Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Bush v Gore cannot be used as precedent for any other case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Obviously it won’t stand. We have a shameless corrupt Supreme Court that serves the republican party’s interests. Heck, the wife of one of the justices was one of the coup plotters. You think Thomas is going to rule his wife was involved in an insurrection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

There is no legal metric by which the SCOTUS can overturn this decision based on their own precedents and writings. But there are political reason which is what they will stand on, perhaps suggesting that the case isn't ripe until a general election etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Why is a conviction required? It's obviously not that obvious if that's how the CO SC decided.

[Anonymous]

You know, if Trump could put his ego aside, not appealing the Colorado case would be a much better move. It’s not like he has any chance of winning Colorado, and he would be better off not having a blanket ruling from SCOTUS. He could wait to see if another state comes to the same conclusion, and challenge that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Why aren't the confederates analogous? Are you saying that the 14th didn't require a conviction for them, but does for Trump? What text would possibly support that distinction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Obviously it won’t stand. We have a shameless corrupt Supreme Court that serves the republican party’s interests. Heck, the wife of one of the justices was one of the coup plotters. You think Thomas is going to rule his wife was involved in an insurrection?

This. If it is overturned this is the only -the ONLY- reason why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Obviously it won’t stand. We have a shameless corrupt Supreme Court that serves the republican party’s interests. Heck, the wife of one of the justices was one of the coup plotters. You think Thomas is going to rule his wife was involved in an insurrection?

But they will have to overturn the lower court decision also since it found that Trump engaged in insurrection. They can’t just deny the facts of the trial. They have to redefine “engage in insurrection” and/or “officer of the United States” as narrowly as possible to exclude Trump and send it back to the first court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Obviously it won’t stand. We have a shameless corrupt Supreme Court that serves the republican party’s interests. Heck, the wife of one of the justices was one of the coup plotters. You think Thomas is going to rule his wife was involved in an insurrection?

But they will have to overturn the lower court decision also since it found that Trump engaged in insurrection. They can’t just deny the facts of the trial. They have to redefine “engage in insurrection” and/or “officer of the United States” as narrowly as possible to exclude Trump and send it back to the first court.

You think that’s going to be a problem for these partisan hacks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Where in the Constitution is it mandated that a conviction is required?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Where in the Constitution is it mandated that a conviction is required?

It's not. PP is just doing a poor job of playing message board defense lawyer.

[Anonymous]

I know nothing about Hitlah.
Who’s Hitlah? Who’s Hitlah?
They’re saying I quoted Hitlah,
I know nothing about Hitlah. Nothing.

And just so you undertand,
Just so you understand,
What I said is very different.
It's Very different from from what Hitlah said.

It’s totally different,
It’s totally different from what Hitlah said.

Theyah ruining our country,
Theyah trying to ruin it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Obviously it won’t stand. We have a shameless corrupt Supreme Court that serves the republican party’s interests. Heck, the wife of one of the justices was one of the coup plotters. You think Thomas is going to rule his wife was involved in an insurrection?

But they will have to overturn the lower court decision also since it found that Trump engaged in insurrection. They can’t just deny the facts of the trial. They have to redefine “engage in insurrection” and/or “officer of the United States” as narrowly as possible to exclude Trump and send it back to the first court.

Especially since the defendant didn't deny the facts of the trial.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Not by the Colorado SC.

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.

That is not the question. They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution, The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t.

Obviously it won’t stand. We have a shameless corrupt Supreme Court that serves the republican party’s interests. Heck, the wife of one of the justices was one of the coup plotters. You think Thomas is going to rule his wife was involved in an insurrection?

But they will have to overturn the lower court decision also since it found that Trump engaged in insurrection. They can’t just deny the facts of the trial. They have to redefine “engage in insurrection” and/or “officer of the United States” as narrowly as possible to exclude Trump and send it back to the first court.

You think that’s going to be a problem for these partisan hacks?

They have to get 5 Justices to go on the record that sending a mob to attack Congress to prevent it from fulfilling the Constitutional duty of certifying the Presidential election is not engaging in insurrection against the Constitution or they have to get 5 Justices to go on the record that the 14th Amendment provision that disqualifies anyone who served as an officer of the United States and took an oath to support the Constitution but then engaged in insurrection against it applies to every federal government official except the President, who is above the law. Maybe they will but I think the conservative Justices other than Thomas and Alito really don’t like or respect Trump and won’t want to be branded in history as his hypocritical flunky enablers.