Reply to Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][twitter]https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1764674263737364769?s=20[/twitter]

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

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.[/quote]
He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.[/quote]

When’s the trial? [/quote]

It was last year.  You missed it. [/quote]
LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.[/quote]

Did you read the opinion?  The majority said that even if Trump was convicted of insurrection it still wouldn’t count.  The y said congress has to pass a new statute that specifically outlines the procedures for determining if someone is disqualified and the existing insurrection statute isnt that.[/quote]

None of that means that SCOTUS considers Trump to have been convicted.  [/quote]

But it does mean the dumb argument that “he wasn’t convicted” is totally irrelevant.[/quote]

It explains why they didn’t “unconvict” him as the poster asked. They don’t consider him convicted in the first place and even if he had been, a state couldn’t unilaterally take him off the ballot.[/quote]

The Court completely dodged its  obligation to interpret how to apply the insurrection disqualification for a Presidential candidate. They said nothing about the merits of Colorado’s finding that Trump’s actions were engaging in insurrection. They just said Colorado can’t make that call. It’s a non-decision decision because it doesn’t resolve how or when the insurrection prohibition can be enforced. [/quote]

That wasn’t the question at hand for them though. Once they determined that this wasn’t a decision for
Colorado to make, their role here was done. If congress were to pass legislation following through on a disputed presidential nominee, then that legislation is subject to judicial review. But that would be a separate case.[/quote]

It’s a Constitutional provision. If a state can’t start an enforcement action that would be appealed to the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th amendment, then how does a federal action happen before the election?

They call it a federal election, but it isn’t. It’s 51 state & DC elections that present their certified results to Congress two months after the election. There is no official federal opportunity to challenge a candidate’s eligibility until Jan. 6 when the electoral votes are counted. That’s too late to disqualify a major party’s nominee.

SCOTUS should either rule on the state case or move it into federal court so there can be a federal ruling on the candidate’s eligibility before the general election. This insurrection language has been enforced for lower offices by states so it’s bullshit to say only Congress can interpret it. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics