How Will the Courts Decide?
The Colorado Supreme Court just ruled 4-3 that Trump is excluded from running for office under the 14th amendment, Section three (disqualification clause):
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
This means that Trump is, unless overruled by the SCotUS, not allowed to run for office per the State of Colorado. Trump cannot appear on the ballots and thus will have no opportunity to gain Primary ground from Colorado.
An interesting point is that this ruling predated a legal finding that Trump is guilty of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion or giving aid or comfort to enemies. So this is an aggressive move by a state supreme court. But it also will likely encourage other states to take this matter seriously.
This is one of but a few ways for the GOP to NOT put forth Trump as their nominee. Given Trump is a traitor by attempting to steal the 2020 election based on fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement and that he violated his oath of office by trying to circumvent the CotUS and to violate the foundation of democracy —the votes of the electorate— I think it is proper that he should never be allowed an opportunity to violate his oath of office again. Especially the office of the presidency.
Although this is a long shot, it is good to see at least one state stand tall and refuse to allow a former PotUS who blatantly and destructively violated his oath of office be allowed a chance to do it again.
Biden is off topic
This is a long shot as a method to keep a traitor from securing the GOP nomination, but it is at least encouraging to see some movement.
The GOP should seriously consider other candidates like Haley, but the way they seem to work, this will probably cause Trump's popularity to rise (within the GOP).
Probably... Seems like the worse the candidate, the more the GOP loves them. Semi-honest politicians in the GOP have no chance.
"this will probably cause Trump's popularity to rise (within the GOP)."
You can be sure of the that. And probably raise his popularity among the independents and old-fashioned Dems who still believe in law and order and due process in courts of law
Those who actually believe in law and order and due process are not individuals likely to vote for Trump.
He (likely) means those other law and order folks: MAGAs. Those voters who use code words like, "law and order" to bind the hands of the 'unwashed' Liberals whom MAGAs claim are "unAmerican" and fall to secondary citizen status/classification beneath them.
I am an independent and in no way would I ever consider Trump.
Frankly, I think this did the GOP a favor. It will give the other two viable candidates a chance to gain some ground.
It might. It is at least a glimmer of hope.
Please explain the "due process", I must of missed it. You should watch what you wish for, other states may read the 14th and elect to keep another candidate off the ballot.
I think they did him a favor, he is already fund raising off of it and when SCOTUS overturns it, it will re-enforce the idea that the law has been weaponized against him.
It ended the primary. As polling shows, the New York indictment pretty much handed the nomination to Trump. It changed the discussion from his '22 shortcomings and made it about him being targeted. Every subsequent indictment helped him. This sealed it.
Exactly. I know of no decent Dems. who would ever vote for him, NEVER.
How could you miss it? Trump and his attorneys did not miss it, they have actively taken part in the "due process" in Colorado for months.
This was a constitutional ruling by the Colorado supreme court. Trump was represented by his legal team.
It was a ruling on Colorado state law. The 14th Amendment and subsequent law and rulings puts enforcement in the federal hands.
14th Amendment is the Constitution, not state law. The enforcement is the state's choice as allowed by the Constitution.
No, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states “No person shall hold any office.” It does not say, No person shall run for any office or No person shall be elected to any office.
A year or to after the Amendment was approved, additional legislation was signed into law, 5 U.S.C. §14a, it was called “An Act to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.”
This provides the mechanism for enforcement, “Whenever any person holds office, except as a member of Congress or some state legislature, contrary to the provision of the Third Section of the Fourteenth article of Amendment of the Constitution, the district attorney for the district in which such person holds office shall proceed against him by writ of quo warranto” (a challenge to holding office). returnable to the District Court of the United States and prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office.
So Congress didn't leave ambiguity in enforcement. They passed a statute. That is due process, not some potentially partisan state official. I have little doubt that SCOTUS will overturn this.
Ahhh, semantics. You go with that. And if they can't "HOLD" the office, why bother going to the trouble of listing them on a ballot?
One can certainly make the legal argument that enforcement of not holding the office can only take place if the individual is elected to the office. Then, at that point, the enforcement mechanism kicks in.
But that, as you note, is impractical. Especially in this case. Imagine that it would be constitutionally determined by the SCotUS that Trump is not allowed to hold the office of the presidency due to his participating in the insurrection. Then imagine that Trump is elected president.
At any point in time, Congress can vote by 2/3 majority to allow Trump to hold the office (overriding 14th section 3). So up until he takes the oath of office, it is possible that he could hold it. So the enforcement, literally, would have to wait until Congress votes (and fails) or immediately before the oath is administered (if Congress did not act and thus could still act).
In short, it is obvious practical nonsense to have the nation go through the election of a president only to have him disqualified before he can take the oath of office.
Logically, the SCotUS needs to weigh in on this now and determine if Trump is indeed barred from holding the office. Then Congress would need to vote to override (or not) the 14th for Trump. And this needs to be done now.
Another fine mess because of Trump.
First, I didn't write the law, Congress did and a President signed it. Second the law contains a get out of jail card, some one winning and election to an office described that he is ineligible for, can be seated if he wins a Congressional vote. Thirdly, the enforcement of the 14th Amendment is clear that it's a Federal responsibility, not a State's.
Determining if Trump has engaged in either of the two disqualifying activities, insurrection or giving aid or comfort to an enemy, isn't a state's call..
The Constitution does not define insurrection or rebellion. Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, does empower Congress to call forth the militia “to suppress Insurrection.” If Congress has authority they may have other implied ones, but not Colorado.
In one case, Congress wrote the Insurrection Act. That act authorizes the President to call up the militia and armed forces in the event of “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the US. Another part of the Insurrection Act, enacted in 1873, authorizes the use of armed forces in cases where insurrectionists “oppose[] or obstruct[] the execution of the laws of the United States or impede[] the course of justice under those laws.”
Congressional activities, including fulfilling the constitutional duty of certifying electoral votes, would arguably qualify as an execution of the laws of the United States.
SCOTUS in previous rulings on the Insurrection Act, have generally found it up to the President to determine whether a civil disturbance rises to the level of an insurrection or obstruction of the laws serious enough to overcome the ability of civil authorities to suppress it.
Is there any enforcement avenue available not requiring the Congressional or Presidential action? An injured private party could ask a judge to issue a writ of quo warranto to prevent the seating of, or to oust from office, an individual who allegedly engaged in disqualifying activities. It might be difficult to show why that person had standing in the case. Other court challenges to congressional candidacy based on the Disqualification Clause brought by private litigants have previously failed.
Trump was "charged" with insurrection?
Nope
A court, as is the case here, can determine that in the context of the case at hand and the amendment at hand, that Trump's actions fit the intended meaning of insurrection as used.
The court does not need a charge of insurrection to rule. And the court does not need a guilty verdict from itself or another court to rule.
Indeed, the (lower) courts have spoken without need of a jury or civil or criminal trial on the matters of insurrection and constitutional clarification of the 'question'!
So there was no trial to see if an insurrection actually took place, they just determined it did and then used their view that an insurrection took place and removed him from the ballot. They are Judge, Jury and Executioner!
Again (as I have repeatedly noted), the court does not need to have a trial specifically on insurrection. It can, as it has, rule that Trump did indeed "engage in insurrection" and that Trump was an "officer of the United States" sufficient to apply to §3 of the 14th.
That is how the law works. The question is whether or not this applies to Trump. The court decided that it did:
Well they are indeed judge and jury. That is exactly how this works. (Not every trial has a jury.) The executioner, however, is the secretary of state.
But do not worry, this is now in the hands of the SCotUS. They will either take the case or not. If they do not take the case, then other states may follow Colorado's lead. If they do take the case and rule against the Colorado supreme court, then this issue is dead and Trump will be on all ballots.
Now, if the SCotUS does not rule in Trump's favor, are you going to cry foul on them too?
That's what the Court claims. That's not really true until the Supreme Court says so.
And the deep red states will contrive an excuse to boot Biden off the ballot, because it's no longer about guilt or innocents in politics it's about winning and whining.
The court (it is a supreme court) has the authority to make this ruling without a trial on insurrection.
The SCotUS can override, but that does not change the fact that the Colorado supreme can rule on this question without having a trial on the broader question of insurrection.
Would not surprise me.
The country could have and should have avoided all this if only the Republicans that had the balls to throw Trump under the bus and kick him out of their party on January 7th, 2021. But they didn't. They kissed his ass. And here we are with everybody else having to try to make it right.
Could not agree more.
It's pathetic to watch all these Trump suckers nitpick or diminish what Trump did on January 6th and through the whole post election period. It was disgraceful then, it's disgraceful now, and it's really not yet clear if this country can ever get over this. This man has no business running for president or anything else. And this charade that the country goes through, that this is all normal, is insane.
No. Will you object to Biden being removed from the ballot for giving aid and comfort to our enemies?
A court would have to rule on that.
My agreement or disagreement will be based on the specific charges and the supporting evidence compared to the law.
The evidence is clear, Biden took specific steps to open our border and allow our enemies to enter, then rewarded them.
Then present it to a court. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
No, it doesn't. Not if the ruling has any legal meaning. Due process exists. A Court just can't declare someone guilty of a crime.
not change the fact that the Colorado supreme can rule on this question without having a trial on the broader question of insurrection.
Of course it does. If the Court holds section 5 of the 14th Amendment requires Congressional action to trigger disbarment, and Congress responded by passing a criminal statute defining insurrection as a crime, than the Colorado's Court's opinion is meaningless. Only a criminal conviction under the federal statute could trigger disbarment from office.
This court did not declare Trump guilty of a crime. They ruled on eligibility. Their ruling is equivalent to ruling that a candidate is not a US natural born citizen. They absolutely have the authority to make that ruling as it applies to their state.
The SCotUS can override the Colorado court.
That fact does not in any way mean this court cannot issue its ruling.
Then we will see an indictment followed by a trial.
Not equivalent at all. The law and procedure they used was the same as determining eligibility on things like age, place of birth or current residence. Those aren’t equivalent to determining involvement in insurrection.
The equivalence (obviously, by the way) is the fact that both rulings are not criminal nor do they impose fines on Trump.
The rulings are about eligibility.
Really? Can you point me to the clause in the Constitution granting Congress the power to enforce the Natural born citizenship clause and the subsequent law Congress passed criminalizing not being a natural born citizen?
That's inconsistent. The Supreme Court can absolutely override the Supreme Court and remove the Colorado Court's authority to apply its ruling in Colorado.
Of course the Colorado Court can issue a ruling. They quite obviously already have. What strawman are you arguing against? The Colorado Supreme Court can "rule" that blue is the best color. It can rule on anything it wants. It can literally put anything it wants in an opinion.
But of course, the only thing that matters is if the ruling has legal relevance. And the Supreme Court can absolutely say the Colorado Court's opinion that Trump was engaged in an insurrection is meaningless and has no relevance to the issue of whether Trump is barred under the 14th Amendment in Colorado or anywhere else. .
Yes, some ex-Confederate public officials were indeed barred from running for office due to the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1868, aimed to secure citizenship rights and equal protection for all, especially for formerly enslaved individuals. Section Three of the amendment specifically addressed eligibility for public office.
According to Section Three:
Bing Chat GPT4
===================
There is no requirement that someone has to convicted or indicted before they can be kept off the ballot.
Period.
=====================
The Supreme Court can over rule any and all lower courts.
Is that option available before a person has run for office or after running and winning?
I stated repeatedly that the SCotUS can override the Colorado Supreme Court.
You are attempting to argue a fact that I have repeatedly made clear.
Why? Grandstanding? Arguing for the sake of arguing?
A SCotUS question.
You literally wrote the Colorado Court "absolutely have the authority to make that ruling as it applies to their state.|
It doesn't. Do you know why? Because the Supreme Court can overrule the Colorado Court. If you had not made the false claim that Colorado has the authority to make that ruling apply in Colorado, I wouldn't have to point out why it can't.
y? Grandstanding? Arguing for the sake of arguing?
This is how you project. Well done.
Said some justices on the Colorado Supreme Court. Another didn't.
It's an open question until its addressed by the Supreme Court.
All based on the partisan J6 committee.
Talk about using flawed information the <gasp> the videos and transcripts have been destroyed.
So when did Trump engage in an insurrection and, insurrection being a crime, when has he been charged of said insurrection?
After all, your quote from the Constitutions specifically states that a person engaged in insurrection
Yes because they can. The fact that a court can be overridden does not mean they do not have the authority to make a ruling. Unless overridden by the SCotUS, this ruling stands in the state of Colorado.
Your 'argument' is ridiculous.
Who said the Colorado Supreme Court didn't have the authority to issue a ruling? That's how our system works. A ruling was issued, it was appealed. It will be appealed again. The issue is always whether the Court exercised it's authority and interpreted the law correctly.
Unless overridden by the SCotUS, this ruling stands in the state of Colorado.
No shit. That's so blindingly obvious it doesn't need to be stated. What strawman argument are you rebutting by trying to pretend like that's an issue anyone is disputing?
This is what people do when they are losing an argument. When they lose an arguments, they pivot to restating simple, irrelevant facts that no one is disputing to make it seem like they are "winning." I don't know who you think falls for such obvious ploys, but I guess if it makes you feel better you can authoritatively state something "the Supreme Court has nine justices and is the highest in the land!" and pretend that rebuts what I've written.
You are arguing for the sake of argument. Starting with the body of my article:
And continuing in my comments, I have consistently noted that the SCotUS may overrule the Colorado supreme court. Overruling a lower court means the lower court was legally incorrect (even if the higher court made profound legal mistakes) based on how our hierarchic system works.
On Authority
The Colorado supreme court has the authority to rule on this question. It has the authority to issue its ruling. And if not overruled by the SCotUS, this ruling will go into effect in the state of Colorado. That is reality. This is authority.
On Interpretation
Being legally correct is a function of how our system works. The highest court ruling on a question is, by definition per our hierarchic system, legally correct. The lower court that it overrules is thus legally incorrect; this is a systemic distinction. Since courts are comprised of fallible human beings, it is quite possible that a higher court could be factually and logically wrong per legal theory and the lower court correct. But per our system, the higher court is considered legally correct by definition.
Now apply that to the question of Trump's eligibility per §3 of the 14th. Currently, the highest court that has ruled on this question is the Colorado supreme court. It is currently legally correct by definition (per our system) for the state of Colorado. If the SCotUS does not weigh in on this, the ruling by the Colorado supreme court will remain legally correct by definition.
If the SCotUS does weigh in and overrules the supreme court of Colorado, then (and only then) will their ruling (their interpretation) be considered legally incorrect per our hierarchic system.
As it stands right now, the supreme court of Colorado has the authority to rule on the question of eligibility per §3 of the 14th. Its interpretation, being the highest court thus far to rule on this question, is correct by definition. If the SCotUS does not overrule them, their ruling will go into effect in the state of Colorado.
That is how our system works.
Nah, they won't see it that way. They will look on it as more "election interference".
I'm disappointed the decision wasn't unanimous. 14/3 should be self executing.
I am surprised and disappointed by that too. But it is very scary for a justice to buck the substantial popular backing enjoyed by Trump.
on the other hand, SCOTUS is now fully conscious of their poor standing in public view and may attempt to change it's public perception. how will they be able to rule for or against trump without telegraphing a bias prior to all of trump's future SCOTUS appearances? it's a big gamble for the conservative justices. if the next election doesn't go the way they want, 2 SCOTUS impeachments could become reality with the loss of the house, senate, and white house.
Disappointing, but not surprising.
All the same the Justices and the justice system is provided with everything it needs to be fair stewards of unbiased opinions and judgements. Worried by a creepy former president who won't shut up? What part of MAKING AND DELIVERING opinions that are JUSTIFIED based on the facts of law and which can be explained in legal terms is too hard for individuals STEEPED in legal treatises?
Let's see: SCOTUS can disappoint girls and women of the country over their private 'parts' and pregnancy statuses full stop; but, defer to a maniac former president and his cohorts who have never seen a law they could not abuse for their own purposes? The thought alone does not pass muster!
I doubt it. They have the luxury of not running for re-election.
they may be more sensitive to making unpopular decisions now, without looking a little further down the road.
And the luxury of making themselves multi-millionaires.
Yes, the 3 dissenting Dems opinions will give SCOTUS more reason to dig deep.
open dissent within the maga party is a rarity now.
So, the courts can meddle in Republican primaries and you approve. Do you also approve of Democrats simply cancelling primaries to avoid challenges to Joe Biden? Of course, the cheap trick of making Biden off topic allows controlling the narrative.
Don't ignore the influence of Biden's unpopularity on Trump's popularity. Cheap and dirty political tricks won't change that.
The issue has nothing to do with TiG or his opinion. Any officers of the United States government who have participated in an insurrection are ineligible to serve again.
We all saw and heard Trump participate in the Jan 6 Insurrection. It was, in fact, Trump's Insurrection! He need not be convicted. The court has already found he participated in HIS OWN January 6th Insurrection. Trump Owns It!
Felons are not barred from being President. Since insurrection is the only exception, it is necessary to declare the J6 riot an insurrection. It's still cheap, dirty political tricks.
No, the courts should not meddle outside of the law. This is a constitutional ruling. The fact that it affects the primary and general election does not change the nature of the question nor the legal validity of the ruling.
You saw and heard what you wanted to see and hear. Period
The grand jury indicted Trump on four charges for his conduct following the 2020 presidential election through the January 6 Capitol attack:
I don't remember sedition mentioned. Did Jack Smith's team screw up?
No, I saw and heard what happened...
Do not tell me what I saw and I heard!
and based your opinion on what you interpreted was happening and the intent behind it. Everyone does.
The freaking projection, I just have to LOL and move along. Unbelieveable.
No, you and the supporters of the former 'president' are the ones doing that.
The former 'president' and his MAGAts provided all the evidence needed that day, PERIOD.
Nope, Jack Smith and his team are not the screw-ups 'here'.
In your mind and those of like mindset.
They why wasn't Trump charged with sedition or a leading an insurrection?
Too weak of a case for it...................
Some folks here don't like to deep dive below the headlines.
Nope
It's the truth. Those with sense know it.
What did Trump do to stop the insurrection once it began ?
Just tell us what he did.
The J6 committee revealed that he did NOTHING.
Doesn't answer his question..................
The court concluded there was an insurrection. Using the evidence gathered by the J6 committee they concluded that Trump gave comfort to the insurrection.
End of story.
Lets see what the SCOTUS does.
It is ludicrous to claim that the Colorado court had no grounds for doing what they did.
They explained in detail why they did what they did in a 213 page decision.
You guys are going around in circles.
So what were the J6 committee's recommendations to avoid it from happening again? One of the charges they were assigned...............or was it just a get Trump show. Sure seemed like it when I watched it.
Why hasn't the DOJ then charged Trump with insurrection?
But the courts are meddling based on shaky legal interpretation. Are elections under the jurisdiction of state courts or Federal courts? If elections are under the jurisdiction of Federal courts then the 14th amendment may not apply in this instance since the issue revolves around a state primary. And if elections are under the jurisdiction of Federal courts then the CO Supreme Court has no standing.
A primary candidate is not running for public office. They are a candidate for a nomination to receive a party endorsement. Party primaries are about gaining access to political donations; they're not elections for public office.
The whole 14th amendment argument is premised upon declaring an attempt to coerce the Senate into assuming an authority over the Presidential election that Congress may not have as an insurrection. Based upon that argument, Biden declaring the President has authority to forgive student loans is an insurrection, too. The attempt to overturn the 2020 election was based upon using legal means according to interpretation of the Constitution. The J6 riot was not attempting to overturn the Constitution or eliminate the Constitutional offices of government. The attempt to overturn the election was premised upon interpreting Constitutional authority to allow institutionally changing the election results. The claim was that the Federal government has Constitutional authority over elections and can utilize that Constitutional authority to intercede in election outcomes.
Could Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, change the outcome of the election or not? Could the Senate prevent Joe Biden assuming office by refusing to certify the election? That's not a rebellion or insurrection; that's a legal argument based upon interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree with your opinion and with your absurd stretching of semantics.
This process has gone through a court, has been appealed to a state supreme court and now is being appealed to the SCotUS.
This is all proper adjudication. You can disagree until red in the face, but this is the proper way for our system to work.
If the SCotUS deems that Trump did not engage in an insurrection per the 14th or that he is not an officer of the US or whatever ... then that decides it. That is again how our system works and thus regardless of what any of us want, that will be that per the constitutional question.
And if they do uphold the Colorado supreme court (unlikely, but possible) then the next course of action is for Congress to vote by 2/3 to suspend the 14th for Trump.
And then that is it.
Yes the former 'president' does need to be 'got' for inciting this failed coup/insurrection.
What's that supposed to mean? [deleted]
meaning - you don't like the truth being pointed out to you - in your endless defense of the indefensible
typical defelction
[deleted]
Pointing out the issues at hand consists of considerably more than semantics. The CO Supreme Court is intervening in a primary of the which the outcome is not election to a public office. So, is the primary really an election under jurisdiction of state or Federal courts? Primaries are actually an abuse of public trust and misuse of public resources for purely partisan objectives. But supporting the CO Supreme Court ruling requires accepting the inappropriate involvement of government in primaries.
Do not confuse process with adjudication. The courts are not addressing how primaries fit into the election process or the jurisdiction of government to be involved in primaries. By simply asserting that a primary is an election for public office (which cannot be shown) the issue will not be adjudicated regardless of process.
If the CO Supreme Court engaged in a partisan misuse of judicial authority then the ruling is really non-binding. At any rate, the CO Supreme Court only has jurisdiction in Colorado and not within the Federal government. That's why the case needs to continue the process to the Federal level. And the SCOTUS only need rule that the CO Supreme Court exceeded its authority to vacate the ruling. SCOTUS may not settle the issue at all.
Correct. And that is the next step. The SCotUS weighs in. Your legal opinion will not matter.
Just saw a news blurb, haven't read it yet, that the Co state GOP are contemplating NOT having a party primary in Colorado, should be interesting to see what developes.
And instead are mulling a caucus. That would require approval from the RNC and the CO Sec of State which would take time I'm not sure they have. The purpose would be the same as the primary and skirt the court ruling, so I'm sure the CO SoS wouldn't be in a hurry to okay it for 2024.
Possible, I don't know the Co GOP party rules work or what they are, each states are differentwith their own eccentricitys,
Just thinking about it they may simply if they can say they would support the nominee that comes out of the national primary convention.
Not sure how that would work or go over.
Tis true , they would need RNC permission to change how delegates would be apportioned , but i think that would wait to see what the USSC says .
Keep in mind the state GOP is a private party/ org meaning registered members only and being such can decide on how to apportion and place their votes within the party with no state permission or input .
From what i see , the, CSoS only has a say once a name is on the public ballot , and the CGOP is not obligated to have any name on the public ballot for any seat /office . they can simply not have any name for president so the state GOP would save 40k per candidate the cost per candidate to be on the public ballot, right now there is 5 candidates , thats $200k lost to the state with no name listed for the office of president under the GOP banner on said public ballot. I would also say thats a win for the State GOP not having that $200k expenditure for the public ballot ( no GOP money for a dem party controlled state )
Another win for the state party would be since no candidate for office would be on the public ballot the requirement to be on the public ballot to advertise about how happy the candidate is to run for the office in the great state of Co , would not have to be spent , so no advertising moneys or taxes generated by such going to the state , and no free publicity proclaiming how great the state is . i cant put a dollar figure on that one , but i would venture a guess its more than the ballot fee. and politics is big money.
Another minor win i can see to a minor issue for the state GOP is it would stop or almost eliminate cross party voting in the primary only to go back and vote genuine party in the general like i said minor issue actually and seldom works as intended , ask Liz Cheney .
While looking into it last evening i went from smiling and shaking my head to outright gawfing , and thinking , all this to keep one man off the ballot in a primary.
Grandpa was right , always more than one way to skin a cat ....
it's amazing how many trumpsters know so much more about the law than legal professionals, with a lifetime of legal expertise, that have attained their positions from the accomplishments in their past.
but, but, but, what about...
deflect all you want...
Yes. To vote in a primary, you need to register. To register, you need to interface with the Board of Elections which is a State entity. State entities are created and regulated by States. The way in which each state does this is open to variability, but I think that in order to participate, you need to be registered. Otherwise, how would the governing body regulate who is eligible to vote? Since they are created by state laws or constitutions, they must be answerable to state courts.
it's all about states rights to maga, until it's not...
That choice dovetails with Smith’s decision not to charge Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy — potential charges the House committee recommended. By eschewing them, he avoided having the case focus on the inflammatory but occasionally ambiguous remarks Trump made to his supporters as they morphed into a mob, avoiding tough First Amendment objections that defense lawyers could raise.
they all went to trumpturdU
Honestly, I wish each and every state would do the same.
[deleted]
I think it's hilarious that the POS claiming obama was ineligible to be on the ballot 15 years ago just got thrown off one, and some of the prominent voices defending trump in the "let the people decide" choir were the same people that attempted to disenfranchise the people's decision by voting against the certification of the 2020 election. more trumpster hypocrisy...
Their level of hypocrisy is breathtaking. Just astounding.
adding to their hypocrisy is this court case was brought forth by 3 republicans and 3 independents...
How does that add to hypocrisy?
explain how it subtracts.
I don’t think that it does either.
... of course not.
Lawless partisan decisions intended to take away the rights of citizens to choose their candidate are well beyond longshot measures. It is the kind of thing they do in dictatorships. There are in Russia some 20 odd individuals who want to run for president of Russia. Only one has been deemed qualified to run. His name is Vladimir Putin. Our problem is not candidates, it is the ruling class who have totally corrupted our system of justice.
A supreme court of a state coming to the conclusion that Trump engaged in insurrection per its usage in Section 3 of the 14th and concluding that he is therefore disqualified from holding office is lawful by definition.
Also lawful is the option of the SCotUS to overrule (or not) Colorado (and every other state) since they are the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the CotUS.
The Colorado supreme court is not some rogue body disallowing all candidates except for a dictator as per your ridiculous analogy. It is the highest court in Colorado making a ruling on Trump based on the traitorous actions of Trump (actual cause) and the 14th amendment (law).
you keep forgeting that it was the activities of a lawless partisan himself that brought us to this point...
Without him being charged, let alone convicted of such an offense? Even if the law being used, written during the Civil War for Confederates was applicable, such a move is an insult to American law. The fact that all of these people are partisan Trump haters has escaped the attention of nobody. If it goes to the SCOTUS, we know what the ruling will be, just like we knew that in the end the TRAVEL BAN was legal, though the same type of partisan judges tried to resist it.
You of all people should know I don't forget anything. I'm not back home yet. I'll address the new developments then.
Trump was thrown off the Maine primary ballot yesterday, by the authority of the states top election official.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b63c3e6e7d2f6344JmltdHM9MTcwMzgwODAwMCZpZ3VpZD0wNjZhZDhlYS0zNTdhLTZkNGUtMDY4Zi1jYjFjMzQxODZjYTAmaW5zaWQ9NTIyNA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=066ad8ea-357a-6d4e-068f-cb1c34186ca0&psq=Trump+was+thrown+off+the+Maine+primary+ballot+yesterday%2c&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucG9saXRpY28uY29tL25ld3MvMjAyMy8xMi8yOC9tYWluZS1raWNrcy10cnVtcC1vZmYtYmFsbG90LXVuZGVyLTE0dGgtYW1lbmRtZW50LTAwMTMzMjk0&ntb=1
Trump suckers pay zero attention to the culmination of facts, which the Maine secretary of state expressed in a 30 some page decision. Trump created the tinder over the course of a couple months, and then lit the match. He was not some sort of innocent bystander. And these state officials want there to be a consequence for that, and they are right.
A democrat throws a Republican off the ballot without any due process.
And people think the Eastman plan was a threat to democracy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
LOL...
Yes Vic, there is no requirement that Trump be charged or convicted of insurrection for a court to determine that he met the qualifications of §3 of the 14th.
Does not matter, it is part of the 14th amendment.
And where exactly is that fact established? Simply because they are Ds?
No, we do not know what the SCotUS will do. It is likely that they will determine that Trump can still run, but no guarantee. The SCotUS might also not hear the case.
But if the SCotUS hears the case and rules, then that will be the end of it. That is how our system works. And if they determine Trump cannot run will you cry foul again because things did not go your way?
And it only took 30 pages
I seem to recall it was the dems looking into packing the court after Biden was elected. And I am sure the calls will return if and when they are ruled against.
Irrelevant.
The point is that the SCotUS is the final arbiter in this matter. Whatever they rule will go into effect in all 50 states. And if they do not hear the case, then each state will decide for itself.
Interesting since I responded to the question you asked about whining if things don't go someones way. Maybe your question was irrelevant.
"And if they determine Trump cannot run will you cry foul again because things did not go your way?"
I guess you really didn't want an answer.
You opined about the Ds packing the court in reply to my question to Vic about whether he would cry foul again if the SCotUS did not rule in his favor.
Your reply has nothing to do with my question to Vic.
[deleted]
confederate or maga, it will still be too late to change the constitution. try defending it for a change.
He is not forgetting it. MAGAs want Trump to diss liberals and liberal causes on their behalf. He is 'their (bad) guy.'
And because it will affect all 50 states is the reason i think they have no choice but to take the case .
The questions i think they will have to answer
1 is the section self enacting?
I think they will say no it is not self enacting , if it is it could be considered and proven to be a bill of Attainder which is constitutionally forbidden. which means a trial would be needed even though the section does not state so .
I think they will avoid that conflict and state that due process , meaning charges and a trial must occur and the reasoning will be historical use from when the section was written and enacted and ratified
federal prosecutors back then tried to make the section self enacting , but that was thrown out for the above reasoning , BoA.so they started prosecuting from the time it was written to the after it was ratified and accepted and the trials were usually criminal trials using the higher burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt , vs a preponderance of the evidence . The reasoning for that i believe is because of the difference of burden of proof, there would be less room and narrow room for appeals between the 2 different standards .
and that went on until president grant ordered federal prosecutors to stop bringing those cases . reason he did that i think was because of Johnsons final act of granting amnesty and pardons as he left office , and grant himself signed the amnesty act of 1872.
2 they will have to rule on what i stated above on the burden of proof required as well , the preponderance of evidence used in civil trials , or the beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal trial .
i feel i have covered that above already but i have read that the last time this section was applied it was split , it was last used in trials brought forth under the sedition and insurrection acts in place during WW1, in one case the individual was charged tried and convicted and the section applied and they spent time in jail . the other almost the same thing happened for the same charges except there was an appeal and the case was overturned and the individual went on to run for office ( low level ) I think the important note here is the section was not applied until after a due process trial in court .
the next question , is a no brainer, if this is how the federal government handled the issue historically and are bound to do, are states bound to handle it in the same manner with the same provisions and standards as the federal government ?
That answer is contained in section 1 of the same amendment sec 3 is .
[removed]
2 federalist conservative constitutional scholars have already published that 14/3 is self executing.
And if SCOTUS takes the case I would think the court will take their opinion into consideration. How much weight they carry with the court is for the court to decide in deliberation among themselves.
I am remembering that SCOTUS, if they make a ruling, has the final say, not scholars.
As I said elsewhere, if SCOTUS makes a ruling, I will accept it.
No matter what it is.
But I don't think everyone can say the same.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Can't have it both ways, Sean!
Otherwise, Happy and Healthy New Year to you.
Being a bit cynical due to the obvious influence politics has on even the SCotUS, I expect a move by the court to allow Trump to run without setting a bad precedent such as defining insurrection in a manner that would not apply to Trump or ruling that the PotUS is in some way exempt from §3.
It will be very interesting to see what they devise.
Personally, I think it obvious that Trump violated §3 and thus is not eligible for the office of the presidency. I believe the intent of §3 is to prevent those who have violated their oaths of office in a major way (e.g. attempting to circumvent the CotUS). Seems to me that Trump is the best (only?) historical example of this for a PotUS.
Regardless, the SCotUS must weigh in to mitigate a royal mess.
I wish I could say something about the whole legal situation deferring to the politics of 'the day,' but. . . all that is left to do is hurry up and wait for the Justices to do whatever it is they do in such a 'mess' Trump has brought to our attention.
CB, you say whatever you want to say, it’s your right.
Please stop with the passive aggressive harassment of CB
[deleted]
[deleted]
it's what he does here...
I think SCOTUS must take the case but I think that Section 3 needs to be balanced against Section 5 which is missing from Colorado and Maine.
Another reason why the SCotUS needs to resolve this.
14th §3
14th §5
Per §5, Congress is the enforcement mechanism. They would enforce the amendment through 'appropriate legislation'. Yet §3 states that the condition can be lifted by a 2/3 vote of the legislation.
Thus it seems as though deeming the violation is a function of the judiciary. That is, courts determine if someone has violated the conditions of 14th§3. However, Congress could override this ruling (if done) by a 2/3 vote.
But then the enforcement of the condition is strictly in the hands of Congress. So if there is no extant legislation that enforces a violation of 14th§3, what happens?
If there is a loophole (such as the hint we see here) I (strongly) suspect the SCotUS will act in a manner that favors Trump being allowed to run.
I wonder how long that appeal will take.
If I had to guess...I would say three weeks at the most.
And that will be critical.
If the SCotUS overrules the SC of Colorado, that will pretty much stop any other state.
If they do not, then this is the beginning of the momentum for states to disallow a traitor to again run for the presidency and again have the opportunity to violate his oath of office.
This is a long road, but if the SCotUS does not squash this, it will be a chance the GOP to nominate a decent human being for the presidency.
colorado is a vote by mail state, the primary I believe is 3/9/24, and there's deadlines to print and mail.
Do you consider DeSantis and Haley to be decent human beings? Either of them would easily beat out Biden.
When was trump convicted of treason? Or insurrection? Or don’t democrats believe that people should be convicted of crimes before rights are taken Away?
punish first, than maybe bother with an indictment. The democrats approach to civil rights.
Hasn't happened in decades. Likely never will.
The GOP has gone over to the dark side.
Yes, since I am comparing them with Trump.
He was not convicted of either crime. What is your point? (And do not start on this nonsense about one needing to be legally convicted of treason to be called a traitor.)
One of the key reservations of this court, which I noted in my blog, is that Trump has not been convicted of insurrection:
You really need that explained? You don't get how some people might think it's absurd and an incredible abuse of power to strip someone of a right for committing a crime without first bothering to convict him of that crime?
It's amazing to me that some people can't see how terrible the optics of this judicial assault on the ballot are, especially for a party whose entire argument against Trump is that HE is a threat to democracy. It's basically an inoculation for Trump against that charge. All he has to do to rebut it is point at this. Anyone supporting this has lost all credibility on the topic as they are now out Trumping Trump by preventing fair elections from even being held.
Generally, if you are calling someone a traitor in a legal setting, they should be convicted of being a traitor.
that Trump has not been convicted of insurrection:
Which is why punishing him for it is such an abuse of power. If he's convicted of insurrection, it's self-executing and he's gone. Instead, it's just trying to steal an election by keeping the guy beating the President in the polls off the ballot.
Do not start with this kind of crap, Sean. I was asking you to be clear on your point. I included this ⇣ in my blog and repeated in my reply:
A United States court has found that Trump, while president, incited an insurrection. One would think you would have a more sober view of this troubling development. Gotta stay on that Trump train though.
From your lips to the electorate's ears.
If only ...
I can’t stand Trump and have never voted for him but this Colorado will not stand. The legislators that creat the 1868 law knew what an insurrection was, it was states rebelling against the union resulting in over 600,000 soldiers killed over a long civil war. An insurrection isn’t a several hour attempt to storm the Capitol no matter how shameful it was. “Be there, it will be wild”, isn’t the same as “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America”.
A mob tried to violently enter the U.S. congressional chambers while congress was in session. If thats not an insurrection its a good facsimile.
Is that a Jack Smith charge?
At the end of the day it was a failed and unplanned spontaneous riot by about a hundred right wing hot heads.
Not an insurrection
The principle at play here is violation of oath of office. If someone who has taken an oath, violates that oath while in office, they should not be given a second chance to violate it again.
Of course the importance of the oath and the degree to which it was violated is critical.
In the case of Trump, we are talking about his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the CotUS. Trump violated that oath in a magnificent manner when he used coercion, lies, fraud, and incitement in an attempt to circumvent the CotUS and violate the foundation of democracy: the vote of the electorate.
No, insurrection or violation of U.S.C. 2383, isn’t the same criteria as a violation of his oath of office.
The lower court found that Trump engaged in insurrection as defined by §3 of the 14th amendment. The supreme court upheld that decision and then overturned the lower court's (strange) conclusion that this did not apply to Trump because he was not an 'officer' of the US.
Yes, I understand and believe that SCOTUS will overturn their narrow ruling.
Hard to predict. On one hand it would be consistent for this SCotUS to uphold State rights and allow each State to determine how they manage their elections.
On the other hand, this is clearly a conservative court and that might translate into being generous to Trump.
If smart, they would refuse to hear the case and wait to see if a bigger issue emerges with several States.
This is an important point. The dispute was not over whether or not his actions constituted an insurrection against the United States. I feel that if we are quibbling over whether he was an "officer of the United States," the argument in his support is already lost.
In the dissent by Colorado's 'Supremes' . . . there is mention that Trump has not been INDICTED on or Convicted of treason or insurrection ("CNN NewsNight With Abby Phillip") and thus there is MISSING due process from the Colorado state 'Supremes' majority opinion.
My question then becomes this:
If that is their complaint (missing due processes ICO Trump). . .then, why oh why is he allowed to place himself in the running for president a second time without waiting for courts (legal) clearance to be placed on the ballot as a candidate?
That is, remove Trump (the questionable offender) from running until all the courts render decisions/judgements/opinions on whether or not he can be a qualified candidate or is de facto an inciter of the January 6 insurrection!
Why should this traitor be allowed to continue his ruse of campaigning for the presidency, when such a serious question is proffered by Trump "defenders"? Let Trump renew his attempt to become a presidential candidate AFTER all the courts have played out or shut up about a lack of due process and take what decision the courts render. (As he may have to do anyway.)
I think the presumption of innocence applies.
You summed it up nicely, Sean. I'll be amazed if SCOTUS lets this stand. Seems like a clear cut case of vote tampering if ever there was one.
Yet, the timing is way off for what is coming electorally. The serious nature of this question of allowing an invalid candidate to lead and win a party nomination while a question about the merits of his even being allowed to be on the ballot. . .is a concern to the courts. If Trump's attorneys and "dissenters" on the Appeals courts (3 justices) wish SCOTUS to send the case back for some indictment or conviction through a trial of his peers or summary judgement (aside from the first judge to rule Trump was an inciter of January 6th violence and insurrection) then since time is a short commodity. . . why not remove the 'offense/offender" until the ultimate decision regarding him is reached?
That is, why is this foolish man, Trump, being allowed to gain the system to become president (again)? It is not fair to any other candidate in either party who did not incite his/her supporters to commit capitol building crimes.
Our legal system is tainted with politics. The problem is that Trump enjoys an absurd level of support and that impedes efforts to hold him accountable.
You mean inconsequential polls? The polls Trump (and you) are exploiting because they are 'snapshots' of a moment in time (this far out from November 2024)? Trump has not even become a winner of a single GOP primary!
Stop with the propaganda.
It is high time to call this corrupting legal influence out! Trump and his lawyers are using the legal system in ways which lead to it farther corrupting. . .itself. This ought to be forbidden by court officers protecting their venues from "infection" by injections coming from lawyers (and clients) seeking to poison our system of justice.
These judges apparently don’t recognize their infection by injections.
Biden said to be increasingly frustrated by dismal poll numbers
In one recent meeting he said poll numbers were unacceptably low and he wanted to know what his team and his campaign were doing about it
oops, make that 3/5/24. the certification of the primary ballot here has a hard deadline of 1/6/24.
but they didn't bring cookies
cookies don't go very well with what they're happy to chug for their traitorous demigod...
Kool-aid and cookies don't go well together???
Where were you raised?
you can see thru kool aid. that isn't what they're chugging.
I lived in the middle of those tall pointy things on the western horizon of the great plains. we had dairy cows...
What are they chugging? Motor oil?
My dad had a dairy farm for a little while
maga sewage.
Oh FFS, you don't support it but you endlessly defend it.
It was an insurrection incited by the former turd 'president'
It was planned and not spontaneous.
It was an insurrection incited by the former 'president'
I have never defended 6 Jan.
States aren’t the enforcement mechanism for Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Where do you see that the Colorado supreme court does not have the right to issue this ruling?
They can issue any ruling they want but the 14 Amendment supersedes by design the states involvement with enforcement of federal elections.
Then you know better than the Colorado supreme court on the limits of their authority.
Thank you.
[deleted]
I'm really quite interested in what happens here, having spent a big part of my life involved in the law, whether your SCOTUS would do what is ethically correct by the three justices appointed by Trump recusing themselves, but then some of the justices have not exactly been paragons of ethics so it would be a revelation if they did.
Ethically corrupt or legally correct?
IMO ethically CORRECT. I'm not familiar enough with American law to offer an opinion on whether or not it's legally correct or incorrect. Ask one of the other NT members who are lawyers.
Ethics isn’t the issue, the law is.
There's no serious argument that's it ethically correct for any Trump or Biden appointee to recuse themselves. That's not how recusal works.
The law will be what the law requires, but in this matter I consider it a matter of respect for the judiciary so I'm more interested in the ethics,
Oh, dear sir, please tell me how recusal works in America, because how could I possibly know. I might actually think it's similar to how it works in Canada.
But you have never stated Trump should be hog tied for being the mastermind behind it either
I think the lower court's reasoning was that the President is not covered explicitly in section 3, the presidency itself is exempt from the disqualification. In, the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution explicitly calls out the President. with this language, "President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,”. Does that mean that the President might not be a “civil Officer of the United States”..
The Disqualification clause applies to Members of Congress, officers of the United States, members of state legislatures, and state executive or judicial officers, who previously swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and later break that oath by committing the acts mentioned. The offices to which such persons are then barred include seats in Congress, membership in the Electoral College, and any civil or military office under the United States or any state..
So the issues are:
A case that only SCOTUS can resolve.
A very strange reading. There are times when common sense reading is appropriate.
Also, the premise is this: Nobody, but nobody is above the law. However, if the president can not be 'managed' by a good faith reading of the laws which bind us. . . s/he would be above the law, in a specific sense. That can not be the reading of the 14th amendment.
In addition, the OFFICE of President is held by an 'officer' who is the elected EXECUTIVE. This squirmy look for specified and designated terms in an 'aged' document is patently ridiculous. We all understand (generally agree) that an officer is a an Office holder .
I am left wondering why intelligent, scholarly, and professional people can't comprehend "the obvious!" and need to keep testing legal theories which allow this idiotic personage to escape the justice he rightly deserves same as every other officer holder .
Because the President wasn't named in the Disqualification Clause but is specifically named in the Impeachment Clause. That why we have judges and courtys.
The CotUS is not a mathematically sound document. It is, rather, a work expressed in natural language and as such will be riddled with omissions (holes) and ambiguity.
I think it would be an extraordinary stretch of legal semantics to conclude that the president (and any other official) is excluded from the 14th section 3 unless their title is explicitly enumerated.
If the president were to be excluded, one would expect that (unusual and inexplicable) exclusion to be explicit.
Some people are looking to the COTUS as a 'whole' document or one which they can play fast and loose with when it suits them. Of course, liberals don't generally take such a route through COTUS because they tend to work to operate within 'the lines' and find solutions accordingly. The differences in people, for sure. Trump is pushing all kinds of buttons in varying "combinations" on the 'panel' in front of his lawyers to see if he can FALSIFY or test the system - if it might break in his favor of course!
It's all a bit much and I am sure not what the founders expected any so-called leader to do! That is to 'try' the Constitution in and of itself!
Any work in natural language is subject to interpretation and thus can be argued to mean different things. It is extremely difficult (ask any attorney) to forge an iron-clad legal document that has no ambiguity, no omissions, etc.
An objective mind would consider an unusual interpretation to be unlikely and favor one that is more usual.
So, case in point, it would be extremely unusual for §3 of the 14th amendment to mean that any office holder whose title is not explicitly stated would be excluded. Thus, rational minds would recognize that the intent here is to (at a minimum) prevent anyone who has taken an oath of office and violated same should not be given a second chance to do so.
Exactly. But this is MAGAs pulling a "Conway" (AKA: Kellyanne Conway) where they take an "alternative reading" whether than the literal words and the good faith reading of the COTUS in order to cast doubt and honestly it sucks that intelligent people/professionals/officials entertain such activity/noise.
It's partisan bs and I am honestly surprised that this nation is devolving back to taking plain and clear bs to be something that needs deep reflection. It's bull "patty." It's frivolous.
I am going to write something that will come across as controversial but it needs to be added to the discussion:
As a Black American, we have long endured White (conservative) Americans twisting the legalities of the law to their advantage and granting themselves privileges or "openings" in the law they won't allow Black Americans or Others. We thought that was behind this nation with the "modern" Rule of Law. . . but here it is again. . .rearing its UGLY head once again.
We need a Rule of Law that is the same for everybody and not different because a high-priced lawyer can "sand-box" it and get away with unfit/unfair meanings.
Pretty much any defense of Trump at this point is partisan nonsense. At some point, one asks what Trump has to actually do before MAGA-brains will recognize that this abysmal human being violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and violate the foundation of democracy —the vote of the electorate— through fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement.
Such an individual should never be allowed access to any public office, much less the presidency.
But we are living in very strange times with an entirely dysfunctional and morally bankrupt GOP.
Emphatically.
I would separate the defense of Trump as an individual from defense of the laws surrounding his issues.
I speak of him as an individual who has engaged in specific actions. It is his actions in contrast to the CotUS and law that is the problem.
Legal remedies shouldn’t be based on an individual case but be broader across the country.
Legal precedent is advanced one case at a time. That is how our system has always worked.
Laws are passed and then these laws are tested and the adjudication thereof refined by actual cases involving individuals.
They will claim adjudication by the Senate and the Senate's vote to not convict him, thereby making him innocent of all charges....
And that's why Donald Trump Loves him some America....
I think it is quite fair to say that most Trump supporters will cling to literally any shred to defend Trump and the alternate reality he represents to them.
As of Dec. 6. 2023, there have been 714 guilty pleas and 138 individuals have been convicted at trial. That's 852 to date with more coming. So much for "about a hundred".
More like - about over a thousand or more
This latest attempt to subvert the Constitution by a four unelected liberal state judges won't stand.
Similar attempts in Arizona, Minnesota, and Michigan have failed.
Let the people decide.
If the Dems are so afraid of Trump being elected, then they will need to run someone who can beat him. Helllo!
How, specifically, is this subverting the CotUS?
there seems to be a lot of people that think due process is unconstitutional...
Because in 1870, Congress wrote an Enforcement Act for Sec 3 and the states don’t have a role in enforcement of a federal election.
So you think the Colorado supreme court does not have the authority to issue this ruling?
Federal elections are run by individual states. Sorry Greg.
it takes a legal journey to get there...
“Let the people decide.”
I suspect many will write in his name on the ballot if this holds.
I agree. I consider it irrational to want Trump to be the PotUS so it makes perfect sense that this irrational thinking would lead to a write-in vote.
they better start practising the legible spelling of his name now...
“they better start practising the legible spelling of his name now...”
i guess that goes for those opposed to trump as well, eh?
guess again...
I didn’t guess. The ironic fuckup is there for all to see.
“I suspect many will write in his name on the ballot if this holds.”
And in Colorado, potential write-in candidates must still register their intent with the Secretary of State. Otherwise, the vote will not be tallied, but the rest of the ballot will. Guessing this decision, if upheld, would negate that notion.
yup...
It sure as hell is, lol.
Only warning: do not engage in pedantic nitpicking.
my apologies, spellcheck settings didn't catch it because it's not incorrect english. misspelled or not, the comment still conveys the same idea.
UK english
practice = noun
practise = verb
US english
practice = used as a noun or verb
practise = not used
Yes, WE see it.
What we're 'afraid of' is the former 'president' not being held accountable for the 91 counts against him and him possibly becoming 'president'.
The ultimate hypocrisy!
THE PEOPLE DID DECIDE!
Indictment: 8 Times Trump Knew He Lost
"Donald Trump was told repeatedly he lost the 2020 election, including by those inside his circle."
What Happened: On Tuesday, August 1, a federal grand jury of everyday Americans indicted former President Donald Trump for knowingly lying about the outcome of the 2020 election and trying to overturn our votes for president.
The Key: Intent. The indictment hinges in part on proving that Trump knew his election fraud claims were false but that he spread the lies anyway.
What the Indictment Says: It states Donald Trump:
If democrats wanted to make trump a political martyr and sympathetic, it’s hard to imagine what they would have done differently the Last few years. Partisan prosecutions that include allowing multiple democrats to walk for the same crimes, and now the biggest slap in the face to the democratic process yet. A court throwing the leading contender for the presidency off the ballot without actually convicting him of the crime that would allow it.
The partisan progressives in Colorado showing what a piker trump is in the “threat to democracy” game. Colorado simply ends democracy
I’m actually surprised the vote was 4-3. Apparently some liberals still believe in democracy.
I can’t believe they’d issue this ruling unless it was unanimous. If a court is going to do something so anti thetical to the democratic process, it damn well better be such an open and shut case that no judge could disagree with it.
One would think so but a 4-3 decision undermines the clarity of this issue that many try to push.
That, and a dollar, will get him a ride on a bus. All the sympathy in the world won’t magically make him president, and realistically, people are not going to take up sufficient arms to fight a battle for him.
Please. Republicans are only too happy to have courts overrule the will of the people when it suits them.
Politicians like to be sympathetic. Being viewed more favorably helps win votes. This is great for Trump. It makes all the talk about Trump being a threat to democracy a sick joke. Democrats are literally preventing a free and fair election from taking place. It's third world stuff.
Republicans are only too happy to have courts overrule the will of the people when it suits them.
Lol. The Court isn't even allowing the will of the people to be heard. Just straight hit up preventing them from voting for the candidate of their choice because the candidate supposedly is guilty of committing a crime he wasn't even indicted for.
The prohibition against serving is a limitation at the federal level. That is, even if elected, he couldn't hold office if he had committed insurrection. That is not a limitation on how the state selects electors.
That's not the goal, the goal is to hold him accountable legally. The right wing really should have no problems with that since they are the "party of law and order". Right?
trumpsters want everyone to forget that the effort to remove trump from the colorado ballot was brought forth by 3 republicans and 3 independents...
They can't get past the fact that reasonable conservatives dislike his actions every bit as much as liberals do.
Anyone who pretends to know how this is going to turn out, doesn't know.
it's going to create quite the legal and mental conundrum for the self professed constitution originalists on the SCOTUS. it will be interesting to see if the current major fissures in the GOP pass thru that court. this will be a very historic litmus test for SCOTUS.
Very interesting since clarence thomas (ginni) has not recused himself
What are you going to say when it is 8 to 1 for Trump?
why would I speculate on a maga fantasy that won't happen?
Exactly, and would anyone care if you did?
It may come down to Gorsuch as he was deliberately quoted by the CO court in supporting the right of a state to conduct their elections independently. Will he follow his previous example and his principles or will he acquiesce to the partisan pressure? I know what Ms. Day-O’Connor would do.
That's what I thought
O'Connor chose politics over the Constitution in Bush v. Gore.
Exactly, there were no politics in the dissenting votes
When you lose Jonathan chait…
I have heard the legal case for this, but the politics and civics of this move are awful. Hope/expect SCOTUS to overturn
A lot of times, when we expect the Supremes to settle an issue, they decline to do so because they decide it’s not something they have jurisdiction over. I would not be surprised if this is one of those times.
The US Constitution puts the power to elect a president in the hands of the states. How they go about that is generally their own business. Unless - and until - a person receives sufficient Electoral votes, and is certified by Congress, no one has a right to be president - or even to be on the ballot in the first place. So, if a state decides not to choose someone to receive Electoral votes - or even be considered - that would seem to be the state’s call. For that reason, the SCOTUS may just let the Colorado decision stand without further review.
Seems to me it would be consistent with the recent SCotUS justification for overturning Roe v Wade to leave this up to the states.
Keep in mind that the CO ruling applies to a party primary which is not an open election. In this instance, the Republican Party sets the rules, requirements, and qualifications for candidate and voter participation in the primary. US SCOTUS could make a ruling that party primaries are not government sanctioned elections. Such a ruling could drastically change the political landscape. And that would be consistent with the US SCOTUS position on a number of issues, including abortion.
US SCOTUS could also make a ruling that the Colorado SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction since Democrats have been claiming the Federal Congress has jurisdiction over elections. The US SCOTUS could rule that more guidance and clarification is needed from Congress.
too late for what? is he threatening violence ?
His latest insane rant.
I think that he was threatening the current administration with jail time
He is threatening them with a Pandora's Box of his own if/when he is reelected if the administration does not close its 'box' on his demand. And, of course, MAGAs wants him to do it, too!
Courts are not democratic institutions. Courts are purely autocratic institutions. And a selective autocracy is not a democracy.
From this point forward, no election in the United States can be considered a legitimate democratic election.
Non-Sequitur
Do you believe the same when leftists screech "this will be the end of democracy if Donald Trump is elected again"?
No. One can follow the logic from the Assertion to the Evidence to the Conclusion that the initial Assertion is: (True / Partially True / False).
Non sequitur means that one cannot get from the assertion to the conclusion because there is no connection or there is no evidence of a connection.
Nerm's assertion: ...no election in the United States can be considered a legitimate democratic election.
Nerm's supporting evidence:
Nerm's assertion, "no election in the United States can be considered a legitimate democratic election," is not supported by the evidence presented. Therefore, his assertion is False.
gee, I wonder which goober state will be the first with the retaliatory strike of trying to get biden taken off the ballot ...
my money is on texas, more rwnj lawyers there...
I just heard on "CNN NewsNight With Abby Phillip" the GOP - Colorado will not allow Trump to be out of the voting for 2024 even if the courts' ruling stand. They will go to a caucus system, instead of a ballot system. (I) Don't know how they will connect that to the general election system, nevertheless.
We have physical and verbal evidences over and over again that the GOP is MAGA and will not let Donald Trump go it alone. Trump is nothing without them and apparently MAGA is nothing without Trump!
Biden is off topic.
oops
It should not CONTINUE escaping notice that the media and other venues speak of the court system by its human parts. That is, "conservative" justices, "liberal" judges, and the like. How is this not damaging to the legal system-for the participants in blind justice to be 'known' by their voting records or which party affiliation gave each one of them a lifetime job? (Rhetorical.)
We as a nation. . . are creating a problem for ourselves influentially in the legal system. That is, judges and justices, having and needing to defend themselves against rumors, charges, accusations of bias on behalf of and for political parties.
It's not a good 'look.' And its very dangerous. As it can/will delegitimize the validity of justice opinions.
That is, 'somebody' needs to take stock of the fact that our nation is in serious danger of not having courts we can trust or "believe" if these media attitudes and court staff labelings ("conservative' or "liberal" judges and justices) don't readily end.
By the way, just to illustrate how pathetic the Trump defense will be in matters concerning Jan 6th, remember this:
Donald Trump Says He Never Swore Oath 'to Support the Constitution'
How can they expect an intelligent person like a judge to buy such nonsense?
Wow. A Trump legal 'word salad.' To this day, I still have not figured out the distinction former President Clinton was casting when he stated, 'It depends on what the definition of is - is.'
So now a lawyer wants to drill down on the word, "support" as a defense for Trump's escape hatch out of a constitutional clause (that has him squarely within its scope)?
Just how does tmp define "preserve, protect, and defend"?
trump thinks that it refers to him...
he is a whole new level of stupid
he's a bottomless pit of depravity, criminality, and treason...
so true . . . there seems to be no limit on his scumbaggery
to his scumbaggery
Since all the problems for the last while seem to be those arising in the White House, the Senate, Congress and the SCOTUS, maybe the solution needs to be that every State should secede from the Union and become individual nations. LOL In the meantime, enjoy the divisiveness. (A tongue-in-cheek suggestion to add a little humour)
Plaintive lament of MAGAs heard whining across Trumpy Land...
"Leave Trump Alone"
Maybe it’s your neighborhood, it’s quiet and peaceful here.
[deleted]
I hear that it's nice in Moscow this time of year.
[deleted]
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states “No person shall hold any office.” It does not say, No person shall run for any office or No person shall be elected to any office.
Does Colorado have a state law that permits them to knock people off the ballot when they’re not qualified? If so it's probable not constitutional but I haven't seen one cited.
A year or to after the Amendment was approved, additional legislation was signed into law, 5 U.S.C. §14a, it was called “An Act to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.”
This provides the mechanism for enforcement, “Whenever any person holds office, except as a member of Congress or some state legislature, contrary to the provision of the Third Section of the Fourteenth article of Amendment of the Constitution, the district attorney for the district in which such person holds office shall proceed against him by writ of quo warranto” (a challenge to holding office). returnable to the District Court of the United States and prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office.
So Congress didn't leave ambiguity in enforcement. They passed a statute. That is due process, not some potentially partisan state official. I have little doubt that SCOTUS will overturn this.
Funny that the supreme court of Colorado missed this little detail.
Logic or reasonable explanation would keep an individual from "running" or getting "elected" to an office s/he can not hold upon winning. Putting forward an invalid individual at such a cost to the GOP and the system is of limited value.
Implying approval of a Trump presidency (2).
I don't know that either apply to Trump. He would a legal chance of to fight the writ of quo warranto.
If he meets the State Party criteria to be on ballets, what is the legal way the GOP could keep him from running?
ARGUMENT: That it will be a failed and squandered opportunity to elect someone who can NOT hold the seat if elected to it. The party position is about constituent representation in the Office of President and not just. any. one. man. going. rogue. as. a. candidate.
Other than this, as usual with Trump, it may be a new "unchartered" test of the law and rules governing elections.
So as usual, you don’t answer the question.
So again, no answer.
I am not a lawyer, therefore I won't pretend to roleplay a lawyer online. When I give you an answer you can assume it is my best as I don't have time to play games with MAGAs, or MAGA-ladened or MAGA-influenced individuals or collectives.
Finally, I don't owe you a comment at all. . . and vice-versa. So take what you 'get' as I know I similarly do from you!
Whatever, your comments seem to be lacking from a legal review.
I can't even fathom what or where you are coming or going with that comment. Please explain. . . .
I don't owe you a comment at all. . . and vice-versa. So take what you 'get' as I know I similarly do from you!
[deleted]
My comment is a CB quote 15.2.5
Is that what your memes are, honest engagement or just copy n’ paste bullshit artistry?
Good. Then, you get it.
"Go tell it to a tourist." - I like that one (JBB) .
I engage in honest dialogues with all sincere respondents...
Perhaps you should try it sometime. Your history is a known.
If you eskew honesty and sincerely, you will get the memes!
Sure you do.
Your bias runs away with my history.
Eskew?
(to all) Bickering is off topic
No shit!
I doubt the SCotUS will split hairs in this absurd fashion (if they hear the case).
I think they would more likely focus on the insurrection aspect. There is room for serious judgment there.
The last sentence of Sec 3, states: " But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." . Does that mean after an election but before inauguration or does it mean before someone can be nominated or before someone can run in a primary.
It depends on how you interpret "hold". If you interpret it as you have suggested then the vote can only apply to prevent the act of holding the office. Thus they would vote to make it impossible for Trump to be inaugurated.
If if it interpreted in a logical and practical manner (avoiding the ridiculous, mechanical process of electing someone who cannot serve) then the vote would be done ASAP to decide this issue well before the election takes place.
To me, it is obvious how this must proceed. This issue must be settled now. And if the SCotUS rules that Trump is not eligible to hold the office then that should translate into not being eligible to run for the office. And, further, it means that Congress needs to officially decide if they are going to overrule or not prior to the election.
Don't you RUN for office expecting to HOLD that same office? So even if elected, they cannot hold the office. Your argument literally makes no sense at all.
The 'order' will go like this: 1. Run for the office. 2. Ignore the 14th amendment clause. 3. Get elected. 4. Claim election "interference" as an officeholder. 5. Win in court by suing the government as an "elected" official. 6. If necessary: Appeal up to the Supreme Court. (By the time SCOTUS hears the case, it may be time to 'run' again.)
This is the type of cases the Supreme Court has opened itself up to when it allows Donald Trump to keep trekking up to it. It becomes a matter of "Donald Trump has yet ANOTHER case to be heard!" - (high Court). Because, of course, 'every thing' Trump does RISES to the 'highest'!
Smart people have seen this coming. I don't know what exactly it says about the rest of us who have to touch the hot item in order to ascertain there is heat pouring off of it!
This is exactly the kind of case that SCOTUS has to resolve as it deals with state authorities versus federal authorities WRT the 14th Amendment.
They have to resolve this the Republican delegates meet in Milwaukee so the Party can avoid nominating a candidate who is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.
What would be extremely ugly for the country would be a failure to resolve it and for for Trump to appear on the November 2024 , then to win the election, and afterwards be disqualified. and denied a second term.
Indeed. This needs to be addressed immediately. Trump is either eligible to hold the office or he is not. This constitutional question must be answered now.
Emphatically. To you and Drinker, two things can be right at the same time.
There is a larger concern: That Trump will open the SYSTEM of the court up to everyday mundane official matters of lesser regard which have been handled in general by courteous cooperation and agreements to be codified in to law and then fought over indefinitely. Or some such thing. Got to go! Back later. I am back now it seems.
I have to wonder if anyone is looking into packing the supreme court and how quickly it could be done just in case the decision goes to Trump being kept on the ballot. Unless it is a 9-0 decision in which case people will be dusting off their pussy hats. S/
Are you speculating on whether the D party would seriously attempt to appoint extra justices, like within months, in order to keep Trump off the ballot?
I suspect the Ds (in aggregate) recognize that this would be both an act of futility and political suicide.
I'm sure someone is.
It would take both chambers of Congress to change the number of Justices. The House would never pass such a bill.
I think that's part of the motivation for this. If, as expected, they lose, it gives them a weapon to brandish at the Supreme Court.
Not overly serious to get it done now but plant the seed (again) about the need and get lots of sound bytes on MSNBC and CNN.
Not now but start planting the seed of only needing a majority to change the rules. I believe it is 2/3 at present.
Unless it is at least an 8-1 vote. That would leave them no place to go with their complaints.
Several Dems introduced bills in both chambers last May. Those bills were never taken up. They never even made it to committee. I don't think the Dems will win enough seats in 2024 let alone in the months leading up to the election.
This AND whether a President has immunity from prosecution from any act committed while he served. Both need to be addressed immediately.
Actually, all it would take to pack the court, is for the sitting president to nominate someone, and for the Senate to confirm the nomination, the house plays no role, and there really is not a limit imposed on the number of justices that can be seated except those imposed by the Senate through the confirmation process of consent, but , overload the court (packing) to achieve a political agenda would carry its own consequences (ie political suicide).
I don't think that's right. I think that a law would also need to be changed.
You are likely right , by law it's 9 with the chief justice, but then the argument or discussion would be is that law dictating the minimum or maximum that need to be seated?
If it is the minimum, the Senate can seat as many as are nominated, if it's the max, then the Senate is bound to having to wait for a vacancy for whatever reason, ie retirement or death.
Pretty sure it's set at 9. From the same link:
Seems clear to me, it's set at 9 justices and they need to have 6 to make a quorum.
I can agree with that, makes me wonder how FDR was going to pack the court back in the 1930s , maybe he was going to create another Act to allow however many justices needed to suit himself, either way, political suicide in my view.
So absent an act of Congress, retirement death or impeachment of a sitting justice it's stuck where it is.
Basically allow the PotUS to appoint a justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70:
I find it gag-worthy that the media talking heads (and even some liberal cable news anchors) opine on how courts - stewards of JUSTICE - are being asked to consider POLITICS in rendering decisions about Trump's illegal activities.
[Deleted]
[deleted]
If one must incite an insurrection, then one is not ready for the ballot!
Not a very well thought out ' point '.
If Trump is not the GOP nominee, the likely GOP nominee is Haley.
If the Ds (or whover you think is conspiring to remove Trump from the ballot for purely partisan reasons) are trying to remove Trump so that Biden will win, they might instead make it more likely that Biden will lose.
haley is already giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists with her statements of pardons.
What insurrectionists?
Who has been charged and/pr convicted if such crimes?
She is pandering to stay in good graces with the MAGA contingent. With today's GOP there is no path to the nomination that opposes MAGA. Thing is, she has only a slim, slim chance at the nomination and it will require an extraordinary event that upsets Trump's domination of the party.
Insurrection = " an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"
One need not be charged and convicted of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 or § 2384 or § 2101 to be properly referred to as an insurrectionist.
Are you holding back the "Insurrection Charges" for dramatic effect?
Well, nice try but a fail.
The question was who has been charged/convicted of insurrection, a crime.
19.2.1 claimed there were insurrectionists on Jan 6, but, wait for it...
No one has been charged with insurrection.
The act of insurrection in and of itself is a crime.
No one has been charged with this crime.
Do you recognize that many of the Jan 6 insurrections have been criminally charged and convicted?
Do you understand that the term 'insurrectionist' does NOT require one first be tried and convicted of 18 U.S. Code §2383 or §2384 or §2101? It is an English word with a colloquial meaning regardless of legal determinations.
A mob of Trump supporters committed crimes while engaging in an insurrection. Do you recognize that obvious fact?
Yes we know.
No, they have been charged with related crimes.
That does not make it incorrect to refer to them as insurrectionists. Read the dictionary.
A bunch of idiots broke windows and came in the Capitol, after many others were escorted in by Capitol police. Those that got out of hand have been charged accordingly, none have been charged specifically to the US code you cited, or else it would be listed in the charges as to what they are being charged with.
Cite where in your link the US Code was cited in the charges.
If you are not going to read my posts, then leave my blog.
So not insurrection
Thanks for acknowledging.
I read the link and your posts. Nowhere on the site does it mention US Code 2083, 2084 or 2101 per the charges filed.
It is obvious you are citing your opinion concerning what has been charged, and it has been pointed out your opinion is wrong.
Last chance: (repeating)
Insurrection = " an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government "
One need not be charged and convicted of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 or § 2384 or § 2101 to be properly referred to as an insurrectionist.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
So they have not been charged with insurrection so they are not insurrectionists but it is not incorrect to call them insurrectionists. Sounds like someone is playing word games in order to muddy the waters. Why not avoid the ambiguity by calling them what they were actually charged with and avoid the colloquial meaning altogether?
Repeat........
Just because you call someone an insurrectionist does not make it so.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
The word 'insurrection' is an English word with a colloquial meaning.
Insurrection = " an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government "
Why do you object to using that word as defined?
Unless they have been charged and convicted of insurrection saying they did " an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government " is just an opinion.
Read 19.2.17 again.
And the US Code he cites needs to be listed as the reason behind the charges.
The code is never mentioned.
So no insurrection.
Who has stated that this is not opinion?
The point I have made is that one need not be legally charged and convicted of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 or § 2384 or § 2101 to be properly referred to as an insurrectionist.
Calling someone something does not make it so.
Similar to calling someone a racist. Just because they do something you THINK is racist does not make them a racist.
If you simply THINK someone committed an insurrection does not make it so, especially when the code you keep citing has not been uses a basis for the charges they are charged with.
[ deleted ]
Insurrection , an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt. An insurrection may facilitate or bring about a revolution , which is a radical change in the form of government or political system of a state , and it may be initiated or provoked by an act of sedition , which is an incitement to revolt or rebellion.
Insurrection | Definition, Laws, Examples, [ & Facts | Britannic ]
Strawman.
Nobody has stated that labeling someone an insurrectionist makes them a criminal.
The statement is that it is proper to label one (and of course that is always opinion) an insurrectionist if they have engaged in an insurrection:
Insurrection = " an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government "
Cite the precedent for your claim.
I am not speaking legally. How many times must I state this?
There is no need for legal precedent when using an English word per its defined colloquial meaning.
By that definition the rioters during the summer of love that got in the way of civil authorities (police, fire, local government) could be considered insurrectionists. I don't recall anyone making that claim.
You might want to bring that up to actual lawyers...
Is insurrection a crime?
Yes
So the only legal way to be called an insurrectionist is to commit an insurrection.
No one has had that dome to them.
Calling them insurrectionists without the charges is an incorrect opinion.
So in your opinion they are insurrectionists because you use the colloquial meaning of the word and in my opinion they were not insurrectionists because I use the legal meaning of the word.
And we are both right.
IMHO, because insurrection is a very serious charge, I would accept the legal definition before any other.
As would I. I am a bit surprised that some would choose to use the colloquial meaning but to each his own.
This is very simple.
Those who broke and entered the Capitol can be called insurrectionists based on the colloquial definition of the word. Just as one can call Trump a traitor based on the colloquial definition of the word. Or to call someone a racist, etc. The English language has words with definitions and those words are properly used regardless of legal actions.
Those who broke and entered the Capitol cannot be stated to be criminally insurrectionists because they have not been found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Just as Trump can be labeled a traitor but cannot be stated to be criminally a traitor because he has not been convicted of treason. Many of this crowd have, however, been found guilty of related crimes. So they were not guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 but they were found guilty of crimes.
I have stated this repeatedly. This is obvious and easy to understand.
I guess that is what is meant when they say "tried in the court of public opinion".
Why on Earth would you be surprised? Do you literally wait for a court to offer a legal ruling before you opine on matters? Comments by you and others in this forum are routinely offering opinions and labels without waiting for a legal ruling.
So why is it so difficult for you to understand why people use the English word as defined to refer to those who broke and entered our Capitol on Jan 6?
It would seem that using the colloquial definition is all opinion while bringing the legal aspects into the definition are more fact. Or at least as factual as being charged and convicted can be.
The is a colloquial meaning for insurrection and a legal one.
Colloquial does not require a court of law.
Legal does.
Why does it seem so difficult for you to accept when people use the colloquial definition of the word traitor when referring to Joe?
Very often I do and I have a feeling you are not happy when I do it.
Why is this not registering? Almost every personal judgment is opinion.
A legal determination is clearly much stronger than opinion.
But the absence of a legal determinization does not make opinion invalid.
Because alot of them use the word as if it were more than just their opinion.
Next time you criticize a public figure, I will verify that your criticism is based on a legal ruling.
( In other words: bullshit. 'Very often' you do not. Nobody does. )
And thanks to you I will have a response: Colloquial
the colloquial definition
No. But that is off topic. Ask me in an article where it is on topic and I will elaborate.
You do not need me to have the ability to opine. We all have that ability.
If you use English words properly according to their colloquial usage, you (none of us) are not required to have your opinion supported by a legal ruling by a court of law.
Off topic. No further warning.
Irrelevant.
[deleted]
Good grief man, that illustrates a complete lack of understanding of how discourse works.
Most every opinion rendered is not backed by a legal ruling. Do you think that Fox News opinions are all simply reports of legal rulings?
Your opinion that one cannot correctly label these individuals insurrections without the charges is an opinion and your opinion is not backed by a legal ruling. The dictionary definition for insurrection has not be legally challenged and found to be wrong.
Your 'reasoning' is profoundly flawed.
Many people here use the word insurrection to describe what happened on Jan 6 in what they believe is their opinion, then follow that up with something along the lines as those people need to rot in prison.
They may be using the word colloquially, however, by adding the prison ending changes their definition to the legal aspect, as only a legal proceeding would make someone rot in prison and not their opinion.
The way you are using it is in the legal aspect by bringing in the US Code. Therefore, you are accusing the Jan 6 participants in the legal sense and not simply your opinion, when no one has been charged with insurrection, according to your definitions, colloquial and legal.
Even so, this has already been addressed. It is incorrect to hold that someone should be in prison for insurrection unless they have been convicted of insurrection.
It is, repeating yet again, quite proper and correct to label someone an insurrectionist if they have revolted against civil authority or an established government. So the actions of the Jan 6 mob who broke and entered our Capitol clearly fit the colloquial definition for engaging in an insurrection.
The legal crime of insurrection is a high bar and that is why I expect nobody was legally charged with that crime. But the mob engaged in serious criminal activity against our government and disrupted a legal proceeding. Do you recognize that?
The legal meaning of a word often differs from the colloquial. When people are speaking in a forum and use English words, most every time they are speaking colloquially unless they have stated otherwise.
The only way you would know how someone was using the word is if they informed you as such. Maybe that is what IMO and IMHO are for. Otherwise you have a 50/50 chance to misinterpret what the person is trying to say. My default is the legal definition unless someone specifies differently. Others may not be wired that way.
That is utter nonsense. The normal assumption is that everyday discourse uses colloquial English.
If someone were to vary to a legal definition for a word (or a technical / formal definition established by disciplines of science, engineering, philosophy, etc.) they should note the exceptional meaning.
Non-exceptional, normal usage of a word does not need to be explicitly deemed as such.
[You can't impasse the seeder or author by design. You may not prevent a seeder or author from participating in discussion on his or her own seed or article. If you feel you cannot coverse in a civil manner, it is incumbent on YOU to go elsewhere, not the author.]
Thanks for your opinion.
Trumpsters will go to great lengths to "prove" did nothing "legally" wrong. In other words they want to get him off on technicalities.
The law is not the reason he is unfit for office, his behavior is, which is not really in question.
He can be technically on the right side of the law and still be totally unfit for office. But they just refuse to see that.
Thanks for your opinion.
You really should go back and learn what the J6 committee found.
I think you mean reevaluate what I already know they found until I come to the same opinion as your opinion.
Strawman. Read what JR wrote:
You are pretending that JR has argued that Trump has been found guilty of a crime. That is not what he has written.
Stand up and deal with JR honestly instead of engaging in dishonest strawman claims.
We are all used to all this nonsense by now.
It is amazing that even on something so obvious, you refuse to acknowledge it is so.
You disagree that everyday discourse assumes colloquial English.
Just amazing.
What you quoted does not show JR arguing that Trump has been found guilty of a crime.
This:
Is stating that 'Trumpsters' are using the excuse that Trump has not been found legally guilty to argue that he did not do anything wrong.
Basic English.
Depends what you are talking about of course. IMO If there is a legal aspect to the word than legal meaning of the word is the default of many. Suffice it to say many of the comments on NT help prove my point.
But again thanks for your opinion. Any supporting data that would show every day discourse assumes colloquial English when there is also a legal option would be reviewed and evaluated in case you have any to share.
And you are free to make that assumption for yourself. But you are not free to insist that everyone make that same assumption.
So if someone, for example, states that Trump is a traitor or that insurrectionists disrupted Congress on Jan 6th, you have no grounds to argue that this is not true. And this is especially true if the individual has made it crystal clear to you that their usage is colloquial.
So in your opinion is/was Colorado using insurrection as the legal term or as a colloquial? Is the U S Constitution using the term in the legal or as a colloquial?
Everything in the Constitution is legal, even terms that are used colloquially. Otherwise, what would we make of any of the amendments, including the beloved 2nd? It certainly is not written in legal terms.
Tell that to T,G
From what I have read, legal scholars tend to view these as distinct matters of law. The 14th § 3 deals with criteria to hold office. It deals strictly with a political matter and has no criminal aspects whatsoever. 18 U.S. Code § 2383, in contrast, defines a crime.
This is what I have been explaining since my first post.
In that regard, the 14th § 3 usage of 'insurrection' is colloquial whereas the 18 U.S. Code § 2383 is (by definition) legal.
The definitive answer to your question must come from the SCotUS.
It is obvious to me that both the SC of CO and the SoS of ME are using the colloquial usage of the term. If not, then they would have no grounds because the legal usage requires determination of criminal guilt in a court of law.
Tell what to me? If a word is used in the CotUS and is not defined by the CotUS, the meaning of the word is a matter of constitutional judgment. The word is NOT automatically the current legal meaning. That is NOT how this works.
I agree with Tig and I doubt he disagrees with me.
It is constitutional to kick Trump off the ballot because the Constitution says so. Colloquial language in the 14th amendment or not.
Yes. Just as you are free to assume people using a word are using the word in colloquial English. But you are not free to insist that everyone make that same assumption.
Actually anyone can make an argument based on how they assume the words traitor or insurrectionist were meant until clarification of how the words were used is made.
Yes but making that known up front would save a misunderstanding like the last twenty or so posts would lead one to believe. Then if the two people can not agree on how the word is being used there is really no sense to continue any conversation.
No, then the story will change that, even if the ruling is 9-0 that the right wing of the court acted politically, never mentioning what the leftists jurists did,
Of course I agree with you. Your statement should be obvious to everyone.
The CotUS is the supreme law of the land. Of course it is legal.
The fact that the CotUS uses English words that it does not define (and thus must be determined by legal judgment) does not mean that those undefined words are properly interpreted per the extant legal meaning (if one exists).
Why do so many obvious facts need (repeated) explanation to some in forums?
Because MAGAs are combative and incompatible with liberals and secularists. They do not value our concepts or worldview and to that end. . . they strive to make "us" aware on a daily basis. That is, now everything is contested—the large and the small. A contest of wills and a contest of. . .laws. MAGA, like its 'bossman' Trump, will not concede anything right or wrong to liberals and secularists. Whereas liberals and secularists are 'happy' to let conservatives live and strive in their locals and nationally, . . .MAGA must win or they perceive themselves as losing to (*gasp*) liberals and secularists!
You apparently have not noticed that this thread has been consumed by people trying their best to disrupt by insisting that ONLY the legal interpretation of a word is valid.
Those who object to labeling the mob who broke and entered the Capitol on Jan 6th insurrections on the grounds that they have not been found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 are playing disruptive games. Especially when it is made clear (see dictionaries) that one can label these individuals insurrectionists using the colloquial English usage of the word.
You know......had you said that in the beginning we would have saved allot of typing.
Very good!!!
A good, but unanswerable, question.
That sums it up, but they will not listen.
Funny that I believe the people that insist on using the term "insurrectionist" instead of "rioters" (which most everyone would agree with) are just playing games and when called out on it they answer with "But I was using the colloquial meaning" .
Especially when they don't use that term to describe the 2020 riots, which has as been pointed out, many of which could be described as insurrections under the colloquial definition. It's just partisan word games.
I dont have any problem with Trump being on the ballot.
But the idea that it anti-democracy to remove him is wrong. It is in the constitution.
You should have asked your question sooner than. If you have a thoughtful question, I will answer it directly.
Did you not read the blog?:
This, however, is obvious.
You know that the SC of CO did not conduct a criminal trial on 18 U.S. Code § 2383 which resulted in finding Trump guilty of a federal crime. You know this! So obviously the SC of CO used the colloquial vs. legal interpretation of the word insurrection.
Further, the SC of CO made a ruling on eligibility. It was not ruling on criminality.
Don't gaslight yourselves, MAGA. The differences between rioting and completely trashing the Capitol of the United States is high by degrees. If you have to have it s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to you there was an actual congressional ACTION taking place when, during, and after the attack on the members of congress, themselves and their function as sitting members of congress.
Time to let the partisan BS flush itself. Because you would know what an insurrection is clearly if liberals had incited and engaged in such an act, I feel pretty sure of it. BTW, had Trump any question of what he was 'about' to do in giving his speech to the "assemblage" at the White House on January 6, he could have ran his intentions through the Justice department. . . he did not. Now, we have this MAGA mess to see through to the end.
Trashing the nation's capitol is a crime in itself! At the least, MAGA should thank their lucky stars that the Secret Service reportedly did not permit the sitting president at the time to join the "trashers" in their acts of rebellion he incited.
So you were not aware that the SC of CO did not conduct trial on 18 U.S. Code § 2383 which resulted in finding Trump guilty of a federal crime??
You need someone (like me) to tell you this 'upfront'?
Obviously the SC of CO used the colloquial vs. legal interpretation of the word insurrection.
Not only was the summer of love not called an insurrection (which it was in a colloquial sense) they didn't want to even label it as a riot. They insisted on mostly peaceful protests.
Does it ever occur to you that they are indeed using the colloquial meaning?
After all, it is impossible to use the legal meaning unless a trial was conducted and they were found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383.
Why is this so confusing to some? If a trial has not been conducted with a verdict of guilt, then the legal term cannot apply. Thus, logically, the application is necessarily the common usage (the colloquial) of the word.
This should be obvious.
The partisan word games are from partisans who engage hair-splitting on single words in an attempt to defend Trump, et. al.
The 'defense' of 'was he found guilty?' is feeble. It is demanding the most formal usage of a word in an attempt to deem the criticism invalid.
While that is about all Trump supporters have to work with, it is still a pathetic tactic.
Who is doing that?
Emphatically. But MAGA will contest the clause anyway. Because liberals and secularists are not allowed to use the wording of the constitution to decide eligibility of MAGA candidates. They 'flock' to the SCOTUS now labeled "predominately conservative leaning" and in many ways so . . . to find a way to save themselves from themselves and their harsh realities of seeking favor for themselves apart from the rest of us.
Maybe it is anything but feeble because the legal sense of the words means more than the sense of the word that is just opinion. Being a traitor or an insurrectionist in the colloquial sense really doesn't mean anything more than it is someones opinion, in other words bupkis. Being legally a traitor or a insurrectionist actually has serious ramifications. If you are talking about the former president or what people are saying Jan 6th was the legal meaning of the words are more important.
Which one of them is trying keep you off of a ballot?
I don't and won't trouble you with any questions; do reciprocate. Make whatever point you wish—without questioning me.
and when the Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado progressive justice and Arizona Supreme Court who ruled otherwise, I guess you will have to eat crow. considering the split of expert opinion on subject, seems silly to pronounce an argument that will likely win as "feeble".
f a word in an attempt to deem the criticism invalid.
Don't be disingenuous. It is a demand for formal usage of the word because it being litigated in a formal legal setting with drastic consequences for our democracy. Should be obvious that formalism is required in that situation. t has nothing to do with making criticize Trump invalid. Criticize away. . It's the real world effects of how that word is applied that matters.
about all Trump supporters have to work with, it is still a pathetic tactic.
cool. Since you obviously aren't a partisan, I'm sure you'll be calling the 2020 riots insurrections and support throwing off the ballot any politician who offered the insurrectionists aid and comfort, like asking for money to get them out of jail. No need to be strict about definitions or worry about due process when the Courts are just deciding election eligibility right?
It is a feeble argument to posit that Trump did not engage in wrongdoing simply because he has not been found guilty of a particular crime.
19.2.115 was responded to by member addressed; therefore it stays, charger
Why, precisely, would I have to eat crow? Are you not following what I am writing?
Why is it that some just cannot deal with what people write and have to invent 'facts'?
Again, you can start with the blog itself (and repeated consistently throughout my comments):
The SC of CO ruled on a matter of eligibility. They did not rule on criminality. They were determining if Trump's actions triggered § 3 of the 14th. They were not ruling on whether he violated 18 U.S. Code § 2383.
And yet this is a big deal, as I noted. The SCotUS will eventually decide this. You, and others, are trying to play SCotUS and insist that the word 'insurrection' requires a trial where Trump is found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383.
That is not at all clear. The SCotUS will (hopefully) make that clear.
You have illustrated that you do not pay attention to my comments and subsequently do not understand my positions. This is another illustration of your failure.
You are welcome to your opinion. My opinion is the colloquial meaning doesn't mean squat to them.
So you don't know what the word feeble means. If you did, you wouldn't describe a legal argument you also recognize as likely to prevail as feeble.
comments and subsequently do not understand my positions
no, my mistake it trying to ascribe logic or consistency to them.
My point is that nobody is trying to keep you off of the ballot. It was a rhetorical question.
To be clear, I did not flag the comment under issue. But, I wish to make a/see a larger point where a USEFUL example can be made.
We have people here on NT who are arbitrators and interpreters of our site rules. And though we don't always agree with their "renderings" (not at issue in this case though) we accept their decisions as "law" for NT and 'final.' Of course, when the differences of opinion are "contested" we move away from an "associates" rendering to the R.A. (the "Supreme decider).
That is what is happening on this article. The district court judge has rendered a judgement. It is that rendering that we are remarking on. Why? Because it is the one that is driving this 'talk' forward. Until such time as other courts render a decision it is all we have to go on.
For those who are desperately 'working' to steer the discussion 'away' from the present court decision into what may or may not be even heard by SCOTUS or Upheld or Denied by the same—there is no basis for doing so.
NOTE: I hope this comment is deemed allowable, despite its requiring "scrutiny". . . because it does have value and merit to the OVERALL discussion. Again, the "associates" and the "Supreme" deciders are In-charge. . .and 'final.'
Your "defense" of Trump, this time and always , is that if he is held responsible for a fucking thing there will be unforeseen consequences and unknown ramifications. And of course the over the top whataboutism. Lets just make him king of everything and we can all go back to having fun.
"Conservatives" want to put the biggest asshole in US political history back in as our president. Get ready for 2024 to be a political hellscape. You dont want to hold Trump to account. Just admit it for christs sake.
I never asked for its removal. I don’t think that I’ve ever flagged a comment.
Desperately working, too funny. Many of the comments here are speculative including your own. It’s not against the rules, it’s what we frequently do here.
Whatever. For the record, I am not seeking to be on any ballots, nevertheless. I don't want MAGA rhetorical questions either. Thank you. Just state your points and I will join you in it (or not).
Who is 'them' ... the SCotUS?
If so, it is hard to predict how they will rule. They could view this as strictly a ruling on eligibility and not criminality and determine that Trump's actions trigger the disqualification clause. Logically, this would be easy since Trump's actions against the CotUS and the foundation of democracy are obvious.
They could also (and I suspect this is what they will do) determine that there must be a criminal determination of insurrection. They can then dismiss this and by default this issue will be decided by the electorate. This is a very safe path for the SCotUS.
And there are myriad variations between these extremes.
I (cynically) expect the SCotUS will try to find a way to walk this tightrope with as little ill-effect on them as possible. They do not want to deal with the predictable shit-storm if they rule Trump ineligible. But, on the other hand, they likely do not want to set a bad precedent.
As I have stated repeatedly, we need the SCotUS to rule since they are the only body that can clear this up.
I wrote what I meant. Those who are "pounding" the desk about legal proceedings at the SCOTUS level are ignoring the stated facts of the judge who has already rendered a decision. Those commenters have no SCOTUS decision to 'ponder' or speculate. When it comes to facts, best stick with the judge who is present in the 'moment.'
You have no rebuttal so you resort to snark.
That is always my assumption.
I read both the CO and MI decision. BTW in CO it wasn’t a judge but 4 judges and another 3 in decent, all Dem appointees.
You might want to relook SCOTUS case law.
I'll expect the worst scenario with this SCOTUS, featuring at least 4 purchased seats, so then I won't be disappointed.
I have not been following this case too closely. At 22 below it is district court. . . not sure that is a 'panel' of judges. . . you tell me which Colorado decision you are referring to in your comment, please.
And I am not clear on what SCOTUS case law I should "consume" time researching. If you know, (you could) share "already" while you are 'leading' discussion about it/them.
Pointing out your inability to maintain a consistent argument from post to post isn't snark. You are so eager to insult and dismiss those who take issue with your opinions that you lose any semblance of coherence and you leap from insult to insult. To recap.
(1) You claim it's a longshot that the reasoning employed by the Colorado Court (no due process or conviction is necessary to remove Trump) will survive scrutiny.
(2) When someone points out the flip slide to that, that the Supreme Court will in fact likely find it necessary for a conviction to be removed from the ballot, you dismiss it as "feeble" despite already having just recognized the overwhelming likelihood of it's success.
It's either dishonest or terrible writing to describe an argument you believe to have an excellent chance of succeeding as feeble.
That’s a borderline question. I was referring to the December 19, Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump is ineligible to appear on the Colorado 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot due to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Lol. It's not a "defense" of trump to say he deserves due process like every other American. Nothing has stopped Biden from charging him with insurrection or any other crime for the last three years except their own self interest and attempts to maximize the political impact. Instead they hired tv producers to stage show hearing.
there will be unforeseen consequences and unknown ramifications
Because that's how the real world works. Can you possibly believe that a partisan state court removing the leading candidate for the Presidency from the ballot won't have massive, massive repercussions? As you get older and smarter you hopefully learn to realize that it's the unintended consequences that what will actually matter in the long term.
ou dont want to hold Trump to account.
I don't want him to be President. But I don't want him to be made a martyr, which will be much more dangerous in the long run, either. By all means, charge him with a crime and hold him to the same standards others are held to. If he was as bad as you claim, it shouldn't be a problem.
"Borderline" or not. . . . Actually, you are one who has been remarking on plain language meaning of words throughout. . . a question is SIGNIFIED by a question mark and not a period. Even as rhetorical questions are indicated by the mention of "Rhetorical" at the time of writing and not "dispatched" as a follow-on. I hope this is explicitly clear to you at this juncture and going forward. Thus, I have not presented you with any question so I suggest you just let it go.
At 22 below, I "presented" the District Court's decision. That, if anything related to this discussion we, you and me, are having is what I am mentioning. As I have not gotten over nor mentioned the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.
You are either lying or have not carefully read what I have written. My position is entirely consistent.
I wrote in the blog itself that it is a longshot that the SCotUS will decide to remove Trump from the ballot in every state (which is the result of their decision). It is a longshot because they are not simply overruling a lower court but are making a major decision with substantial ripple effect. (I do not think they are inclined to do this, but the SCotUS is hard to predict.)
Here again you prove that you do not know what you are talking about:
Here I am writing about ordinary people who try to downplay Trump's actions by asking if he was found guilty. This is a common practice when faced with the question of Trump's wrongdoing. Rather than acknowledge the obvious they run from the question and hide behind "was he found guilty?". As if he can do no wrong unless a court determines guilt.
You either know this and choose to dishonestly misrepresent what I wrote or you did not carefully follow what I wrote. Which is it?
In either case, get your facts straight.
I have.
The defining CO decision is from their Supreme Courts yet.
Okay. Thank you for sharing.
Bla bla bla. If he is NEVER convicted of a crime he would still be the most unfit to be president candidate in the history of this country.
That is the part you dont get at all.
No
That is nothing but your opinion. That is the part you don't seem to get at all.
Why on Earth do you refuse to answer that question? It simply is there to understand who you were referring to.
This is one of the strangest retorts that you and several others seem to be fond of making. Of course this is JR's opinion and of course he knows it is his opinion.
We are all giving our opinions. That is what takes place on forums. If we are stating facts then typically we will provide links to corroborate same.
Your belief that Joe Biden is senile is nothing but an opinion.
I'll debate Trump is unfit and Biden isnt senile any time you want.
[Deleted]
Sometimes I believe some people writing or reading are not sure of that so a gentle reminder is given. Why does that seem to bother you so?
100 percent correct although I am not sure I have ever said he was senile, just has diminishing mental capability. It is based on personal observation and dealing or having dealt with senile elderly parents/ in-laws that are senile or have diminishing mental capabilities but it is just my opinion nonetheless.
Your belief he is not senile is just an opinion also. Do you equate senile with decreased mental capabilities or do you consider them different things?
Thanks for the invitation to to hear a very partisan side on the subject but I will pass since I am confident I have already heard what you have to say on the subject.
considering his background and past comments, you may be expecting far too much...
'Enough': SCOTUS warned by conservative no free pass for Trump over new violence threat
According to conservative columnist David French, the Supreme Court should give absolutely no consideration to how Donald Trump's supporters would react if he is banned from running for office — and the court should stick to the letter of the law .
In his column for the New York Times, French claimed the time had finally come to say "enough" over worries the former president will incite more violence, while also maintaining that the 14th Amendment was correctly interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court when they booted him off the ballot.
More to the point, he added the court's eventual ruling on the Civil War era amendment with regard to the former president is likely to divide the country, and that the justices shouldn't try and find a way around that. They need to step up like previous courts have done in critical cases ranging from Brown v. Board of Education to the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that threw a woman's right to making private health decisions into chaos.
"This is where we are, and have now been for years: The Trump movement commits threats, violence and lies. And then it tries to escape accountability for those acts through more threats, more violence and more lies," French wrote.
"At the heart of the 'but the consequences' argument against disqualification is a confession that if we hold Trump accountable for his fomenting violence on Jan. 6, he might foment additional violence now," he wrote before adding, "Enough. It’s time to apply the plain language of the Constitution to Trump’s actions and remove him from the ballot — without fear of the consequences. Republics are not maintained by cowardice. "
As French explained, spending time debating the exact meaning of what constitutes an "insurrection" could go on forever, but there is no doubt, "It’s true that Trump wasn’t declaring a breakaway republic, but he was attempting to “seize and hold” far more than the Capitol. He was trying to illegally retain control of the executive branch of the government. His foot soldiers didn’t wear gray or deploy cannons, but they did storm the United States Capitol, something the Confederate Army could never accomplish."
"So no, it would not be a stretch for a conservative Supreme Court to apply Section 3 to Trump. Nor is it too much to ask the court to intervene in a presidential contest or to issue decisions that have a profound and destabilizing effect on American politics," he advised. "Fear of a negative public response cannot and must not cause the Supreme Court to turn its back on the plain text of the Constitution — especially when we are now facing the very crisis the amendment was intended to combat."
Warning that, "If the court rules against Trump, the nation will be told to brace for violence. That’s what seditionists do," he pointedly wrote of the modern GOP, "Republicans are rightly proud of their Civil War-era history. The Party of Lincoln, as it was known, helped save the Union, and it was the Party of Lincoln that passed the 14th Amendment and ratified it in statehouses across the land.
"The wisdom of the old Republican Party should now save us from the fecklessness and sedition of the new."
'Enough': SCOTUS warned by conservative no free pass for Trump over new violence threat (msn.com )
Lol. The only "conservative" who's never cited by conservatives and whose articles are constantly seeded by progressives.
Seems he was a Republican until 2018 and then became an Independent. I wonder why?
Well he is a conservative anyway even if he is on MAGA's shit-list! The "Ha-ha" is there are some conservatives who hate MAGA's combative and uncompromising bs too! And for that matter he might question what MAGA is-since he has a long history of conservative politics and they are Trump-edition: 'extreme.'
We, onlookers, are wondering which among these two types of conservatives will eventually win the GOP of the future.
Mr. French is right on this account: We have MAGAs insisting on the plain meaning of words who move the goalpost to legal meanings of words when it suits their preferences. We all know what we witnessed on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol in D.C. A person was killed. Others were beat black and blue and are still not fully recovered. Yet others died of this cause days after. Any reasonable person can discern the connection.
Whether or not the January 6, attack on the Capitol, the seat of our national governance, was "insurrection-lite" or "insurrection-strong" is something for the courts to decide. However, an insurrection at the highest level of government between an at the time sitting president who hosted and spoke at a rally/talk just minutes ahead of his listening audience at the rally 'crashing' the proceedings blocks away with violence of a sort only once in history experienced on Capitol grounds did occur.
MAGA can not play around and should not be allowed to game around with concepts like when is an insurrection an insurrection. MAGA can not be the single group of arbitrators of when words are plain and when they can be nuanced simply for political purposes (that is, likes and dislikes).
Let this be the year: Enough is Enough!
You mean David French who writes for the NEW YORK TIMES !
He has to write somewhere and apparently MAGAs 'shoot' messengers and discount the message wholesale. That is narrow-minded. The point is this: French has a message to deliver and the 'Times' does not mind a CONSERVATIVE doing so as a staff or guest writer. Now then, if you choose to filter out the message because you have 'ears' only for MAGA then say that and don't try to discount everybody else writing to see our mutually shared country move forward instead of stall.
Gooseisback, this country is likely not going to be just in favor of MAJORITY conservative politics all the time, which historically it was before, admittedly. Time to share the country equally with the liberals and secularists and do so in a willing spirit.
it appears to many that the Liberals are taking a radical stance on anti-Semitism, illegal aliens, DEI which pretty much everyone is against.
"Everyone" is a term too deep, long, wide, and high for MAGAs to possess alone. Besides, the fact is there are liberals and secularists living here and 'arriving' from across the planet every day looking for a better liberal experience here. You don't have to like us, them, being here. Denial of their presence or trying to control us or supplant us to MAGA politics by discounting, diminishing, belittling, ad hominem attacks, demonizing, and otherwise treating liberals like anything but a child of God can not be and will not be end of this.
The country is changing. . .as it should, and we all have to be big enough to welcome change. Yes, that means treating "all of us" better between ourselves. Or, we will 'die' politically and be replaced on the world stage by a nation that can hold itself together a the critical moment of our future historic demise.
If these "Liberals" from across the planet are just looking for a better place, they need to apply, looking for a better place is not a reason to invade our border. The Make America Great movement which really isn't a movement other than to keep our country a country has never been against legal immigration.
I agree. The only immigration that should actually matter is legal. I don't know what the hell is wrong with Congress not being able to legislate proper and sufficient immigration law/s!
I've moved no posts but did try to cite examples of the law and precedents in my comments.
Now when MAGAs can show that "Others" interfered and disrupted court proceedings, then MAGA should seek someone with standing in the matter and bring the rioters in question before a court of law. Otherwise, its sour grapes. Courts (are supposed to) deal in cases not "wishes" or ineffective grievance matters. Especially when the case is not or can not be brought before it/them for fact-finding and judgement/s.
Maybe you haven’t heard:
I have not followed it. But good. Equally, your comment informs the 'rest' of us who worry that anybody is "escaping" justice. Whether or not it is equal to what occurred at the Capitol let us know what you think about that-only if you wish, nevertheless.
I haven’t had any issue with the arrests, verdicts or sentencing in the 6 Jan cases.
There is some confusion. . . I am not writing about January 6, 2021 at 22.1. The "Others" mentioned there are the rioters MAGAs are using as Whataboutism 'shield.' And them only.
Of those, how many were ANTIFA? BLM? Or, even Democrats?.
I think that is the point. Everyone charged was Pure-D MAGA!
Beats me, the PBS website doesn’t track that criteria.
I have no idea of what you mean but I’ll avoid asking a clarifying question.
it's a coalition of extremist rwnj dipshits...
19.2.31 and 19.2.99. Though I am hesitant and uncomfortable mentioning those comments "aloud" - it is the point of my 22.1. (Note: Let's not dwell overlong on the "messenger" but the message is all I intend to discuss about this.)
learn much faster...
.
SCOTUS just announced it will hear trumps 14th amendment appeal.
So now (or later) we will get an opinion as to how a sitting president in performing his duties according to his wishes (not necessarily according to law) is actually above the law, or we will learn that the words, "office" and "officer" means an official of the government for which the president is but one.
it doesn't matter. only 5 jurists are needed to listen to the arguments and then figure out a way to overturn the CO/SC decision without taking too much heat for it in the public eye.