General Discussion

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)

24. It is for him

Sat Feb 13, 2021, 08:24 PM

Feb 2021

Because he would not pay any attention to the disqualification. He doesn't want to be president again. He wants to RUN for president again. And he was going to do that whether or not he was disqualified.

And if he were disqualified, the minute it came into effect - for example, if a state party kept him off the ballot - he would have sued, claiming that the disqualification was invalid because the Senate lacked jurisdiction. And the courts would take such a case because this wouldn't require a court determination about impeachment but about whether the Senate had jurisdiction to disqualify a former president pursuant to impeachment, which is a justiciable issue.

So, yes, a disqualification wouldn't keep him out of our faces - that's what I mean by "small potatoes."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So next up: Schumer was talking about invoking the 14th amendment [View all] Vivienne235729 Feb 2021 OP

Needed the conviction in order to proceed? soothsayer Feb 2021 #1

No. triron Feb 2021 #3

yes qazplm135 Feb 2021 #8

Reich is wrong StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #10

Yes, we need to go there... Trueblue Texan Feb 2021 #12

A court or judicial process has to determine whether someone is guilty of insurrection StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #7

So if i understand you right bluestarone Feb 2021 #11

Yes. StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #13

TY! bluestarone Feb 2021 #15

Pipe Dream sfstaxprep Feb 2021 #2

+1 myohmy2 Feb 2021 #4

It's a pipe dream because the Constitution doesn't permit it StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #20

Disqualification From Federal Office Is Small Potatoes? sfstaxprep Feb 2021 #22

It is for him StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #24

I wish Democratic leaders and scholars wouldn't get people's hopes up about this. They need to expla StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #5

Not according to Robert Reich: triron Feb 2021 #16

Yes, you already said this in this thread. And I told you Robert Reich is wrong StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #17

And SCOTUS has said that they will not be involved. Vivienne235729 Feb 2021 #18

This is a different issue. The Supreme Court WOULD get involved StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #19

So you're saying SCOTUS will get involved if charges are found Vivienne235729 Feb 2021 #21

I don't understand your question StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #23

I don't understand all that is going on and am trying to piece it together Vivienne235729 Feb 2021 #25

The Supreme Court would probably get involved in a case like this the typical way StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #26

unless he's convicted in a trial qazplm135 Feb 2021 #6

It's over. WarGamer Feb 2021 #9

I don't think it's going to happen BannonsLiver Feb 2021 #14