Trump wins at the Supreme Court
The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his ability to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
Not a surprise to many of us!
The radical left took it too far as usual.
It's going to be quiet around here today, Goose.
[deleted]
This seems to throw the whole "Trump's an insurrectionist out the window".
No, not really. SCOTUS was correct to point out that Section 5 is the correct place for federal offices but they did not even mention insurrection at all. I think they were very careful not to include that as that's one of the court cases that they have not yet ruled on (immunity case).
It never made any sense without a conviction in the first place.
There was no trial or conviction to justify using the J6 Protest in any of this. The only thing there is are blind accusations.
For the 100th time, the evidence decides the guilt or innocence of a person, not a conviction.
The evidence compiled by the January 6th committee, which was largely used by Jack Smith in framing his indictment of Trump, makes it crystal clear that Trump wanted to subvert 2020 presidential election results.
Trump also supported and encouraged the insurrection that took place at the capitol on January 6 that is also crystal clear He sent a message to the rioters, while the riot was going on ,that he loved them and they should remember this day forever.
Someone would have to be a complete idiot to think that Trump is innocent of insurrection ,or insurrection lite ,just because he hasn't been convicted.
Only in the court of public opinion,that doesn't count for many.
No, the ruling was, in essence, that states do not have the power to enforce disqualification for federal offices.
The SCotUS did not even discuss Trump's behavior.
Thanks for providing the proof there was no conviction that justifiy to bar him from the ballots.
Agreed.
Looks to me now , a couple things would need to happen to invoke 14sec3 now.
First there would have to be a court trial establishing guilt using the correct burden of proof on the federal level.
After that Congress would be able to draft appropriate legislation involving said section using section 5 as well.
They wouldn't be able to use J6 results as a basis ,it could be used in court to attempt to get a conviction of the charge.
That is false. Under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, a conviction is required to prove guilt. Until that conviction the person is legally innocent.
Is the Presumption of Innocence in the Constitution? | LawInfo.
It is a link to the report and the supporting documentation. If you click on "final report" you can download the pdf. On my computer, it opened up right to the Table of Contents. The text version starts at the very beginning of the document and you have to scroll to get to the Table of Contents.
You have to read the report. Pick a chapter. I read the whole report.
Point
Swing
Miss
Trump’s behavior was not even a consideration. The SCotUS did not make any ruling on what constitutes “engaging in insurrection”. They ruled on a single, narrow question of whether states can enforce disqualification of a candidate for a federal office.
Then you would know that what was sent for the impeachment, in so way supports removal from the ballots because there has been no trials and no convictions.
What part of nothing to support removal from the ballot is so hard to understand?
Cry about it all you want. That is not what was argued.
No, additionally, five justices also ruled that the 14th Amendment is not “self-executing”, it requires Congressional action.
You clearly have not read the ruling.
That was part of the question. If it were self-executing then the question of whether a state can enforce it would be moot.
You are trying to nit-pick.
The point is that the SCotUS did not rule on Trump. This was a ruling that had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's behavior and exclusively focused on what would be legally true for any candidate running for a federal office.
You didn't read the report. You can do the executive summary. Trump is a traitor to the United States of America. If that doesn't disqualify him, then nothing does and this experiment in constitutional democracy has ended.
No, I was trying to be helpful. They ruled that while Section 3 bars people who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding office, Section 5 as limiting states’ power, self executing or not. Section 5 says that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
And you didn't read the ruling.
The SCotUS ruled on a single, narrow question of whether states can enforce disqualification of a candidate for a federal office.
There are all sorts of considerations that comprised that ruling. It is certainly fair to discuss all of these details but not as a rebuttal to what I noted because the details do not change the truth of my statement.
I didn't say that I did.
My point is that all this is beside the point.
The January 6th commission collected credible evidence of and established the presence of a conspiracy by the former President to subvert the Constitution. Blather on all you want to about the minutiae of legal rulings, we should have Trump on trial for his part in trying to steal the election. He should not only be on trial in the federal court system, he should be on trial in each of the states where he tried to circumvent the democratic process.
In this country right now, his obfuscation is primarily culpable for 66% of Republicans to hold the opinion that Joe Biden's Presidency is illegitimate when this is a known falsehood. He continues to promulgate this erroneous story even though he has known since right after the election that it was untrue. He had a plan in place and he has followed that plan. He lies knowingly and repeatedly and yet his minions still follow because of his aura of power.
Donald Trump does not deserve to be anywhere near the Presidency or any public office and those who tried to help him with his machinations do not deserve to hold public office either. Every last one of them chose to disregard the Constitution and the oaths they took to uphold it. Shame on them and shame on us for allowing this mockery to continue.
Then perhaps someone should file charges in that case............................
I wish they would
The fact they haven't should tell you all you need to know.
Hell, we have many on here that still insist that he committed insurrection, but can't seem to come up with a logical answer as to why he has never been charged with such.
Kinda like the same that call him a traitor, but can't seem to fathom that traitor is synonymous with treason, but can't figure out why he has never been charged with that, either.
I wonder what the left will start calling the three leftists on the court since they sided with the majority. O bet there are some out there that want to replace the entirety of the Supreme Court all because of this one decision.
[deleted]
I've read it. And you're upset that certain things were not brought up. There is no reason, you being upset, is my problem.
Actually, they have in Georgia.
Nothing provided to back up that claim except your opinion.
He is a traitor. It has been established that he performed actions that were antithetical and in direct opposition to the spirit and word of the Constitution. He showed disregard for his oath to uphold the Constitution. If that is not definitionally a traitor, then the word is useless. If his course of action does not fit neatly into some predefined law, that is because the founders of the nation and those that followed did not foresee the egregiousness of his behavior while in office or the complicity of Congress.
Get a better game than pretending people are upset and then complaining about it. I have noted the SCotUS ruling. I have not expressed agreement or disagreement. I fully expected them to ensure Trump remained on the ballot. My only interest since the hearing was how they would accomplish that. Now we know.
Offer a thoughtful comment.
[deleted]
Wrong. You have been proven dead wrong here yet here you are stating a lie.
One can be a traitor without being found guilty of treason.
Legal rulings are substantive and my comments are concise.
He is facing 91 criminal charges in four courtrooms.
Yes.
I didn't say that he did, in fact I've consistently said the opposite.
You really had ought to read this.
The conclusions that one must reach after looking at the evidence presented in the Jan 6 report follow:
These are the actions of a traitor to the United States of America. Any person who, knowing these established facts, says otherwise, is also a traitor to the United States of America.
Deal with it.
What you are forgetting is that here wasn't a single charge filed in any of that. Most of what you listed are not illegal. In fact some of what you claim, you omit information. But don't let that get in the way of your rant.
Without proof, a trial and a conviction, it's all just opinion. It is kind of funny that you actually believe the J6 Partisan Clown Committee.
I will give you that one. Hopefully, the substantiveness of this ruling need not be tested again.
Not all dealing with his actions around January 6th, but hey, the more the merrier!
Thank you.
The proof is there.
Opinion backed by incontrovertible fact. Much better than your "Nuh-uh"
More bullshit. Good grief man read the Jack Smith indictment.
Trump was charged with:
Every bullet item on Thomas' list is supporting evidence for these charges and is noted in the narrative text of the indictment.
Thank you for your opinion, but that really is all that it is.
Then maybe that should be told to some of the leftists on here here that scream about Trump being a traitor and committing treason all in the same sentence.
I have never seen you "correct" any of them
Why is that?
Wrong again. This is not opinion, it is fact. All you need do is consult a dictionary. This has been explained to you multiple times.
This shows two usages. The first usage is the most common. This states that one need not commit treason to be considered a traitor. In addition, it does not even specify that one must be found guilty of committing treason to be labeled a traitor.
To wit, one who has committed treason is a traitor by definition but one can be a traitor without committing treason.
The English words 'traitor' and 'treason' are not synonymous as you wrongly (and repeatedly) claim.
Thank you for proving my point.
The first definition defines traitor, the other defines what a traitor does.
Traitor is a related term of treason ."
Related terms
Have a good day.
I removed multiple taunts. Any further taunts elsewhere will be ticketed.
This was expected.
There was no reason to keep him off the ballots.
IMO Mitch McConnel should have done the work necessary to exclude Trump from running again when he had the chance.
If your thinking during the impeachment trials, wasn't much he could do,each Senator had to decide for themselves using whatever they had at hand and faced,which opens a whole range of topics.
Well that is, as you said, your opinion. Doesn't necessarily mean it the correct one but an opinion nonetheless.
The Majority Leader has a lot of sway in what goes on and how his party votes. He pushed for a quick vote without testimony or evidence and lead with the comment about having Trump tried in federal court outside the Senate. He could have sacked up and just squashed all the bullshit right there and then with a real trial - then no matter what the result we wouldn't be we wouldn't be pussying around with a bunch of questions going into this election.
I think the votes as they were in both would have stayed the same even if he had tried what you suggest, falls under shoulda, coulda woulda trying to second guess now.