Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where Trump was charged, much less convicted, for insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Biden is reelected his first act should be to enlarge the US Supreme Court to 13 and appoint five liberal/progressive women under age 50. Assuming Dems keep the Senate this can be accomplished in record time by holding all five confirmation hearings simultaneously.

This is why no one should take leftist Democrats seriously. What's next? The next Republican president will add seven justices to the US Supreme Court? Where soes it end?

They already stacked the Court and now it's our time to stack it in favor of the huddled masses yearning to be free of reactionary religious zealots pushing their religion down our throats!

[Anonymous]

Our democracy is doing just fine. This decision is going to be made by the voters not some random judges in Colorado and that’s exactly how it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

What exactly is spelled out? Explain and cite please.

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

Yes, and what’s the mechanism, your honor?

In the past, it has been self-executing.

The Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this in the next couple years. When this election is over, someone, possibly that county commissioner that was DQd in New Mexico, possibly someone else, will sue and it will eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court. They will have to address the issue of January 6 and what exactly it means to have engaged in insurrection. Is a conviction required? Or not? Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to show me where Trump was charged, much less convicted, for insurrection.

He's been charged with it. In the past, fwiw, a charge or conviction was not required for disqualification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

DP. No, majority rules is not how the rule of law works. Even if unpopular, the Constitution controls. Sorry Charlie.

You can start a constitutional convention to five insurrectionists a pass and overturn that part of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to.

You really aren’t responding to what that PP is saying at all. The Constitution does control, on that we agree, and apparently 9 of the SCOTUS justices too.

PP said that if people vote for Trump, then he should be president. But he is disqualified under the Constitution. So whether he wins the election or not, being elected by the people isn't democracy. It is just making a statement, like voting for Felix the Cat.

Nope. Reread. PP is saying that whether he is disqualified is a matter of opinion because not all people are seeing Jan 6th as an insurrection which would trigger disqualification.

That's what PP is saying. But whether the sky is blue is not a matter of opinion. Even if 25% of the country thinks it's yellow.

Riiiiight, and my point is that you weren’t responding to her post. You should have just posted your opinion instead of responding to her when what you said had nothing to do with her point.

I was responding to her post, dear.

[Anonymous]

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump can stay on the ballot.

Correct decision.

Of course, they said responsibility "rests with Congress and not the states." So what did the Senate say?

"We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen."

Chickens running in circles with their heads cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

What exactly is spelled out? Explain and cite please.

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

Yes, and what’s the mechanism, your honor?

In the past, it has been self-executing.

The Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this in the next couple years. When this election is over, someone, possibly that county commissioner that was DQd in New Mexico, possibly someone else, will sue and it will eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court. They will have to address the issue of January 6 and what exactly it means to have engaged in insurrection. Is a conviction required? Or not? Etc.

It’s pretty clear from the opinions that the state can DQ an insurrectionist running for state office, House, or Senate seat.

The practical effect is that the POTUS and VP candidates - the only truly national offices - can be DQ’d by the individual states.

I think the more likely issue that SCOTUS will face is whether an insurrectionist can be appointed as a military officer or to Cabinet by a Trump 47. Or, even more problematic, an appointment to the judiciary or SC (how could SCOTUS rule on itself???)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a no-brainer. But he won't get immmunity.

Yes, he will. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are his slavering slaves. And, it would appear that Sotomajor, Kagan, and Brown have joined their party.

See you only see party, not law. This case was obvious. If you thought otherwise, your sources of news and analysis are biased or stupid or both. The immunity case is a much tougher call and Trump is much less likely to win.

Oh, come off it! The Court is Donald Trump's private "get out of jail free" card! We are effing screwed and, I for one, believe that it will lead to a second Civil War with anti-trumpers against trumpers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP Senate in the second impeachment hearing, said there was no recourse for someone who had since left office and left it to the courts.

The courts are leaving it to the Congress.

I guess insurrection is perfectly legal in our country with these kinds of loopholes.

At least for the republicans.

Impeachment is one way to disqualify someone from future office. Another is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment. What sort of loophole do you think you're seeing?

What exactly is spelled out? Explain and cite please.

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

Yes, and what’s the mechanism, your honor?

In the past, it has been self-executing.

The Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this in the next couple years. When this election is over, someone, possibly that county commissioner that was DQd in New Mexico, possibly someone else, will sue and it will eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court. They will have to address the issue of January 6 and what exactly it means to have engaged in insurrection. Is a conviction required? Or not? Etc.

It’s pretty clear from the opinions that the state can DQ an insurrectionist running for state office, House, or Senate seat.

The practical effect is that the POTUS and VP candidates - the only truly national offices - cannot be DQ’d by the individual states.

I think the more likely issue that SCOTUS will face is whether an insurrectionist can be appointed as a military officer or to Cabinet by a Trump 47. Or, even more problematic, an appointment to the judiciary or SC (how could SCOTUS rule on itself???)

Edit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to show me where Trump was charged, much less convicted, for insurrection.

The Colorado court had a finding of fact and Trump was the defendent in that case. Sorry you didn't know that. There is no provision in the constitutional amendment for a criminal charge or conviction of the same. Why are you adding that? Are you a 19th Century constitutionalist?

Further, the SCOTUS did not make a determination on whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection, so the Colorado determination still stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

Exactly. The rule of law must be thoughtful and deliberate. Not collapse under the weight of zealots and the simpleminded. Kudos to SCOTUS. We must be patient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to show me where Trump was charged, much less convicted, for insurrection.

He can’t be charged because he’s immune. He couldn’t be barred from running by the congress because he was out of office. And states cannot prevent him from running because only congress can do that. Just too bad the constitution says there is not any possible way to hold trump accountable.