Just Breaking SCOTUS Rules Trump Is Eligible To Be On Colorado Ballot.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

So, SCOTUS NEVER said that.

Nice red, now go back and redo your post I replied to with this same line, thanks in advance.

The lower court said it, and the SC said only Congress can act on a President i.e. impeachment. That statement is saying section 3 doesn’t apply to the President.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

See. If only SCOTUS would have actually said what you said they said, this wouldn't be happening, because it would be settled, and over. But it isn't settled and it isn't over, and won't be settled or over any time soon.

Jamie Raskin plans to revive legislation barring Trump from office via 14th amendment

The Courts can't legislate from the bench like Democrats want. 😬

You say the question was not before them, but it was. It was in the amicus briefs, and it was part of Trump's defense. Even one of the liberal justices, Kagan maybe?, brought it up when questioning Colorado's lawyer. They asked if Section 3 even applies to the presidency, since it isn't listed in the clause: 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".

The Court could have chosen to answer the question, without legislating from the bench. But they just didn't choose to. They left the question unanswered, and kicked it to Congress.

If Raskin writes a bill that labels Trump ineligible for office and it passes, (it won't) Trump could, and would, take the bill to SCOTUS to again, to decide on that question.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Nice red

LOL I started doing that when another poster asked me to bolden and color highlight the important parts of my citations. I guess it was too hard for them to read without them. So, there ya go...

The lower court said it,

I know that.

My point is, because they failed to answer that question, the issue isn't settled. I predicted that because it isn't settled, if Trump wins the electoral vote, on Jan 6th, 2025, congress members will object to states' votes based on Trump being an insurrectionist, and ultimately The House of Representatives will decide the election.

and the SC said only Congress can act on a President i.e. impeachment. That statement is saying section 3 doesn’t apply to the President.

Please cite where they said that. I must have missed it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

Nice red

LOL I started doing that when another poster asked me to bolden and color highlight the important parts of my citations. I guess it was too hard for them to read without them. So, there ya go...

The lower court said it,

I know that.

My point is, because they failed to answer that question, the issue isn't settled. I predicted that because it isn't settled, if Trump wins the electoral vote, on Jan 6th, 2025, congress members will object to states' votes based on Trump being an insurrectionist, and ultimately The House of Representatives will decide the election.

And once this gets screwed up by Raskins temper tantrum, should the left (democrats in case some idiot can't understand what "the left" is) win the majority of the house in 2024, they might find a way to pull Trump from his elected position. And the Democrats will once again have that incredibly stupid look on their faces when the same tactic is used on the next democratic president. But who am I kidding, these idiots rarely think into the future, only NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!

a reply to: network dude

I predict it's going to be a ZOO. A national spectacle and an international embarrassment!

Thanks SOCTUS!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was authority.

Unless you want to re-try the cases.

The law says Congress has the authority. All else is moot. 😀

CO and the other States broke the law by exercising illegal authority. 🤣

The SCOTUS ruling is bigger than you think. 😎

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Was anything you say in the 3 Liberal Justices' opinion?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

I predict it's going to be a ZOO. A national spectacle and an international embarrassment!

Thanks SOCTUS!

Can you walk me through this "zoo" scenario of yours where the votes will be made by the House?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

See. If only SCOTUS would have actually said what you said they said, this wouldn't be happening, because it would be settled, and over. But it isn't settled and it isn't over, and won't be settled or over any time soon.

Jamie Raskin plans to revive legislation barring Trump from office via 14th amendment

The Courts can't legislate from the bench like Democrats want. 😬

You say the question was not before them, but it was. It was in the amicus briefs, and it was part of Trump's defense. Even one of the liberal justices, Kagan maybe?, brought it up when questioning Colorado's lawyer. They asked if Section 3 even applies to the presidency, since it isn't listed in the clause: 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".

The Court could have chosen to answer the question, without legislating from the bench. But they just didn't choose to. They left the question unanswered, and kicked it to Congress.

If Raskin writes a bill that labels Trump ineligible for office and it passes, (it won't) Trump could, and would, take the bill to SCOTUS to again, to decide on that question.

SCOTUS would all laugh in unison, and announce
“It’s the THING that’s unconstitutional. Whether state bureaucracy, judicial, or legislative!”

“You can’t simply announce that somebody has committed a crime and you’re the judge and jury and penalizer !”

a reply to: arcticshuffle

“You can’t simply announce that somebody has committed a crime and you’re the judge and jury and penalizer !”

It's a strategy that is working very well if we are being honest.

Not only in the lower courts 14th amendment decisions but in the E Jean case and the Letitia James case.

The criminal guilt is assumed therefore everything being done to Trump is legitimate.

All these cases by The States are funded by taxpayers. And that becomes free Democrat Campaign Drama and funding. THAT needs to be investigated pronto. 😎

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

See. If only SCOTUS would have actually said what you said they said, this wouldn't be happening, because it would be settled, and over. But it isn't settled and it isn't over, and won't be settled or over any time soon.

Jamie Raskin plans to revive legislation barring Trump from office via 14th amendment

The Courts can't legislate from the bench like Democrats want. 😬

You say the question was not before them, but it was. It was in the amicus briefs, and it was part of Trump's defense. Even one of the liberal justices, Kagan maybe?, brought it up when questioning Colorado's lawyer. They asked if Section 3 even applies to the presidency, since it isn't listed in the clause: 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".

The Court could have chosen to answer the question, without legislating from the bench. But they just didn't choose to. They left the question unanswered, and kicked it to Congress.

If Raskin writes a bill that labels Trump ineligible for office and it passes, (it won't) Trump could, and would, take the bill to SCOTUS to again, to decide on that question.

Yes a SCOTUS ruling on changing Congressional authority would have been legislating because the law was not in question. Breaking that law was in question. 😀

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Thanks SOCTUS!

Typical of the left - create the entire issue, scream and yell to get their way, then blame the court when they get shot down.

It couldn't possibly be because you're wrong in your thinking or just completely full of crap right?

NOPE - gotta point fingers and cry

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

It's not settled, because SCOTUS didn't settle it. Until they do, Trump is ineligible to hold office under Section 3. It's only matter of who and how Section 3 is to be enforced.

a reply to: DBCowboy



And now ops combatting counter-revolutionary reaction are in full swing.

Cheers

Uhhhh, trying to figure this out.

The left thinks OMB.

So we who don't think that aren't allowed to vote for him?

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes a SCOTUS ruling on changing Congressional authority would have been legislating because the law was not in question. Breaking that law was in question.

SCOTUS saying in their ruling, whether or not the Office of the Presidency is eligible for disqualification under the 14th Amendment, Section 3, isn't legislating from the bench. It's doing their job, interpreting the US Constitution.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yet...they did:

Section 3 of the Amendment likewise restricts state autonomy, but through different means. It was designed to
help ensure an enduring Union by preventing former Confederates from returning to power in the aftermath of the
Civil War. See, e.g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess.,
2544 (1866) (statement of Rep. Stevens, warning that without appropriate constitutional reforms “yelling secessionists and hissing copperheads” would take seats in the
House); id., at 2768 (statement of Sen. Howard, lamenting
prospect of a “State Legislature . . . made up entirely of disloyal elements” absent a disqualification provision). Section 3 aimed to prevent such a resurgence by barring from
office “those who, having once taken an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, afterward went into rebellion against the Government of the United States.”
Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., 626 (1869) (statement of
Sen. Trumbull)

Page 4.

The point of sec 3 was to ensure that confederate representation from states was not present in Congress.

Which would be consistent in why "President" is not listed in sec 3 as they are voted nationally instead of being contained within a state.



I'm oh so sorry that SCOTUS didn't dumb their opinion down enough for you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All secondary because the issue was authority, not procedure.

So what result were you looking for? What specifics and wording would have made ya happy? ♾️

a reply to: JinMI

Absolutely nothing you just posted shows SCOTUS ruling on whether or not the Office of the President of the United States is eligible for disqualification under Section 3.