Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting is that the unanimously have agreed there was no insurrection, it sounds like a legal argument for the Democrats to stop saying there was one.

They didn't really discuss that much. The COSC has a fact pattern that the USSC didn't seen to engage much with. Trump's atty said that another state could determine eligibility on a different fact pattern and CO atty agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting is that the unanimously have agreed there was no insurrection, it sounds like a legal argument for the Democrats to stop saying there was one.

It absolutely was an insurrection. This SCOTUS is getting farther and farther off the rails with every comment and decision to come out of it.

No one on Jan 6th has been charged or convicted of insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??

The woman who brought the lawsuit in Colorado was a lifelong Republican.

But I understand the MAGA cult doesn’t deal in facts.

PP didn’t claim otherwise. She is asking a question for Democrats.

And everyone understands the political orientation of the judges who decided this case in Colorado.

It's not Democrats. It's Republicans who want him off the ballot.

The Colorado judges aren’t republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??

Because unlike Republicans, most Democrats actually care more about the country than the party. We recognize that Trump is uniquely horrible for the country and letting him get away with insurrection and treason would be historically bad decisions, even if that means a different Republican becomes President.

That’s for voters to decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting is that the unanimously have agreed there was no insurrection, it sounds like a legal argument for the Democrats to stop saying there was one.

It absolutely was an insurrection. This SCOTUS is getting farther and farther off the rails with every comment and decision to come out of it.

No one on Jan 6th has been charged or convicted of insurrection.

What do you think seditious conspiracy is? It's insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??

Because unlike Republicans, most Democrats actually care more about the country than the party. We recognize that Trump is uniquely horrible for the country and letting him get away with insurrection and treason would be historically bad decisions, even if that means a different Republican becomes President.

That’s for voters to decide.

Voters get to vote for whoever they want, yes. But only qualified candidates can be president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??

Haley wouldn't win either.

Correct. 68% of voters can’t get past the abortion issue.

Luckily, Biden does remember that Trump is solely responsible for appointing three SC justices who took away a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR HER. This is all he needs to do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??

Because unlike Republicans, most Democrats actually care more about the country than the party. We recognize that Trump is uniquely horrible for the country and letting him get away with insurrection and treason would be historically bad decisions, even if that means a different Republican becomes President.

That’s for voters to decide.

Voters get to vote for whoever they want, yes. But only qualified candidates can be president.

And as SCOTUS will explain in a likely lopsided decision, Trump is qualified according to the constitution. This isn’t even a difficult case. As for whether he is uniquely horrible, no, that is purely a call for the voters to make. Why are Dems so afraid of democracy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting is that the unanimously have agreed there was no insurrection, it sounds like a legal argument for the Democrats to stop saying there was one.

It absolutely was an insurrection. This SCOTUS is getting farther and farther off the rails with every comment and decision to come out of it.

No one on Jan 6th has been charged or convicted of insurrection.

What do you think seditious conspiracy is? It's insurrection.

Quite literally not the same thing which is why they are separate charges.

NYT: “While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.” Seditious conspiracy “is a federal crime found in Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States code. That law makes it a crime for two or more people to actively plot to overthrow by force the federal government, to levy war against it, to unlawfully seize federal property or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”… Insurrection charges are considered difficult to prove and are exceedingly rare. While many people have called the events of Jan. 6 an “insurrection,” the Justice Department has not charged any rioters with that crime.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's interesting is that the unanimously have agreed there was no insurrection, it sounds like a legal argument for the Democrats to stop saying there was one.

It absolutely was an insurrection. This SCOTUS is getting farther and farther off the rails with every comment and decision to come out of it.

No one on Jan 6th has been charged or convicted of insurrection.

What do you think seditious conspiracy is? It's insurrection.

Quite literally not the same thing which is why they are separate charges.

NYT: “While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.” Seditious conspiracy “is a federal crime found in Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States code. That law makes it a crime for two or more people to actively plot to overthrow by force the federal government, to levy war against it, to unlawfully seize federal property or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”… Insurrection charges are considered difficult to prove and are exceedingly rare. While many people have called the events of Jan. 6 an “insurrection,” the Justice Department has not charged any rioters with that crime.”

Yeah, the Fourteenth Amendment is expansive, it refers to being engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Seditious conspiracy counts too.

The Supreme Court didn't touch insurrection because Trump will lose under that. They need some other technicality.

[Anonymous]

Michael Luttig on why the SC has no legitimate off ramp. There could be no more conservative than retired Judge Luttig!

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4455753-judge-supreme-court-trump-insurrection/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michael Luttig on why the SC has no legitimate off ramp. There could be no more conservative than retired Judge Luttig!

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4455753-judge-supreme-court-trump-insurrection/

Luttig was livid yesterday. You can see just how disappointed he is in the intellectual bankruptcy of the mealy-mouthed SC Justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??

Because unlike Republicans, most Democrats actually care more about the country than the party. We recognize that Trump is uniquely horrible for the country and letting him get away with insurrection and treason would be historically bad decisions, even if that means a different Republican becomes President.

That’s for voters to decide.

Voters get to vote for whoever they want, yes. But only qualified candidates can be president.

And as SCOTUS will explain in a likely lopsided decision, Trump is qualified according to the constitution. This isn’t even a difficult case. As for whether he is uniquely horrible, no, that is purely a call for the voters to make. Why are Dems so afraid of democracy?

Why are republicans so afraid of the constitution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Democrats want him off the ballot?? According to you guys he will never win against Biden. Why replace him with Haley who will win against Biden??

Because unlike Republicans, most Democrats actually care more about the country than the party. We recognize that Trump is uniquely horrible for the country and letting him get away with insurrection and treason would be historically bad decisions, even if that means a different Republican becomes President.

That’s for voters to decide.

Voters get to vote for whoever they want, yes. But only qualified candidates can be president.

And as SCOTUS will explain in a likely lopsided decision, Trump is qualified according to the constitution. This isn’t even a difficult case. As for whether he is uniquely horrible, no, that is purely a call for the voters to make. Why are Dems so afraid of democracy?

No, their holding will not say he is qualified; it will simply say CO isn't the right forum to decide the 14th Amendment issue (which is incorrect anyways, but whatever).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

So you are saying that a red state could kick Biden off the ballot if the courts in that state just decided that his actions, for example, with respect to Iran (or maybe his actions to have DOJ prosecute his political opponent) constitutes an insurrection? And every state gets to decide whether Trump or Biden can be on their ballot? Quite the can of worms.

Bingo.

But that's ridiculous. The reason Trump was removed from the CO ballot is because he fomented an insurrection against the US government and thus is ineligible to run for POTUS. The 14th A is very clear about what disqualifies someone to run for elected office in the US.

No, that's not right, unfortunately. He is not ineligible to run. He's not even automatically ineligible to be president. For some crazy reason the amendment says two thirds of congress can override the 14th amendment itself. Why in the world did they put that in there????

They established a procedure to remove the ineligibility because the ineligibility itself is self-executing. Otherwise, they would have felt the need to establish a procedure for declaring and for removing the ineligibility.