Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with pp. I listened to both arguments. The justices were very skeptical of CO's claim and reasoning and actions to this point.
I predict 9-0. In favor of Trump. It is the only appropriate ruling.

[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.

I agree. They need to actually work, for once, and produce a reasoned set of applications. Otherwise it's not fair to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Love how Roberts said “insurrection is in the eye of the beholder”

Deranged Jack Smith just crapped his pants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love how Roberts said “insurrection is in the eye of the beholder”

Deranged Jack Smith just crapped his pants

Yes that was a shot across Deranged bow. All his deranged effort going forward is a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. They will make sure the language is such that it only applies to trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with pp. I listened to both arguments. The justices were very skeptical of CO's claim and reasoning and actions to this point.
I predict 9-0. In favor of Trump. It is the only appropriate ruling.

I also predict 9-0 decision rather quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with pp. I listened to both arguments. The justices were very skeptical of CO's claim and reasoning and actions to this point.
I predict 9-0. In favor of Trump. It is the only appropriate ruling.

If a state Supreme Court can’t interpret the 14th amendment then who can? The ballots are certified by each state. The elections are certified by each state. There isn’t a federal government action until Jan. 6 after the election when the state certifications are presented to Congress. If SCOTUS refuses to interpret the 14th Amendment before the election, we could see Members of Congress object to counting any electoral votes for Trump on the grounds that he is not eligible for office. This time it would be a legitimate question. Majorities of the House and Senate already voted that way.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Possibly.
Possibly not.
I don't think the primary election calendar is driving their calendar.

And, CO has Trump on the primary ballot at this time. Good thing, because based on oral arguments, it appears SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that former President Donald Trump was not allowed on the Colorado primary ballot. But the justices stayed the ruling if it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by a certain date, which it was.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Feb. 8, and has not yet ruled on the matter.
"If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mr. Trump, votes for the former president will be counted," the secretary of state's office said in a news release Monday. "If the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Trump, votes for the former president will not be counted."

https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/e...37-a35b-fb45f64fc4a2