Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

How can the president, and the commander-in-chief, not be an officer? When he was sworn in as president, and swore to defend the constitution, what was he doing then? If not being an officer?

Roberts has already explained in previous rulings that you don’t vote for officers.

Previous holdings of the Supreme Court have found that the president is an officer. There is a distinction between an officer of the United States and an employee, maybe that's what you were referring to.

[Anonymous]

While Trump's attorneys at the supreme court today denied Trump was responsible for an insurrection they did concede that he fomented a riot in the US Capitol, which...is a felony.

[Anonymous]

I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

How can the president, and the commander-in-chief, not be an officer? When he was sworn in as president, and swore to defend the constitution, what was he doing then? If not being an officer?

Roberts has already explained in previous rulings that you don’t vote for officers.

We do vote for officers - the electors who elect the President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

So?

Here is the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (it doesn't say anything about being charged or convicted):

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

Yes just like the constitution does not say Obama can not be president again. It refers to person not Obama.

This argument is like saying a court in a single state can decide for itself that Obama wasn’t born in the US and strike him from the ballot and Congress couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t think the court will allow states to determine the qualifications for presidency, only congress can. Let’s see how they rule - I have no doubt Colorado will lose, but curious what the rationale they decide upon will be.

CO wasn't determining the qualifications for presidency -- that's already written in the Constitution. They were simply following what was written in the 14th amendment. Trump's team didn't even ask SCOTUS to determine if CO's reasoning that he was involved in an insurrection was right or wrong!

SCOTUS doesn’t determine facts, ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

So?

Here is the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (it doesn't say anything about being charged or convicted):

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

So what you are saying is I can just say Joe Biden is an insurrectionist? Or do will have some other steps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

So?

Here is the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (it doesn't say anything about being charged or convicted):

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

So what you are saying is I can just say Joe Biden is an insurrectionist? Or do will have some other steps.

You can say the sky is green. That doesn't make it so.

Normal people know that what happened on January 6 was an insurrection. Not a big insurrection, just a little one. With a little bit of rioting and a little bit of violence and injury. The Constitution doesn't say it has to be a big insurrection, a little one is disqualifying too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

All three levels of the Colorado judiciary determined after a weeks long civil proceeding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

Yes just like the constitution does not say Obama can not be president again. It refers to person not Obama.

This argument is like saying a court in a single state can decide for itself that Obama wasn’t born in the US and strike him from the ballot and Congress couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t think the court will allow states to determine the qualifications for presidency, only congress can. Let’s see how they rule - I have no doubt Colorado will lose, but curious what the rationale they decide upon will be.

CO wasn't determining the qualifications for presidency -- that's already written in the Constitution. They were simply following what was written in the 14th amendment. Trump's team didn't even ask SCOTUS to determine if CO's reasoning that he was involved in an insurrection was right or wrong!

SCOTUS doesn’t determine facts, ever.

No, but they do decide whether procedures are sufficient for due process, whether the procedures were followed, whether the decision was supported by evidence, what the standard of evidence should be, who bears the burden of proof, etc. They could have gone into any of that stuff if they thought the factual findings were wrong. They didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him. They are rank partisans. That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case. All it does is give Trump a new talking point.

I didn't think there was anything to this. Until I looked at the 14th amendment. It's written there, clearly spelled out. Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument? Nope. It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.

Yes just like the constitution does not say Obama can not be president again. It refers to person not Obama.

This argument is like saying a court in a single state can decide for itself that Obama wasn’t born in the US and strike him from the ballot and Congress couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t think the court will allow states to determine the qualifications for presidency, only congress can. Let’s see how they rule - I have no doubt Colorado will lose, but curious what the rationale they decide upon will be.

Hmmm I have a vague recollection that Congress passed a resolution saying that John McCain was a natural born citizen to keep any state from potentially challenging this. He was born in Panama while his dad was stationed there but not in the Canal Zone IIRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This means Obama can ran again and become president?

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means Obama can ran again and become president?

No, because the term limit is not a disability that can be removed by Congress.

Apparently neither is insurrection. Or at least, it doesn't matter. (Yet.)