Supreme Court says it will decide if Trump qualifies for Colorado ballet

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WeMustCare

They can. Usually you'll see a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion. You'll sometimes get more opinions if a Justice agrees or disagrees with a ruling but for different reasons than the other Justices.

OK. Thanks! Also, Attorney HABBA likes Kavanaugh: www.theguardian.com...

But Kavanaugh is just ONE justice. Why put so much confidence in his opinion shaping the court's opinion? The Epstein client is the big judge.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: JinMI

It’s become a Tribal fight… almost literally.

Logic has very little to do with anything Political these days.

We are truly entertaining dark times. American Totalitarianism is looming on the horizon and people are chearing it on because they foolishly think they are going to be on the ruling side. How pitfally surprised they will be when they realize they are under boot right along side the people they once called their political enemies.

Both the right and left seeming to be fighting for who will be the authoritarian in control.

Us stupid libertarians are on the sidelines trying to get people to stop the authoritarianism so we don’t get to that point.

a reply to: JinMI

Then why on Earth is it a statute passed by congress as is addressed in section 5 of the 14th amendment? Your logic is broken.

There's one of those procedural arguments I'm talking about.

And as I've said, there's nothing compelling about removing liberties without due process.

It seems to me he has received due process. Or is this case not sitting before the Supreme Court because it has worked its way through the courts?

originally posted by: WeMustCare
The headline says SCOTUS will rule on the Colorado case. Afterwards they take up the MAINE ruling?

That's what I was wondering as well. I just hope when the Supreme Court hands down their ruling, they also add, "And this ruling applies to ALL 50 states equally." For if they do that, then it will prevent every other state from trying to remove him from the ballot with some lame excuse like, "Well, our case is slightly different than Colorado's, so the SC ruling on their case doesn't apply to ours." Then the Supreme Court would have to try every single state's case, one after another. That would be a waste of time, money and brain cells. At least for those that have some left, unlike these states' officials and their hairbrained schemes.

X,
It seems to me your sides argument is letting people choose who they want to vote for is bad for the people because….. democracy.

Don’t you want to be taken seriously?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

Are you aware of the plans that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys had? There's a reason they're serving time for seditious conspiracy.

Same as an insurrection?

a reply to: Threadbarer

There's one of those procedural arguments I'm talking about.

Go on, elaborate. I can hardly wait....

It seems to me he has received due process. Or is this case not sitting before the Supreme Court because it has worked its way through the courts?

Why do I need to spoon feed you everything? Are you not a legal clerk?

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Last time I checked, insurrection was a criminal statute....

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

Are you aware of the plans that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys had? There's a reason they're serving time for seditious conspiracy.

Dumb plans? They left their weapons back at the hotel. Hard to fight an insurrection with flag poles. Everyone knows that if you want to work against the government, you need an F-16 not a flag pole.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Because they expect Gorsuch and Comey Barrett to fall in line.

As always, Roberts is a wild card and he's just as likely to side with the liberal judges as he is the conservative ones.

Recently, Kavanaugh has been following Roberts' lead. My guess is that Kavanaugh is attempting to secure his position as next Chief Justice.

So if there's a chance Roberts sides with the liberal Justices they want to make sure Kavanaugh doesn't go with him.

Of course, this is assuming the court will be split on ideological grounds. It may not end up being the case but any lawyer going before the court will assume that's going to be the split.

Pretty much if you're going before the SCOTUS you should be tailoring your argument for Roberts and Kavanaugh because they will most likely be deciding the case.

a reply to: Myhandle

So we should allow 12 year olds or people from foreign countries to run for President?

Not committing insurrection is a requirement to be President. Just like being a natural born citizen or being 35 or older.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Again, with your broken logic:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There is a difference between qualifications and disqualifications........

a reply to: JinMI

Go on, elaborate. I can hardly wait....

Your argument isn't whether or not Trump committed insurrection. It's that Congress passing a statute criminalizing insurrection (decades after the 14th Amendment was passed) is their response to Section 5. Therefore, someone must be convicted of insurrection before Section 3 triggers. That's a procedural argument.

In all criminal prosecutions

Once again, this is a civil case. As I've brought up before, OJ Simpson was acquitted in his criminal case but lost his civil case

I'm starting to think you don't actually know the definition of due process.

originally posted by: RickinVa
I just read where the liberals are now claiming all SC Justices appointed by Trump must recuse themselves.

Actually all Justices appointed by Democrat Presidents are more biased. Therefor they must recuse! 😁

a reply to: JinMI

Communists don't have any use for logic.

They just need the regime to maintain power.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

So far every judge that has had a 14th Amendment case before then has ruled that Trump took part in an insurrection.

Cool.

Except Trump has never been indicted for insurrection.....


Here is the daft logic I mentioned.

Disqualification from federal office under the 14th amendment is not a criminal matter any more than being disqualified for not being a natural born citizen or being less than 35 years old, so the fact that Trump has not been charged or convicted under 18 USC 2383 is irrelevant. To date, there have been 8 individuals disqualified from office under section 3 of the 14th amendment and none of them had a prior criminal conviction under 18 USC or its predecessor laws.

www.citizensforethics.org...

I realize that you think it SHOULD be the way you've got it worked out, but that's not what legal precedent says.

a reply to: JinMI

Requirements are requirements.

And then there are also the grey areas. Should someone convicted of treason be allowed to run for President?

a reply to: Boomer1947

There's a reason Trump's legal team has not gone with that argument in any of these cases.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

So far every judge that has had a 14th Amendment case before then has ruled that Trump took part in an insurrection. The ones that have ruled Trump is still eligible have done so on procedural grounds.

🤣except for the ones that dismissed the cases🤣

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You're saying that Trump's personal lawyer is a shill?

I'm saying ANYONE who attempts to "preload" a court with a stupid comment like that is a shill and quite a bafoon.

You would champion his shilling in this manner because you see it as helping your personal anti-Trump program, and use it as fresh new political fodder.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Your argument isn't whether or not Trump committed insurrection. It's that Congress passing a statute criminalizing insurrection (decades after the 14th Amendment was passed) is their response to Section 5. Therefore, someone must be convicted of insurrection before Section 3 triggers. That's a procedural argument.

Were this a stand alone amendment or act you may have a point. Yet this is a subsection of the 14th amendment....you know, the same one which unironically denotes that due process is required before the removal of civil liberties....

Again, just a little bit of critical thinking here.....

Once again, this is a civil case. As I've brought up before, OJ Simpson was acquitted in his criminal case but lost his civil case

I'm starting to think you don't actually know the definition of due process.

So OJ was sued for murder? You know, the charge he was acquitted of? Summarily, did he lose his drivers license? I've already laid this argument out for you.

I'm starting to think you don't actually know how the Constitution works....