Reply to Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Supreme Court Hearing on 14th Amendment and Trump"

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]It was always very obvious SCOTUS wasn't going to disqualify him.  They are rank partisans.  That's why I don't understand why these people even bothered to bring this case.  All it does is give Trump a new talking point.[/quote]

I didn't think there was anything to this.  Until I looked at the 14th amendment.  It's written there, clearly spelled out.  Trump is disqualified.

Is this a fringe argument?  Nope.  It's one of the most important amendments to the constitution.  [/quote]

Except for the fact that the amendment refers to officers not the president.[/quote]

Yes just like the constitution does not say Obama can not be president again. It refers to person not Obama.[/quote]

This argument is like saying a court in a single state can decide for itself that Obama wasn’t born in the US and strike him from the ballot and Congress couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t think the court will allow states to determine the qualifications for presidency, only congress can. Let’s see how they rule - I have no doubt Colorado will lose, but curious what the rationale they decide upon will be.[/quote]

CO wasn't determining the qualifications for presidency -- that's already written in the Constitution. They were simply following what was written in the 14th amendment. Trump's team didn't even ask SCOTUS to determine if CO's reasoning that he was involved in an insurrection was right or wrong![/quote]
SCOTUS doesn’t determine facts, ever.[/quote]

No, but they do decide whether procedures are sufficient for due process, whether the procedures were followed, whether the decision was supported by evidence, what the standard of evidence should be, who bears the burden of proof, etc.  They could have gone into any of that stuff if they thought the factual findings were wrong.  They didn't.[/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