quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
oh, sorry, well, i didn't think it needed saying, but a court with JURISDICTION..

Per you link, Judge Wallace said

quote:

but she said she couldn’t do so for a presidential candidate.

because she didn't have jurisdiction. This really isn't so hard, trump hasn't been tried for insurrection in a court with jurisdiction -

You know how some liberals get all in a tither over states enforcing federal law ... yeah, it's kinda like that (i get the irony)

I looked again, but didn't find the word "jurisdiction".

You must have added that word.

But I did find this:

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s ruling said that Trump’s conduct met the standard for disqualification under the 14th Amendment — that he “engaged in insurrection” — but that the amendment doesn’t apply to the president.

Wallace walked through the evidence for the first component of her finding in detail over 102 pages. She focused on the timeline of Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021 — which she said showed that Trump desired this outcome. And she documented his history of promoting and legitimizing political violence — which she said helps prove he incited the riot.

“The Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification,” Wallace wrote.

She added that Trump’s “inaction during the violence and his later endorsement of the violence corroborates the evidence that his intent was to incite violence on January 6, 2021 based on his conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021.”

Among her other key findings:

“Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same. He responded to growing threats of violence and intimidation in the lead-up to the certification by amplifying his false claims of election fraud.”

“He convened a large crowd on the date of the certification in Washington, D.C., focused them on the certification process, told them their country was being stolen from them, called for strength and action, and directed them to the Capitol where the certification was about to take place.”

“[T]he Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.”

She ruled that Trump’s inaction during the riot didn’t itself constitute engaging in insurrection, but that it was evidence “that he intended for the crowd to engage in violence when he sent them to the Capitol ‘to fight like hell.’”

She wrote that Trump’s 2:24 p.m. tweet on Jan. 6 attacking Vice President Mike Pence, an hour after he had been informed of unrest at the Capitol according to a White House employee’s testimony, “caused further violence at the Capitol.”

She said Trump’s comments after the fact show he “endorsed and intended the actions of the mob on January 6, 2021.”

The S. Ct., could hold that a President can be found to engage in insurrection by a federal court for purposes of the IC. For all read previously discussed, I doubt they are going to do that.

It is clear to me the S. Ct., is going to a hold a state actor be it a governor, a Secretary of State, or a state court does not have jurisdiction to apply the IC.

As of today, we do not have a decision. We are speculating based on oral arguments and what has happened in the past.

quote:

It is clear to me the S. Ct., is going to a hold a state actor be it a governor, a Secretary of State, or a state court does not have jurisdiction to apply the IC.

I think you are correct.

Nonetheless, the Colorado judge found Trump to have engaged in insurrection. The state S.C. did not disturb that finding.

I think SCOTUS will not disturb that finding either, but simply say it's federal turf to apply the effect of sec 3 / 14th.

I don't know how that will work out.

But for now and perhaps always henceforth, he's an insurrectionist.

The S. Ct., holds the state courts do not have jurisdiction to apply the IC. Vacates Colorado’s order or orders Colorado to place President Trump back on the ballot. The insurrection finding dies w it.

The S. Ct., made it clear they are not going to analyze the insurrection or rebellion element t. The entire Colorado court order is going to be written out on other grounds.

When the S. Ct., holds no state actor can apply the IC and order the President back on the ballot. That means the Colorado court was not able to make the insurrection finding. It does w the lack of jurisdiction. There is no splitting this baby. Assuming, the S. Ct., holds no state actor gas jurisdiction to enforce the IC clause.

This was not a good case to bring this argument to the S. Ct. Bad facts make bad law, and you did not have very good facts. Not the facts I would have gambled with, but to your credit one court went along.

When a court does not have jurisdiction, the entire opinion is dead.

Okay, LHeym.

You have made your legal analysis/point utterly clear.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c33994f9de4171&ei=28

John Roberts Faces the Challenge of Maintaining Unity on Trump in the Supreme Court
Story by Josh Daz • 10h

===========================================

I still get a chuckle out of arguing with Jeffee.

IMO, just like every citizen, I have jurisdiction, in the court of public opinion, to decide based on the evidence that Trump is an insurrectionist, even to the point of beyond reasonable doubt. And I cherish that jurisdiction. No judge or anyone else can take it away. Of course I have no enforcement authority.

Aside from all that, what would it take to bring a case of insurrection to the proper judicial jurisdiction?

Seems to me that SCOTUS IS the proper jurisdiction. But I understand that they are not going to re-litigate the issue of insurrection regarding Trump's behavior.

What jurisdiction could re-litigate, with the same evidence as per the Colorado case? And, I presume that re-litigation would not be considered double jeopardy, or whatever, since the Colorado case is about to be nullified.

How could that be instigated?

Another question I have is since members of congress are elected by state, within the state's jurisdiction, then could a state disqualify, from the ballot, someone running for congress, US and state, based on an adjudicated factual finding that such person engaged in insurrection? To take the notion further - could a state remove someone from office, congress or elsewhere, finding per the evidence that such person engaged in insurrection?

Another question - since Trump is apparently going to be on the ballot, suppose he's elected, legit or stolen, then during the time span between November and January 6, could he be (adjudicated) barred from holding/taking office per Sec3/14th?

But still, as a practical matter, it would be difficult to serve as POTUS from prison. Imagine that.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
oh, sorry, well, i didn't think it needed saying, but a court with JURISDICTION. .

Per you link, Judge Wallace said

quote:

but she said she couldn’t do so for a presidential candidate.

because she didn't have jurisdiction. This really isn't so hard, trump hasn't been tried for insurrection in a court with jurisdiction -

You know how some liberals get all in a tither over states enforcing federal law ... yeah, it's kinda like that (i get the irony)

I looked again, but didn't find the word "jurisdiction".

You must have added that word.

Yes, yes I did, in a whole 'nuther post - bolded above, not editing prior post

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

It is clear to me the S. Ct., is going to a hold a state actor be it a governor, a Secretary of State, or a state court does not have jurisdiction to apply the IC.

IDK why this burns a whole in you britches, it's in process - and whichever way the decision goes, one of us is going to look foolish, or one of us EXTREMELY foolish.

Even the Colo Judge knew she didn't have standing to make the decision - she makes that very clear

quote:

IDK why this burns a whole in you britches, it's in process - and whichever way the decision goes, one of us is going to look foolish, or one of us EXTREMELY foolish.

chuckle, chuckle

FEEL foolish all you want. I'll even agree with you. But I don't feel foolish, despite your attempts at it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

IDK why this burns a whole in you britches, it's in process - and whichever way the decision goes, one of us is going to look foolish, or one of us EXTREMELY foolish.

chuckle, chuckle

FEEL foolish all you want. I'll even agree with you. But I don't feel foolish, despite your attempts at it.

let's just be clear, *I* am not the one with 4k posts about trump+14a, even after doctors, lawyers, and engineers have told you that you are wrong, and await trump's due process -

there STILL isn't a single case pending, in a court with jurisdiction, on trumps insurrection. And the one case you keep dragging around, like a dog with an old toy, even the judge knew and stated she didn't have jurisdiction -- it's like your are larping as a true believer -

Joes justice department said they didn't have enough anything to charge Trump with in the Jan-6th. thing.

so that ain't gonna happen.
everyone here knows if they had the slightest chance at getting it on the TV it'd be on the TV 24-7 whether it was in court or not.

The trump topic posters brings out the insane here. Pretty sad as it is clear they mull about him day and night. Really? He is going to be the R candidate.

Your country is in a shambles now with the current mentally deficient occupant and most of you'd keep that POS over trump. Day in and day out you rant over trump yet he hasn't been in office for three years. Clearly mental illness displayed.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

IDK why this burns a whole in you britches, it's in process - and whichever way the decision goes, one of us is going to look foolish, or one of us EXTREMELY foolish.

chuckle, chuckle

FEEL foolish all you want. I'll even agree with you. But I don't feel foolish, despite your attempts at it.

let's just be clear, *I* am not the one with 4k posts about trump+14a, even after doctors, lawyers, and engineers have told you that you are wrong, and await trump's due process -

there STILL isn't a single case pending, in a court with jurisdiction, on trumps insurrection. And the one case you keep dragging around, like a dog with an old toy, even the judge knew and stated she didn't have jurisdiction -- it's like your are larping as a true believer -

Any day now.

Karma is lurking.

I expect that SCOTUS will say, words to the effect of
"Colo Jdg has no jurisdiction in the matter"

and POSSIBLY they would state what court has jurisdiction - i have 25% confidence that this would happen

I do not think they are going to identify the Fed Courts being the court of adjudication.

I expect them to wash the matter to Congress, or not address the matter in a majority opinion.

Basically, say who does not have jurisdiction being a state actor, maybe some analysis in the negative concerning oath/officer, and be done with this.

The concurrences will be interesting.

I doubt there will be a true majority, but a majority in result with various judges issuing concurrences addressing issues the majority does not reach.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

IDK why this burns a whole in you britches, it's in process - and whichever way the decision goes, one of us is going to look foolish, or one of us EXTREMELY foolish.

chuckle, chuckle

FEEL foolish all you want. I'll even agree with you. But I don't feel foolish, despite your attempts at it.

let's just be clear, *I* am not the one with 4k posts about trump+14a, even after doctors, lawyers, and engineers have told you that you are wrong, and await trump's due process -

there STILL isn't a single case pending, in a court with jurisdiction, on trumps insurrection. And the one case you keep dragging around, like a dog with an old toy, even the judge knew and stated she didn't have jurisdiction -- it's like your are larping as a true believer -

Any day now.

Karma is lurking.

Well, it's your day - 9-0 SCOTUS running

here's your sign

Hey, ME
Tell us all how you were right all along, and we all are just dolts for not understanding plain english -

here's your time to shine .. i have a doggy bag in my pocket to clean up after you

One word to Mangina and little Beta Heym and the rest of you: WINNING

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
One word to Mangina and little Beta Heym and the rest of you: WINNING

Come on, Blue Fish, while Joshua is a little left of center, he's been pretty even handed in this

My issue is not Blue Fish saying I disagree w the decision. I agree in result, but not the 6-3 majority rational.

My issue is the man is so insecure as to attack my status as male by using the word beta.

He is a low life.

I also consider myself a moderate Republican.

I certainly do not claim to be a libertarian.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
My issue is not Blue Fish saying I disagree w the decision. I agree in result, but not the 6-3 majority rational.

My issue is the man is so insecure as to attack my status as male by using the word beta.

He is a low life.

I also consider myself a moderate Republican.

I certainly do not claim to be a libertarian.

hey, i was called a beta male liberal the other day -- it's still funny -

but, seriously, it's not a good look to call someone out for calling you names and then turn around and call them names -

quote:

but, seriously, it's not a good look to call someone out for calling you names and then turn around and call them names -

That's funny, coming from you.

Would it have made any difference if LHeym had not called him a low life?

So, now you figure they are even?

I did not call him names.

He has called me beta, pantry waist, etc.

He can wear low life. He condemns himself w his own words.

Just like he condemns himself as a homophobic person when he calls gay people disgusting prevents.

Ultimately, you are most correct. I just am not that good of a person.