Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a protest that started off peaceful and then turned into a riot.

+1

The SC will rule on truth and law; hence, this will end badly for the Democrats.

A case brought by Republicans will end badly for the Democrats? Who is lying to you and telling you Democrats brought this case? You should stop listening to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point it does not seem like there is a constitution anymore. SCOTUS is a kabuki theater of right wing judges parsing language from the constitution together in such a way to make the constitution meaningless.

It shows the total corruption of the court.

Please. This 14th amendment nonsense seems like such a desperate grasping at straws. And I’m a Never Trumper.

It’s the Constitution. It bans someone who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then committed insurrection against the it from holding office again. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with it. It’s in the Constitution so it’s the law of the land.

Agree. We can't just overlook it or pretend it doesn't exist, particularly not all the people in government who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a protest that started off peaceful and then turned into a riot.

+1

The SC will rule on truth and law; hence, this will end badly for the Democrats.

A case brought by Republicans will end badly for the Democrats? Who is lying to you and telling you Democrats brought this case? You should stop listening to them.

A case decided by democrat judges will be struck down, at the same time blowing a hole through the dem’s argument that they are the defenders of democracy. Don’t cry about democratic norms while attempting to strike the leading presidential candidate off the ballot and denying people’s rights to vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.

States aren't in charge of their own ballots?

SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.

States aren't in charge of their own ballots?

SMH

NP. It’s funny you think you’re on to something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.

States aren't in charge of their own ballots?

SMH

NP. It’s funny you think you’re on to something.

Are you laughing?

I'm with Luttig. I'm livid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a protest that started off peaceful and then turned into a riot.

+1

The SC will rule on truth and law; hence, this will end badly for the Democrats.

A case brought by Republicans will end badly for the Democrats? Who is lying to you and telling you Democrats brought this case? You should stop listening to them.

A case decided by democrat judges will be struck down, at the same time blowing a hole through the dem’s argument that they are the defenders of democracy. Don’t cry about democratic norms while attempting to strike the leading presidential candidate off the ballot and denying people’s rights to vote for him.

Please the republican SCOTUS just used the constitution to wipe their a$$es and throw it in the toilet. There is no constitution.

[Anonymous]

It is interesting how SCOTUS refused to address the issue- Trump committed insurrection. Instead they were concerned about what effect this would have on their party.

Since when does SCOTUS ignore the constitution because enforcing it might cause problems for some?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.

States aren't in charge of their own ballots?

SMH

But wait, aren't Republican all about "states' rights" and against "federal overreach"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.

States aren't in charge of their own ballots?

SMH

But wait, aren't Republican all about "states' rights" and against "federal overreach"?

The president is a federal not state office. We can’t have one state banning Trump off the ballot and another banning Biden. Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a protest that started off peaceful and then turned into a riot.

+1

The SC will rule on truth and law; hence, this will end badly for the Democrats.

A case brought by Republicans will end badly for the Democrats? Who is lying to you and telling you Democrats brought this case? You should stop listening to them.

A case decided by democrat judges will be struck down, at the same time blowing a hole through the dem’s argument that they are the defenders of democracy. Don’t cry about democratic norms while attempting to strike the leading presidential candidate off the ballot and denying people’s rights to vote for him.

Please the republican SCOTUS just used the constitution to wipe their a$$es and throw it in the toilet. There is no constitution.

Let’s see the ruling but I imagine we will get all, or all but one, of the liberals to favor Trump’s position on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a technicality to not allow the states to independently disqualify someone who hasn’t even been charged with the act in question.

States aren't in charge of their own ballots?

SMH

But wait, aren't Republican all about "states' rights" and against "federal overreach"?

The president is a federal not state office. We can’t have one state banning Trump off the ballot and another banning Biden. Makes no sense.

There’s no federal election, though. Just 50 state elections + DC.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

It goes like this: Texas declares Biden an insurrectionist for providing aid and comfort to migrants coming across the boarder who are terrorists and he's off the Texas ballot. Add NM and AZ. Now it's almost mathmatically impossible for him to win since he'll lose all those votes.

Do you think this is the first case to interpret a law? If an idiot judge makes an idiotic ruling it is appealed and overturned.

The Supreme Court should interpret the 14th amendment but they are too chickenshit to do that so they are going to say that everyone just needs to ignore this inconvenient paragraph in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t an insurrection. It was a protest that started off peaceful and then turned into a riot.

+1

The SC will rule on truth and law; hence, this will end badly for the Democrats.

A case brought by Republicans will end badly for the Democrats? Who is lying to you and telling you Democrats brought this case? You should stop listening to them.

A case decided by democrat judges will be struck down, at the same time blowing a hole through the dem’s argument that they are the defenders of democracy. Don’t cry about democratic norms while attempting to strike the leading presidential candidate off the ballot and denying people’s rights to vote for him.

Please the republican SCOTUS just used the constitution to wipe their a$$es and throw it in the toilet. There is no constitution.

Guys, c'mon! Trump and Biden are done forever now. We can stop with the divisiveness now and all come together to support a real president. Peace, love, celebration! They're gone!

This is twice now that I am reading that Trump and Biden are done and I’m so confused.

Wishful thinking. The two party system is going to cling to power with the decrepit hands of these two weekend at Bernie candidates.

I think we are going to see a huge surge of 3rd party protest votes.

Bookmarking this lunacy.

Which? That Biden and Trump will stay in the race? Or that normal people will be disgusted and vote the equivalent of "none of the above"?

No way they stay in the race unless the RNC and/or DNC is literally trying to lose

I repeat that only a catastrophic illness or death will Biden be off the Dem ticket. The same for Trump. Trump may implode when Judge Engoron fines him $370 million and I am so looking forward to this.