The Accurate Reloading Forums
Colorado Supreme Court Rules That Leading an Insurrection is Bad
22 December 2023, 00:55
JefffiveColorado Supreme Court Rules That Leading an Insurrection is Bad
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though
Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.
For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.
Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.
When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.
What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.
Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.
More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.
Due process in this case was the Denver District Court Judge trying it like any other lawsuit, allowing both sides to introduce evidence and testimony, and deciding based on the merits.
The fact that Fox News didn't mention the trial was taking place doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump
22 December 2023, 03:02
theback40Sotomayor signed on with Breyers dissent in McDonald. In the dissent, Bryer said heller should be overturned.
My point was simply, I no longer believe anything SC nominees say when trying to get seated. Nothing I can do about it.
22 December 2023, 04:49
LHeym500And Breyer never said Heller should be followed or extended as it was in McDonald.
If she dissented in McDonald, how did she say McDonald was binding precedent.
There was a material distinction in Heller and McDonald. Heller was applying the same
principles of Heller to a fed subdivision being DC. McDonald addressed the issue as it related to the states.
One can vote to overturn the DC ban because caselaw going back to 1836 was clear, the 2nd was only a limitation upon Congress, the Federal Government. However, disagree with incorporating the right against the states as McDonald did.
22 December 2023, 04:57
Magine EnigamFunny thing - unless I'm misinformed, Trump Team has not appealed the insurrection decision, especially on grounds of lack of or improper due process.
If I'm correct, that finding/rule/decision/whatever of the lower court stands. One may thus presume that the merits of the decision, re insurrection, the facts and evidence, were/are compelling, notwithstanding the burden of proof of a civil vs criminal trial.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
XXX
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks"
FYI - if you ID as "conservative" nowadays, Trump owns you.
22 December 2023, 04:57
LHeym500quote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though
Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.
For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.
Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.
When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.
What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.
Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.
More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.
Due process in this case was the Denver District Court Judge trying it like any other lawsuit, allowing both sides to introduce evidence and testimony, and deciding based on the merits.
The fact that Fox News didn't mention the trial was taking place doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
That does not mean that due process was sufficient to judicially declare someone an insurrectionist and disqualified under the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.
Fox News has nothing to do w it.
22 December 2023, 05:03
Magine Enigamquote:
That does not mean that due process was sufficient to judicially declare someone an insurrectionist and disqualified under the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.
So, what would be sufficient? A criminal conviction?
As I understand it, there's due process regardless of civil or criminal case. Is due process hinged upon the so-deemed burden of proof respectively?
XXX
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks"
FYI - if you ID as "conservative" nowadays, Trump owns you.
22 December 2023, 05:28
RolandtheHeadlessI have a hard time understanding how the SC would hold that a president is not an officer for purposes of 14A Sec. 3, or that "insurrectionist" is limited to CSA officers. The clause notably doesn't say "confederate" or specify a certain conflict.
Certainly a textualist approach wouldn't limit the clause to the Civil War. If the Court approaches this clause the way it's approached the Second Amendment, there should be no question it applies not only to the CW but to any future insurrections.
What do you other lawyer-types think of this possibility:
The SC finds the clause applies, but says Trump did not receive adequate due process, i.e, a hearing before the Colorado trial court was not enough, The Court remands the case with instructions to remove it to federal court to resolve the issue whether Trump is an insurgent.
I think the SC will find some pretext to reverse or remand, I just don't know what it will be.
22 December 2023, 05:30
RolandtheHeadlessquote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though
Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.
For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.
Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.
When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.
What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.
Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.
More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.
Due process in this case was the Denver District Court Judge trying it like any other lawsuit, allowing both sides to introduce evidence and testimony, and deciding based on the merits.
The fact that Fox News didn't mention the trial was taking place doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
That does not mean that due process was sufficient to judicially declare someone an insurrectionist and disqualified under the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.
Fox News has nothing to do w it.
Didn't see this before I posted. Good assessment.
22 December 2023, 05:43
Jefffivequote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though
Due process is the overall process applied. The procedures is Colorado is due process. The question is was sufficient due process applied to declare someone engaged in insurrection and bar them from standing for election as President.
For the historical understanding of the Insurrection Clause that I have outlined previously I say no. Colorado Supreme Court disagrees. The federal Supreme Court shall have the final arbitration.
Back40: The only say you have on who gets on that court is secondary through the election of President and the individual members of the Senate who get to question, confront, and vote on who gets to that court.
When we allow, surge our shoulders, those who are so questioned to mislead the system cannot work.
What is precedent from McDonald itself was that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against state action at least to the extent that a citizen could not be prevented from an out right ban on possession of arms on common use, including handguns, for the Fundamental Right of self-protection. The Court permitted wo giving an exhaustive list of classes of citizens and locations where regulation of the right to so posses was presumptively constitutional. That was the holding.
Many believed this incorporated right created a mandate for Strict Scrutiny review. The appellate courts by and large rejected that view adopting Intermediate Scrutiny. The S.Ct., in Bruen states clearly that the level of Scrutiny to be applied is Strict Scrutiny. Unless, the state can show that the regulation does not touch a historical recognized aspect of arms possession in the United States, or the regulation is analogous to one of the presumptively constitutional categories.
More litigation is to follow as the Court is going to be forced to address these asserted presumptively constitutional areas. How the presumption can be overturned, and when history conflicts on a given fact pattern does Strict Scrutiny apply for a given fact pattern.
Due process in this case was the Denver District Court Judge trying it like any other lawsuit, allowing both sides to introduce evidence and testimony, and deciding based on the merits.
The fact that Fox News didn't mention the trial was taking place doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
That does not mean that due process was sufficient to judicially declare someone an insurrectionist and disqualified under the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.
Fox News has nothing to do w it.
Well, perhaps you should have been representing Trump, I can't find where his lawyers raised a deprivation of due process claim before the Colorado Supreme Court.
"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump
22 December 2023, 05:50
RolandtheHeadlessWhoops. If that's true, I bet some lawyer is now reaching for his butt.
22 December 2023, 05:55
Jefffivequote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Whoops. If that's true, I bet some lawyer is now reaching for his butt.
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but isn't part of "due process" that you can't advance an argument to a higher court you didn't raise at the previous court?
"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump
22 December 2023, 06:01
JefffiveI cannot say for sure it wasn't raised but I can find no reference to it in sources available to me.
"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump
22 December 2023, 06:03
Magine Enigamquote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
I cannot say for sure it wasn't raised but I can find no reference to it in sources available to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Funny thing - unless I'm misinformed, Trump Team has not appealed the insurrection decision, especially on grounds of lack of or improper due process.
If I'm correct, that finding/rule/decision/whatever of the lower court stands. One may thus presume that the merits of the decision, re insurrection, the facts and evidence, were/are compelling, notwithstanding the burden of proof of a civil vs criminal trial.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
XXX
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Per my far-right friend: "reality sucks"
FYI - if you ID as "conservative" nowadays, Trump owns you.
22 December 2023, 06:35
RolandtheHeadlessYou're right, Jeffive. You ordinarily cant appeal on a point not raised in the lower court.
The only exception I can think of is for "plain error." Which can be whatever a court says it means.
22 December 2023, 06:55
Jefffivequote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You're right, Jeffive. You ordinarily cant appeal on a point not raised in the lower court.
The only exception I can think of is for "plain error." Which can be whatever a court says it means.
Even Slappy Thomas might pull a muscle stretching that far.
This really is the best opportunity the Republican Party will ever have to shed this albatross that is hastening the inevitable decline demographics is imposing on their Party.
"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”- Donald Trump
22 December 2023, 14:43
LHeym500Another maybe is manifest injustice.
if the failure to consider the issue would result in manifest injustice, if consideration is necessary for a proper determination of the case, or if the issue involves a question of law and the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented.” George v Allstate Ins Co, 329 Mich App 448; 942 NW2d 628 (2019).
22 December 2023, 16:34
Mike Mitchellquote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though
There was a week long evidentiary hearing conducted on the issue of whether he engaged in an "insurrection."
"After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one."
https://apnews.com/article/tru...af450558378c65fd79a2Again, that having been said...I think keeping trump off the ballot is a terrible idea. It just feeds the looney-tune trumptard's fire.
-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.
22 December 2023, 16:54
theback40Just as Heym came up with a reason Sotomayor didnt lie, The justices will come up with a reason why they didnt, to vote the way they do on this case.
Back to the reason why it's not worth the time to listen to the hearings, there is always a way around things.