Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[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.

Primaries and primary ballots are governed by state laws. There is no national ballot. Each candidate has to file and comply with the state law process to be on the ballot. Colorado requires a candidate to be eligible for the office so it has to investigate and make a determination if a candidate’s eligibility is challenged.

The flip side of “Colorado can’t decide for everyone that he is not eligible” is “Other states can’t decide for everyone that he is eligible.” The 14th Amendment exists. It has to be defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Any other decision by SCOTUS is illegitimate.

[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.

Federal as in SCOTUS. It's a federal entity dictating overruling a state judiciary on what that state can/can't do. But... "states' rights"!

[Anonymous]

Bets on when the nine Quislings will hand down their Trump a$$kissing decision. I predict a few minutes before they agree that Trump does have immunity for life

[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.

Primaries and primary ballots are governed by state laws. There is no national ballot. Each candidate has to file and comply with the state law process to be on the ballot. Colorado requires a candidate to be eligible for the office so it has to investigate and make a determination if a candidate’s eligibility is challenged.

The flip side of “Colorado can’t decide for everyone that he is not eligible” is “Other states can’t decide for everyone that he is eligible.” The 14th Amendment exists. It has to be defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Any other decision by SCOTUS is illegitimate.

Colorado has decided Trump can not have his name on the ballot in Colorado because he is an insurrectionist. This has nothing to do with other states or SCOTUS. SCOTUS is acting illegally. The only thing SCOTUS can do is apply the Colorado decision that Trump committed insurrection to every state. It is not up to the SCOTUS to weight the impact of that decision only to enforce the constitution.

[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.

Primaries and primary ballots are governed by state laws. There is no national ballot. Each candidate has to file and comply with the state law process to be on the ballot. Colorado requires a candidate to be eligible for the office so it has to investigate and make a determination if a candidate’s eligibility is challenged.

The flip side of “Colorado can’t decide for everyone that he is not eligible” is “Other states can’t decide for everyone that he is eligible.” The 14th Amendment exists. It has to be defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Any other decision by SCOTUS is illegitimate.

Colorado has decided Trump can not have his name on the ballot in Colorado because he is an insurrectionist. This has nothing to do with other states or SCOTUS. SCOTUS is acting illegally. The only thing SCOTUS can do is apply the Colorado decision that Trump committed insurrection to every state. It is not up to the SCOTUS to weight the impact of that decision only to enforce the constitution.

The US Supreme Court gets the final say on how the 14th amendment is interpreted, but it seems they don’t want to do that because they don’t want to acknowledge or discuss insurrection. They seem to want to invent a jurisdictional dodge that no state can make that call about a national candidate, which is a completely made-up distinction and means no one can make the call since the states are the ones that certify the ballots and certify the elections.

[Anonymous]

I don't see the "wild west" argument holding up. Any state considering barring a candidate from the ballot would have to provide due process, which would mean an adversarial legal process with rules of evidence, to reach that point. The very fact that this has not come up in a century and a half should be proof that this is not an inherent danger.

If, on the other hand, SCOTUS is truly concerned about that outcome, that means that they have concluded the "American Experiment" is done for, that its political institutions have degenerated to the point where there is functionally no Constitution to defend anyway. Kinda sucks for Roberts that this would be his legacy.

[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.

The President only comes to hold a federal office through the States and only has power because it is given by the people of these United States.

[Anonymous]

I’m not reading 25+ pages of this. This decision is going to be 8-1 or 9-0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not reading 25+ pages of this. This decision is going to be 8-1 or 9-0.

You aren't contributing much. Where's your discussion. If you don't want to discuss, why post at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not reading 25+ pages of this. This decision is going to be 8-1 or 9-0.

You aren't contributing much. Where's your discussion. If you don't want to discuss, why post at all?

The action in Colorado was insane and the court is going to rule, unanimously or close thereto, that way. Any debate otherwise is ridiculous navel gazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not reading 25+ pages of this. This decision is going to be 8-1 or 9-0.

You aren't contributing much. Where's your discussion. If you don't want to discuss, why post at all?

The action in Colorado was insane and the court is going to rule, unanimously or close thereto, that way. Any debate otherwise is ridiculous navel gazing.

Why didn't you say that in the first place? Also, I guess you aren't a lawyer, to be convinced by laws. Are non-lawyers really so cavalier about the law?
Too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bets on when the nine Quislings will hand down their Trump a$$kissing decision. I predict a few minutes before they agree that Trump does have immunity for life

If Trump has immunity for life, then so does Biden, who can arrest the entire right wing of the SCOTUS and throw them in jail along with the orange despot. Total immunity for Biden!! He can commit any crime he wants while in office!!

I'm thinking the SCOTUS will want to save their hides and will decide that Trump, along with all US presidents, has no right to immunity for life from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bets on when the nine Quislings will hand down their Trump a$$kissing decision. I predict a few minutes before they agree that Trump does have immunity for life

I think they’re going to keep Trump on the ballot. 9-0 or 8-1. It’s apparently too inconvenient to follow the Constitution. But I also think there’s no way he’s getting immunity. And I expect those two decisions to be handed down close to simultaneously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not reading 25+ pages of this. This decision is going to be 8-1 or 9-0.

You aren't contributing much. Where's your discussion. If you don't want to discuss, why post at all?

The action in Colorado was insane and the court is going to rule, unanimously or close thereto, that way. Any debate otherwise is ridiculous navel gazing.

So you have an uninformed opinion. Colorado went by the book and followed the state and federal law. The Supreme Court is trying to avoid it but they will have to interpret the 14th Amendment and it says that Trump is not eligible to hold office. They can’t just force Colorado to put an ineligible candidate on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

when you look at it that way... yeah!