Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

FYI, Congress has passed legislation enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

12 US Star. 589,section 3:

Sac. 8 (sic). And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either
of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and dis-
qualified to hold any office under the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

It won’t be 9-0 because Alito and Thomas are certifiable. And it won’t happen until late June, which is effectively immunity for Trump.

Based on the framing of the question presented, I think they will say there is immunity for “official acts” and then send it back to Chutkan to decide if the acts alleged are “official.” And then there will be a new round of appeals. So there wont be a trial until next summer at the earliest (and then only if he loses the election).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI, Congress has passed legislation enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

12 US Star. 589,section 3:

Sac. 8 (sic). And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either
of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and dis-
qualified to hold any office under the United States.

The majority said that this isn’t actually good enough though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Pence ever considering not certifying? NO. He wasn’t going to let a bunch of crazies change his mind. They rioted but the guy who had to certify… the ONLY person who mattered… wasn’t going to budge.

Grassley had announced he would be presiding over the proceedings and the secret service was *this* close to getting Pence out of the Captiol. Or did you forget those details?

And yet there was Nancy having herself filmed by her daughter in the momen of crisis. So her daughter could make money on the documentary. Yeah. Sounds so scary that Nancy decided to have her daughter stay and film it. So obviously boloney.

Do you know how often her daughter has filmed the SOTH on important days in Congress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, Congress has passed legislation enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

12 US Star. 589,section 3:

Sac. 8 (sic). And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either
of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and dis-
qualified to hold any office under the United States.

The majority said that this isn’t actually good enough though.

No, they said this is a federal issue and not a state issue. There is a federal statute for enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually he did, and the democrat party takes another L as well.

They took took the leading opposition candidate off of the ballot like a thrived world banana republic does, the SCOTUS smokes the state of LOLARADO and says they can’t. Trump looks like a guy who the deep state hates, the majority of real Americans hate the deep state.

The state of LOLARADO looks like it’s involved in election interference (which it is), bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe has attempted to weapons the DOJ to get anyone he disagrees with.
The Fannie what’s her face from GA is going to be impeached because she’s corrupt.

The NY ruling looks corrupt to the point even the bank who lended the money to Trump was like “he didn’t do anything wrong, in fact we’d do business with home again in a second”.

All of this out together along with the lefts seething hatred of a man that most of middle America and blue collar people like is going to get home elected.

LOLRADO and bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe take the huge Ls, MSNBC and CNN look like idiots again…Trump gets more support.

I’m telling you and I hope this post gets marked, Trump will landslide into 2024 victory. PA, MI, OH will swing to Trump. Wisconsin will you most likely. It will be a victory almost as big as Reagan’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually he did, and the democrat party takes another L as well.

They took took the leading opposition candidate off of the ballot like a thrived world banana republic does, the SCOTUS smokes the state of LOLARADO and says they can’t. Trump looks like a guy who the deep state hates, the majority of real Americans hate the deep state.

The state of LOLARADO looks like it’s involved in election interference (which it is), bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe has attempted to weapons the DOJ to get anyone he disagrees with.
The Fannie what’s her face from GA is going to be impeached because she’s corrupt.

The NY ruling looks corrupt to the point even the bank who lended the money to Trump was like “he didn’t do anything wrong, in fact we’d do business with home again in a second”.

All of this out together along with the lefts seething hatred of a man that most of middle America and blue collar people like is going to get home elected.

LOLRADO and bumbling, stumbling dementia Joe take the huge Ls, MSNBC and CNN look like idiots again…Trump gets more support.

I’m telling you and I hope this post gets marked, Trump will landslide into 2024 victory. PA, MI, OH will swing to Trump. Wisconsin will you most likely. It will be a victory almost as big as Reagan’s.

The majority of "real" Americans hate the deep state. Nice, too bad that's not going to be enough for him this fall. Haley is pretty badly embarrassing him by pulling as many votes as she is from the presumed nominee. Aside, the New York banks are free to lend money to him related to his fraud disgorgement. Let's see what happens there. How many days left on that? And, of course, SCOTUS said it was the job of Congress (and not them or the states) to deal with Trump's Insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Court completely dodged its obligation to interpret how to apply the insurrection disqualification for a Presidential candidate. They said nothing about the merits of Colorado’s finding that Trump’s actions were engaging in insurrection. They just said Colorado can’t make that call. It’s a non-decision decision because it doesn’t resolve how or when the insurrection prohibition can be enforced.

[Anonymous]

Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leaving it up to Congress is a total chick-s**t move.

It’s literally section five of the amendment.

[Anonymous]

I finally was able to sit down and read the full decision and now I see what some of you were saying. I’m here saying, okay, it’s the right decision, and SCOTUS can hear the insurrection case next. We must be patient. But the majority has also determined who and how that can be decided - without merit or impetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Court completely dodged its obligation to interpret how to apply the insurrection disqualification for a Presidential candidate. They said nothing about the merits of Colorado’s finding that Trump’s actions were engaging in insurrection. They just said Colorado can’t make that call. It’s a non-decision decision because it doesn’t resolve how or when the insurrection prohibition can be enforced.

That wasn’t the question at hand for them though. Once they determined that this wasn’t a decision for
Colorado to make, their role here was done. If congress were to pass legislation following through on a disputed presidential nominee, then that legislation is subject to judicial review. But that would be a separate case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

When a corrupt senate says "the courts" and the courts say "the Congress" and someone like Trump falls through the cracks.

This. They just gave their power away. Gone is our checks and balance when Trump is reelected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. Democracy

Right. A decision the ensures voters get to decide who will be president is truly an assault to democracy? Do you even hear yourself?

And you are excusing insurrection as a viable and just fine action to take when losing an election.

They are and I think it’s time we stop pretending that Republican voters are good people with different values. They are actively bad people who will countenance any kind of crime so long as it serves their purposes.

Interesting how the GOP once hated Communism but have now adopted the manifesto of "The end justifies the means." Joe McCarthy is so turning over and screaming in his grave!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to recap:

Democrats (some masquerading as Republicans) try to remove Trump from the ballot in numerous states with the reasoning that he took part in an 'insurrection'. We are told if he is elected he is a 'threat to democracy'. The first experts brought in to discuss this say it will be an easy appeal for Trump and (I remember this guy specifically) that it could be a 9-0 decision quite easily. Disappointed, media bring in more extreme talking heads until the narrative is that there is no way the Supreme Court could side with Trump.

Supreme Court hands down 9-0 decision that Trump remain on the ballot, including Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who I would consider a radical Leftist who normally rules by ideology rather than the Constitution.

Democrats are now calling to disolve the Supreme Court.

I'm supposed to believe that somehow Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy? Democrats are the party trying to make it impossible to vote for a candidate. Democrats are the party who want to destroy the Supreme Court and remove any checks and balances to the violation of citizens rights. Democrats are the ones interfering in an election.

Sure, Jan.