https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e&ei=15&sc=shoreline

An astonishing blunder at last week’s Supreme Court argument
by Bruce Ackerman, opinion contributor • 2h

Bruce Ackerman is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University.

The learned professor certainly has an educated opinion, and one to be listened too.

However, the theory gives way to the practical. This has no affect on the Supreme Court’s deliberations. I dare say it should not.

Some believe these types of pieces are necessary to push the bench and correct it over time. I strongly hope this never comes up again to require redress.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...66809af9645be6&ei=10

'Horrendously ugly' fight on the horizon if SCOTUS punts Trump insurrection case
Story by Travis Gettys • 22h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...ocid=socialshare&t=6

(The part about insurrection starts at about 6:34)

Why U.S. Supreme Court Justices avoided insurrection question in Trump Colorado ballot case

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...85d9e8d42ceec2&ei=31

Another Insurrection-Related Appeal Reaches SCOTUS Prior to Trump’s Verdict
Story by Jennifer Clark • 7h

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

And, if states can pass legislation to keep insurrectionists on the ballot, why can't states apply sec3 of the 14th?


https://www.usatoday.com/story...l-trump/72594414007/

Democrats walk out as Iowa GOP advances election bill to help keep Donald Trump on ballot

USA TODAY

Both Democrats returned to speak to reporters and offer criticisms of the bill after the subcommittee meeting concluded.

"It takes quite a lot of nerve to call a bill an election-integrity bill when the point of the bill is to let felons run for office," Zabner said. "And particularly someone like Donald Trump, who has so little integrity."

As it relates to the New Mexico case, The distinction w a difference may be the fact he is a county (in Ky counties are subdivisions of state government) making him a state office seeker. Thus, the state can take a more direct hand in how the IC is applied.

That being said, he may have a good argument depending on what the S. Ct., holds. Or he may cause a distinction for state office seekers to hold. For example, if the S. Ct., makes a rule the IC Claude does not prevent someone from running for office, but can be triggered by the legislature upon election of the person to vacate. This man should appear in the ballot. The States can give more protect than the Constitution requires through rights incorporated by the 14th Amendment. However, a state cannot give less than the Federal level of protection by a right incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Thus, the application of the IC clause to state offices had to be at least the same procedure as the Federal standard.

The other option would be for the S. Ct., to hold the majority rule in Trump only apply as to federal office. A state can do as it wishes to a person seeking election for a state office, or some middle ground thereof that keeps him off the ballot.

It will take the cases being heard and precedent set to know.

What you are seeing w legislators is a move to restrict their courts from over reading or reading state election law. This is what happened in Colorado and Maine. Both anti-candidate camps sighted state law for the authority to remove a candidate (not just the IC). Thus, a state is feee to clarify that it’s codified state laws prevent a state court or a Secretary of State lacks jurisdiction to remove a qualifying candidate that matched President Trump’s fact pattern from the ballot. Now, a state Supreme Court may find such a statute unconstitutional under the state constitution. The variables are too vast to say anything else for my money.

Here is the best analysis I have found, from someone who is an expert in constitutional law. Practically everything is covered here:

https://youtu.be/12X2eCbTiRU?si=Cdl5b-Z46XajUTfE

Jamie Raskin takes on the rightwing fallacy suggesting that Trump can't be disqualified from the ballot.

SCOTUS rules Colorado can't kick Trump off the ballot, invites Jack Smith to issue a superceding indictment mirroring 2nd Impeachment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8f4924c37212474&ei=9

Supreme Court rules states can't kick Trump off ballot
Story by Lawrence Hurley • 13m

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

The court in an unsigned ruling with no dissents reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under section 3.

"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the ruling said.

By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump's actions constituted an insurrection.

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, "Big win for America!!!"

In addition to ensuring that Trump remains on the ballot in Colorado, the decision will end similar cases that have arisen. So far only two other states, Maine and Illinois, have followed Colorado's path. Like the Colorado ruling, both those decisions were put on hold.

In a statement, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold acknowledged the court ruling “that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. In accordance with this decision, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary.”

The Supreme Court decision removes one avenue to holding Trump accountable for his role in challenging the 2020 election results, including his exhortation that his supporters should march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, when Congress was about to formalize President Joe Biden’s win.

Trump is facing criminal charges for the same conduct. The Supreme Court in April will hear oral arguments on Trump’s broad claim of presidential immunity.

The ruling warned of the dangers of a patchwork of decisions around the country that could send elections into chaos if state officials had the freedom to determine who could appear on the ballot for president.

"The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct," the ruling said.

Although the bottom-line vote was unanimous, there were some divisions on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, as to how the case was resolved. The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — complained in a jointly written concurring opinion that the court had decided more than it needed to by laying out how section 3 could be enforced by Congress.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed that the court went further than required, although she did not join the liberal justices' opinion.

The liberal justices said the decision could "insulate" Trump from "future controversy."

The ruling "shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement" of section 3, they added.

Barrett said that although she had some disagreements with the rationale, the liberals should not “amplify disagreement” in such a politically charged case. “All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she added.

The Colorado court based its Dec. 19 ruling on section 3, which was enacted after the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from returning to power in the U.S. government.

The case raised several novel legal issues, including whether the language applies to candidates for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in an insurrection.

The state high court’s decision reversed a lower court’s ruling in which a judge said Trump had engaged in insurrection by inciting the Jan. 6 riot but that presidents are not subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are not an “officer of the United States.”

Trump and his allies raised that point as well as other arguments that the 14th Amendment cannot be applied. They also argued that Jan. 6 was not an insurrection.

Republicans, including Trump’s primary opponents, broadly supported his claim that any attempt to kick him off the ballot is a form of partisan election interference. Some Democrats including California Gov. Gavin Newsom have also expressed unease about the 14th Amendment provision being used as a partisan weapon.

The initial lawsuit was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.

They alleged in court papers that Trump “intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him.”

Colorado is one of more than a dozen states that has its primary election on Tuesday.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
SCOTUS rules Colorado can't kick Trump off the ballot, invites Jack Smith to issue a superceding indictment mirroring 2nd Impeachment.

Won't happen.... you and your twin Magine are clueless on the constitution....

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
SCOTUS rules Colorado can't kick Trump off the ballot, invites Jack Smith to issue a superceding indictment mirroring 2nd Impeachment.

SCOTUS rules 9-0 -- an undivided court, that states can't remove trump from the ballot -

CNN's front page headline - no direct link possible
Justices rejected an ‘insurrectionist ban’ challenge, a decision with nationwide implications


CNN ...


Now, if we are going to keep playing GOP-CON, were we pretend to "select" a candidate, and it can be presumed to be trump, we'll get on to dems winning the white house, again, with a house plant -

Trump should remove himself from the ballot, as he's going to lose the general anyway

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
SCOTUS rules Colorado can't kick Trump off the ballot, invites Jack Smith to issue a superceding indictment mirroring 2nd Impeachment.

Won't happen.... you and your twin Magine are clueless on the constitution....

Unlike the guy who has a call for unconstitutional action as his location...

"The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in federal law at 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws."

It is possible that Jack Smith could issue a new indictment per 18 U.S.C. section 2383.

After all, the evidence he will be using in prosecuting the federal indictments already are the same evidence for insurrection.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
"The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in federal law at 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws."

It is possible that Jack Smith could issue a new indictment per 18 U.S.C. section 2383.

After all, the evidence he will be using in prosecuting the federal indictments already are the same evidence for insurrection.

You missed that day in Law School....He is not an insurrectionist. Let the voters decide who should be president. Congress did not convict of an impeachable offence becuase it was pure political BS. SCOTUS, even the liberals, see that.

Get ready for a rough ride for liberals for the next 8 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
"The prohibition on rebellion and insurrection arises in federal law at 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws."

It is possible that Jack Smith could issue a new indictment per 18 U.S.C. section 2383.

After all, the evidence he will be using in prosecuting the federal indictments already are the same evidence for insurrection.

it's possible that ....

weird, 11 pages, on a topic started by YOU that claims " The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again"

and the entire SCOTUS sasys "nah, bro" .. and you aren't in the least bit apologetic?

you have been RANTING, with repeated self posts and "more proof" for over 6 months, when doctors, lawyers, and engineers have told you that you are incorrect ...

"it's possible that" ..
let's boil it down to two letters for you

"if"

you and schiff should go away and compare your "evidences" to each other --
here's your sign - and your lunch

quote:

and you aren't in the least bit apologetic?

Heck no.

Look at the OP post. Folks smarter than me said so.

Also, the way I read it SCOTUS didn't say he was or was not an insurrectionist. The ruling didn't hinge on that.

So, what SCOTUS just did was allow an insurrectionist to be on the ballot for POTUS because states didn't have the authority to bar him.

The fed cases pending are not referencing 18 U.S.C. section 2383.

Other sections of Title 18 are the basis in law, and much of the evidence for the indictment of 37 charges are the same that could be used to show insurrection in a fed criminal case.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09...ed-documents-charges

These are the charges Trump was indicted on and what they mean
UPDATED JUNE 9, 20233:28 PM ET
By NPR Washington Desk
Rachel Treisman

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/a...ictment-the-statutes

Trump Jan. 6 Indictment: The Statutes

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
blah blah blah

You, literally, have zero integrity - you said, and i quote YOU

quote:

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

This has built in requirements, which the SCOTUS, all NINE of them, Disagree with -

Can trump be removed by a state? NOPE

Is trump an insurrectionist - as *I* have told you, repeatedly, this is unproven in any court that has jurisdiction -

"what color is the stop sign"
"well, it's not red"
"the law says 650nm is the required shade"
"but that's not stated as RED"
"650nm literally is red"
"that's not what the law says"


Dude, seriously, when the ENTIRE scotus says "you are wrong" 9-0, it's likely that you are WRONG ...

WINNING

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

You, literally, have zero integrity - you said, and i quote YOU

quote:

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

And you can't read.

The sentence says nothing about ballots.

Ballots are what SCOTUS ruled on.

He's not eligible to serve. I can't say how that will work out - too many ifs.

He's gotta win for it to be relevant. What then?

For one thing, a case could be started before inauguration, making it more difficult for him to just toss it.

He will use the power of office to thwart a fed court case on insurrection.

One could hope that a BIG stink will come of it and he's removed or barred from taking office.

I think it's possible, but not likely. That's mostly because he won't win.

But I think it's ironic to the max to think Trumpsters may be wasting their vote on an insurrectionist.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

You, literally, have zero integrity - you said, and i quote YOU

quote:

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again

And you can't read.

The sentence says nothing about ballots.

Ballots are what SCOTUS ruled on.

He's not eligible to serve.

man, that would certainly be more believable if you could quote a court ruling (with jurisdiction, obviously) to prove your point -

because, as of this moment, there isn't a single case in a relevant court accusing him of insurrection --

He is on the ballot, in all states/others
He hasn't been found an insurectionist


Tell me, seriously, what did trump do to YOU that you feel you can totally forego legal, legitimate, and constitutional due process in your (well, rush in an over statement) rush to judgement?

So, you've lost on all points in the matter, and yet you "if" ..

Grown men recognize when they've been wrong all along and admit - here's your chance

Read the whole opioid. It is clear only Congress can invoke the IC as it relates to Federal Office.

This is put to bed and the light turned off.

Here's the relevant part of SCOTUS decision:


The text of Section 3 reinforces these conclusions. Its final sentence empowers Congress to “remove” any Section 3
“disability” by a two-thirds vote of each house. The text imposes no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it
any time, as the respondents concede. See Brief for Respondents 50. In fact, historically, Congress sometimes exercised this amnesty power postelection to ensure that some of the people’s chosen candidates could take office.2

But if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle. Perhaps a State may burden congressional authority in such a way when it exercises its “exclusive” sovereign power over its own state offices. Taylor, 178 U. S., at 571. But it is implausible to suppose that the Constitution affirmatively delegated to the States the authority to impose such a burden on congressional power with respect to candidates for federal office.

Cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 436 (1819) (“States have no power . . . to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress”)

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

Since SCOTUS made no ruling on "insurrection" in theory such "disability" to hold office still exists, per 14th amendment sec 3. Should such disability be established, in fed court beyond reasonable doubt, there is NO chance for amnesty by 2/3 vote both houses of congress.

quote:

It is clear only Congress can invoke the IC as it relates to Federal Office.

Sorry, I don't read it that way.

The IC doesn't need to be invoked by congress. It exists already, by ratified amendment to the constitution.

SCOTUS didn't negate it. They just said states have no authority regarding it.

Congress may provide amnesty, by 2/3 vote, both houses.

It makes no sense at all to me, that congress first has to invoke, then grant amnesty.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Read the whole opioid. It is clear only Congress can invoke the IC as it relates to Federal Office.

This is put to bed and the light turned off.

I'd like to see this play out in a court with standing -- not the theater that an impeachment is/was - wouldn't it be amazing to have all the facts laid out, on public record, for all the events - all for a jury to process, and 100% broadcast on cspan -- all of it, every second - bring it out - and let's put the correct label on things, including trump -

Let's have this "day" in court, and I would prefer to be much sooner rather than later, let's say next month, trial wrapped up in june, and the matter settled in the summertime.

Trump has no hope, what so ever, of carrying the general - so let's have the trial and make it happen ...

oh, yeah, the witness list should be interesting - let's hope that both the left and the right are held accountable for ensuring that the witnesses are present and don't take the 5th -

Let's have a REAL january 6th trial - i am all for it .. i think it would show that trump did make bad actions, and might prohibit him from office.

but WHY have it be a discussion of opinion, let's trot out the facts and have an actual real process ...

but, as you say, and other doctors, lawyers, and engineers have told ME, it's a rather clear ruling

quote:

but, as you say, and other doctors, lawyers, and engineers have told ME, it's a rather clear ruling

I also think it's a rather clear ruling.

But, I have explained why the clarity does not extend to some of the conclusions you have reached.

Certainly, I could be wrong, and if so that's okay. But you jeffee haven't explained it. You just declare it so, when I don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

It is clear only Congress can invoke the IC as it relates to Federal Office.

Sorry, I don't read it that way.

and yet that's exactly what is written

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 {14a} against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.

You are literally arguing against the clear text, plain reading, of a UNANIMOUS scotus ruling --

We also know from the one historical example how Congress could so invoke the IC by voting
to vacate after the election.


When you can make it to the Supreme Court, you did something. Now, we live w the result and move on.

There are options that need to be engaged. As this is a single policy problem.

and literally the "we don't quite agree" opinions read

quote:

JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment.
I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that
States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates

and Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan all agree, in fact, have gone on record to state this

quote:

In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the
ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus
disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so
would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork,
at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is
enough to resolve this case

All nine justices say that the States do not have the jurisdiction to enforce a 14a DQ -- ALL OF THEM

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
You just declare it so,

Nah, bro .. quoting the ruling is a LITTLE bit different than "declaring" ..

In this situation, for 6 months, hundreds of posts, and 11 pages, YOU have declared a thing --

THIS - SCOTUS ruling says, nah bro, you are full of stuffing, and have always been so

I'm glad we're sort of boiling this down.

I'm dense.

Now if I can reconcile, with your help or that of LHeym, the text of the ruling I quoted and your quoted text, I'll be satisfied.

I looked, but I didn't see your quote in the ruling.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

It is clear only Congress can invoke the IC as it relates to Federal Office.

Sorry, I don't read it that way.

and yet that's exactly what is written

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 {14a} against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.

You are literally arguing against the clear text, plain reading, of a UNANIMOUS scotus ruling --

The key part of your post is NOT in quotation marks.

Is this EXACTLY what they said?

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 {14a} against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.

Also, what does "enforcing" mean is this context? Does it mean impeachment? Does it mean the absence of amnesty?

quote:

All nine justices say that the States do not have the jurisdiction to enforce a 14a DQ -- ALL OF THEM

That's not what I'm questioning. I agree with that last sentence quoted.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm glad we're sort of boiling this down.

I'm dense.

Now if I can reconcile, with your help or that of LHeym, the text of the ruling I quoted and your quoted text, I'll be satisfied.

I looked, but I didn't see your quote in the ruling.

end of page 12, beginning of page 13 - it's right there --https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf i can amazon you some readers if you can't find yours -- oh, btw, i just tried some "ironman" brand readers -- not bad

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


The key part of your post is NOT in quotation marks.

No, Kevin, it's in the italics, with the exception of {14a} where using these brackets {} is known to be to be added for clarity -

Let's all take a moment to recognize that we need to take a moment, as the goal posts are currently in motion


I can READ it to you, I can READ it for you, I can wait while you READ it aloud -- but i can't understand it for you

Literally two people on AR are trying to hold on this this, one is the kleagle of peckerwood county, making up lies, and ME...

Hey, ME, why don't you turn your discerning eye onto peckerwood county and ask where this ruling, and ruling is the critical part, where it "all but invites" jack smith to file other charges - ya'll have that conversation, it'll be entertaining

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm glad we're sort of boiling this down.

I'm dense.

Now if I can reconcile, with your help or that of LHeym, the text of the ruling I quoted and your quoted text, I'll be satisfied.

I looked, but I didn't see your quote in the ruling.

end of page 12, beginning of page 13 - it's right there --https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf i can amazon you some readers if you can't find yours -- oh, btw, i just tried some "ironman" brand readers -- not bad

Okay, now I see the part you posted.

Also, just above it:

"The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify
the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section
3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted.
Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such
chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and
perhaps beyond the Inauguration."

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

Now I'm satisfied. Whew.

I should get extra credit for trying to sort this out rationally since you throw in so many zingers.

I'm glad you're having a little fun phucking with me. Don't expect me to reciprocate. Have fun while it lasts.

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

BTW, he's still an insurrectionist, and still under four criminal indictments, 91 counts.

quote:

The “patchwork” that would likely result from state enforcement would “sever the direct link that the Framers
found so critical between the National Government and the
people of the United States” as a whole. U. S. Term Limits,
514 U. S., at 822. But in a Presidential election “the impact
of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast”—
or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast—“for the
various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U. S.,
at 795. An evolving electoral map could dramatically
change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the
country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the
votes of millions and change the election result—if Section
3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted.
Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such
chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and
perhaps beyond the Inauguration.
* * *
For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section
3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with
Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.

So, now you get it? that the ruling says only Congress has the jurisdiction - glad you are finally getting it -- the purpose of quotes is to carry a complete thought - you left out nearly 2/3 of the relevant quote that is leading to the conclusion --

I am not asking if you have a degree. Part of attaining a degree requires a certain amount of academic honesty and compliance with "their" rules - I, myself, have a couple degrees, and perhaps hold myself to a higher standard -- though I am not against the "i am kinda dumb, please explain it in small words" approach -

The scotus, 9-0, ruled that Colo, nor any state, can keep trump off the ballot ...

I, for one, would LOVE to see such a trial on cspan - all of it - is that somewhat scatological? perhaps, but i admit that

quote:

BTW, he's still an insurrectionist, and still under four criminal indictments, 91 counts.

Any day now. Karma lurks.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

BTW, he's still an insurrectionist, and still under four criminal indictments, 91 counts.

Any day now. Karma lurks.

dumbest post of the year, to date -- though the sun isn't down, there's no telling what the kleagle is going to say by then

show me the court case, with a court of jurisdiction, where trump has been found to be an insurrectionist -- literally would have negated this entire thread -- it's a lie, a myth, and an opinion --

you and tbe kleagle can't seem to get your arms around plain english

The 1/6 committee for one said it's so.

https://tennesseelookout.com/2...ands-accountability/

Several states said he is an insurrectionist.

SCOTUS didn't address that:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/l...-03-04-24/index.html

Avoiding insurrectionist debate: The Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t directly address whether Trump’s actions on January 6 qualified as an “insurrection," skirting an issue that the courts in Colorado wrestled with. The unsigned opinion noted that lower courts in Colorado found Trump’s remarks before the attack on the US Capitol qualified as engaging in an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution. But the court’s unsigned opinion didn’t return to that judgment direction.
:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
The 1/6 committee for one said it's so.

not a court, no jurisdiction, and HARDLY followed due process or even rules of evidence -

oh, and they deleted evidence as a result of the 2022 elections
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...ts-sent-around-jan-6

all of it
on cspan
100% public
in a court with jurisdiction

that you rely on the findings of a "select" commission, with a stated agenda, is rather telling -- there was ZERO chance that they'd fail to find their mission ..

99.99% of ALL scientist agree with their sponsors -

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6be5ab68938d5a&ei=13


Democrats announce bill to kick Trump off the ballot

So, the authority rests in congress.

okay, judgement by proxy of source -- if you agree with jamie, dew rag, raskin, in any matter more important than the weather, you have surrendered your critical function