priority of earlier amendments.
The constitution clearly grants states the authority to organize elections in their state, and with that comes exceedingly broad decision making. There has occasionally been court mandated restrictions or oversight placed on states in this regard, but that was when some other constitutional issue was violated. See the voting rights act requiring selected states (the ones with a history of race related voter suppression) to have to get approval for their electoral practices and then preclear with the court any changes they wanted to make.
the argument seemingly being made here is that by unilaterally removing someone from the ballot they are having an effect beyond just their state. This does not appear to be based on some other constitutional right being violated and so the court appears to have invented a restriction to this level of state control with the ruling. Yet, despite that, the logic, outside of normal legal logic, seems pretty sound and it has resulted in an outcome that seems to āfeelā right for the majority of people
Constitutional law professors are legit in tears all over the country right now though as with every week their area of study becomes harder and harder to justify to students as anything but a lotto.
Sorry Iām being thick but does that include the fact heās already been found guilty of fraud and may potentially be found guilty of trying to overthrow an election result? Or does the second potentially change that ruling if found guilty?
From what I have gathered, there is NOTHING to prevent someone from running, and I think itās even more extreme as you could theoretically have a president in jail and still be president (I think). He would have to be impeached by house and senate.
Biden has been president for 3+ years, so it was definitely decided on āelectionā day, and all the legal challenges, complaining, protesting, rioters, could not stop it.
There are still Clinton supporters out there that think she won and had the election stolen. Itās nothing new, however what was new, was the extent to how the election was challenged.
The unfortunate thing is that the courtās are not capable of doing this. Trump has just had a 300m+ judgement against him because he was Trump. Itās not even remotely possible that he is the only person in NY that has skirted the rules (inflated valuations, etc) in this manner, however here we are.
Isnāt the flaw in your reasoning here that he was the only one who was prosecuted and convicted?
Unless youāre telling me that heās the only one whoās been convicted of this after prosecutionā¦
Sorry, what? He had that judgement because of the scale of the fraud he peddled.
We can debate why the case was brought but not the judgement. But even then the guilty ruling doesnāt excuse him just because heās Trump.
5 Likes
Do you think that he is the only person or corporation convicted of doing this? The judgement cites other precdent cases to derive the formula used for the amount.
1 Like
Also, next time you get a ticket, just tell the police officer that other people were speeding, so he should hastily rescind!
The sheer quantity of legal action around Trump is indicative of a morally bankrupt individual.
The fines, and ban from doing business for 3 years, should be celebrated, as it is at least a partial victory for the claim that in America, no one is above the law.
2 Likes
You will find that if you are just going over the speed limit and itās your first offence, then nothing will happen. If you are 50 over in a school zone, 20th offence, then you out of luck. Trump has been doing business in NY forever. He is being charged because he was the US president and he is despised by the individual/s that took him to court, and she in fact stated that it was her purpose even before she had the job (correct me if Iām wrong).
If itās such a huge fraud, you would go to jail if convicted, no ifs, ands or buts, which is why this is not a criminal case (I think itās a civil). I argue that itās either no fraud (pending appeal), or the fraud is considered not serious enough for jail, therefore they would not have pursued criminal charges. If the lender took him to court then I would see this differently.
Track record is crucial. Trumpās whole life he has been ducking and diving, getting away with as much as possible to enrich himself. It has become more brazen the older he gets, and the more time that passes without him being held to account.
It simply doesnāt wash to say that heās in trouble with this just because he was President. He has been in trouble his whole life and I would imagine the quantity of lawsuits runs into the thousands.
It is a small win for the rule of law.
4 Likes
So, fraud is ok unless itās bad enough for a custodial sentence?
Why bother having fines then?
Iād rather have that type of fraud over a fraudulent cheque where I get stiffed.
Are you defending Trump? Itās incredible if you are, and fair play to you my good man. Shine on!
To my mind he is wholly unqualified to run a bake sale, never mind be President of the United States. He is a crook. Low grade, ducking and diving. Inherited hundreds of millions from his dad. Built nothing. Did nothing. All smoke and mirrors.
Grew to be a NYC personality, but was never quite accepted by old money, or people of real substance. Kept ducking and diving. Blagged his way to bigger and bigger.
A stupid man. No real education. No ideas or significant thoughts in his head. A base human being. Sex. Rape. Power. Money. Lies. Smoke. Mirrors.
Incredibly he made it all the way to President. Says a lot about the country, the media, the people. Shame on the fucking lot of them.
Bought and paid for. Shill for the Russians. (Surely they have significant kompromat on him).
No vision. No big idea. No plan for how you will make the country and the world better.
Just a vengeance fueled shit show, and the uneducated masses lapping it up.
Trump is nothing. A fake. A conman. A privileged trust fund, under developed baby. He knows nothing, did nothing, and is nothingā¦.
A rapist conman. In trouble with the law his whole life.
So hats off to you sir, for sticking up for him! Itās incredible to me that someone can still do that.
Please show your working. Tell us about the greatness you see.
3 Likes
Untangle your panties. There is plenty he has done wrong, I just dont see it on this case.
Well he had 6 businesses go into bankruptcies before he even thought about becoming president. Thatās why many senior GOP members thought he was a completely unsuitable presidential candidate in 2016.
Heās not being pulled up for financial irregularity because he is a corupt politician, itās because it is literally his MO.
2 Likes
A legal decision says otherwise.
4 Likes