Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

CO took the biggest L in court history.

State should be called LOLARADO now because they lost so bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Did you read the opinion? The majority said that even if Trump was convicted of insurrection it still wouldn’t count. The y said congress has to pass a new statute that specifically outlines the procedures for determining if someone is disqualified and the existing insurrection statute isnt that.

None of that means that SCOTUS considers Trump to have been convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Did you read the opinion? The majority said that even if Trump was convicted of insurrection it still wouldn’t count. The y said congress has to pass a new statute that specifically outlines the procedures for determining if someone is disqualified and the existing insurrection statute isnt that.

None of that means that SCOTUS considers Trump to have been convicted.

And to add…he wasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Will states be able to pass laws barring insurrectionists from their ballot? As it stands now, some people will be on ballots in some states, but not others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

The 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction, and a civil court proceeding determined that he engaged in insurrection, which is the standard set forth in the amendment. It was upheld by two levels of Colorado courts and the Supreme Court did not disagree although Trump asked them to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Did you read the opinion? The majority said that even if Trump was convicted of insurrection it still wouldn’t count. The y said congress has to pass a new statute that specifically outlines the procedures for determining if someone is disqualified and the existing insurrection statute isnt that.

None of that means that SCOTUS considers Trump to have been convicted.

But it does mean the dumb argument that “he wasn’t convicted” is totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Did you read the opinion? The majority said that even if Trump was convicted of insurrection it still wouldn’t count. The y said congress has to pass a new statute that specifically outlines the procedures for determining if someone is disqualified and the existing insurrection statute isnt that.

None of that means that SCOTUS considers Trump to have been convicted.

But it does mean the dumb argument that “he wasn’t convicted” is totally irrelevant.

It explains why they didn’t “unconvict” him as the poster asked. They don’t consider him convicted in the first place and even if he had been, a state couldn’t unilaterally take him off the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

The 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction, and a civil court proceeding determined that he engaged in insurrection, which is the standard set forth in the amendment. It was upheld by two levels of Colorado courts and the Supreme Court did not disagree although Trump asked them to.

Nor did they agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CO took the biggest L in court history.

State should be called LOLARADO now because they lost so bad.

Not really. Colorado got Trump's Insurrection entered into the Supreme Court's historical record. None of the justices wanted to actually attach themselves to the insurrection itself and just said it was the job of Congress to deal with him. It was a predictable outcome because they couldn't risk candidates being thrown off the ballot for other reasons not akin to Trump's Insurrection, but Trump doesn't come out of this looking great.

[Anonymous]

What happened to all the Twitter lawyers assuring us the colorado court's case is bulletproof, echoing Tribe, Luttig, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened to all the Twitter lawyers assuring us the colorado court's case is bulletproof, echoing Tribe, Luttig, etc.?

I think the question you should be asking is, why is the court immune to the plain language and intent of the 14th Amendment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened to all the Twitter lawyers assuring us the colorado court's case is bulletproof, echoing Tribe, Luttig, etc.?

Are you confusing the immunity case and this one? It sounds like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was a no-brainer. But he won't get immmunity.

+1. Hopefully that ruling is also 9-0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened to all the Twitter lawyers assuring us the colorado court's case is bulletproof, echoing Tribe, Luttig, etc.?

I think the question you should be asking is, why is the court immune to the plain language and intent of the 14th Amendment?

are you a lawyer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Robert’s already said “insurrection is in the eye of the beholder”. Deranged Jack Smith is gonna get smoked.

Jack Smith didn’t charge him with insurrection, and he isn’t a party to this case.