In Ill-annoy.

Yep, unless it's appealed he won the right to lose the State again by over a million votes.

Biden will probably improve on his 17% margin from last time.

But it is his right.

It is wrong for opposition to block anyone with corrupt courts.

It's wrong to call courts corrupt when they aren't.

The sense of what corruption is has gone off kilter with Trump's influence. I don't understand it.

Oh, BTW, Biden has adopted a nickname for Trump:

https://youtu.be/vLh0QshJ6H8?si=nyVYzqNbgen8XwsV

Biden Gives Trump A Devastating New Nickname

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
But it is his right.

It is wrong for opposition to block anyone with corrupt courts.

Corrupt courts?
Really.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
But it is his right.

It is wrong for opposition to block anyone with corrupt courts.

Corrupt courts?
Really.

I think she means like Cannon in Florida inventing delays.

Everyone knows how I feel about this and why from the Application of the Insurrection Clause to President Trump’s action to how this is not a question those most opposed to President Trump want answered by this Majority.

However, let us assume, the Supreme Court takes allows states by application of the Insurrection Clause to bar President Trump from the General Election either on a case by case basis or nationally. The effect will be President Trump’s candidacy ends w only 3-5 states so deciding. He cannot not get to 271 when he is not a candidate on California, Colorado, New York, Minnesota, Michigan (decision is based on him not having won the primary by the concurring opinion to the order), Arizona, Maine, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

That is why I do not see the Justices creating an opinion that creates a patchwork of decisions that will individually be appealed again.

It is interesting. Judge J. Michael Luttig, a leading conservative constitutional scholar and jurist, has already filed his Amicus Curie brief arguing for disqualification.

In conclusion, to split the baby and allow the states to decide the issue does two things. 1) Acts as a defacto brain shot to Presidential Trump’s campaign. 2) Invites each state decision whether disqualification or remain on ballot to be appealed while the election is happening making it impossible to have the election.

Now, this assumes 3-5 battle ground states would move to disqualify President Trump. I threw in the big Two, Blur states bc he will not have them to make up the difference.

quote:

It is interesting. Judge J. Michael Luttig, a leading conservative constitutional scholar and jurist, has already filed his Amicus Curie brief arguing for disqualification.

Remember how this started:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...cfb04450775882f&ei=8

The Constitution bars Trump from holding public office ever again
Story by Donald K. Sherman, opinion contributor • 5mo

Two prominent conservative legal scholars have made the case that the Constitution disqualifies former President Trump from public office.

Last week, law professors William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — both members of the conservative Federalist Society — argued in a law review article that Trump is already constitutionally forbidden from serving in public office because of Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

This section, also known as the Disqualification Clause, bars from office any government officer who takes an oath to defend the Constitution and then engages in or aids an insurrection against the United States. Only a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can act to remove such disability.

It should not come as a surprise that Trump meets this standard. All three branches of the government have identified the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection, with multiple federal judges, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the bipartisan Jan. 6 House select committee, citing Trump as its central cause.

As Baude and Paulsen note, “Section Three requires no prior criminal-law conviction, for treason or any other defined crime, as a prerequisite for its disqualification to apply.” Trump’s indictment by special counsel Jack Smith for election-related crimes only further bolsters the case for his constitutional disqualification.

Let it go
Biden or Trump wins, four more years of chaos and then ship will straighten up and we get someone else
If history is any lesson at all, there is always bad ones on top followed by good ones and so on and so forth
Enjoy the ride and another history is written

If DJT is disqualified you liberals will rue the day.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Let it go
Biden or Trump wins, four more years of chaos and then ship will straighten up and we get someone else
If history is any lesson at all, there is always bad ones on top followed by good ones and so on and so forth
Enjoy the ride and another history is written

Yep, Republicans fuck everything up, Democrats fix it, then another Republican fucks everything up...

But that cycle, that started with Reagan, has about run its course. Like the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs demographics are coming for this brand of Republicans; white supremacy is enjoying its last gasp.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Let it go
Biden or Trump wins, four more years of chaos and then ship will straighten up and we get someone else
If history is any lesson at all, there is always bad ones on top followed by good ones and so on and so forth
Enjoy the ride and another history is written

If Trump wins, after that might look like chaos at first, but it will be planned chaos. He and GOPers in congress and SCOTUS and Heritage Foundation can do a lot of damage in four years, stuff that can't be fixed, or if it can be fixed take a long, long time.

I think you are very naive, at best, to think things will "straighten up" as though this is the historical and natural course of things in politics, culture, and world events. If lies and disinformation and propaganda on a mass scale, winning, are the historical and natural course of things, then you are partially correct, but not about the "straighten up" part. From history we know that's a downhill slope.

Do you understand, or not, that this Trump era is a turning point, stemming from a fabricated and fomented crisis, for the GOP foremost and also for the country?

He, with a lot of help from the GOPer elite and propaganda media machine, has not just morphed the GOP but has exposed its real character.

Imagine - "straighten up" from a historical system's transition into something else, recognized and feared by the Founders. I won't use the "F" word, but the system Trumpism seeks is as close to the "F" word as can be.

The Founder's experiment will be over, Goodby, under Trumpism institutionalized.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Everyone knows how I feel about this and why from the Application of the Insurrection Clause to President Trump’s action to how this is not a question those most opposed to President Trump want answered by this Majority.

However, let us assume, the Supreme Court takes allows states by application of the Insurrection Clause to bar President Trump from the General Election either on a case by case basis or nationally. The effect will be President Trump’s candidacy ends w only 3-5 states so deciding. He cannot not get to 271 when he is not a candidate on California, Colorado, New York, Minnesota, Michigan (decision is based on him not having won the primary by the concurring opinion to the order), Arizona, Maine, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

That is why I do not see the Justices creating an opinion that creates a patchwork of decisions that will individually be appealed again.

It is interesting. Judge J. Michael Luttig, a leading conservative constitutional scholar and jurist, has already filed his Amicus Curie brief arguing for disqualification.

In conclusion, to split the baby and allow the states to decide the issue does two things. 1) Acts as a defacto brain shot to Presidential Trump’s campaign. 2) Invites each state decision whether disqualification or remain on ballot to be appealed while the election is happening making it impossible to have the election.

Now, this assumes 3-5 battle ground states would move to disqualify President Trump. I threw in the big Two, Blur states bc he will not have them to make up the difference.

Not necessarily disagreeing with your analysis, but, to my simple mind, is the dangerous precedent (if individual States can remove a candidate using their own definitions of disqualifying acts, standing and procedure) lies in, not in alleged seditious behavior, but “… giving aid to an enemy…”.

Appellate courts are infamous for “result” oriented decisions v. “law” oriented ones. Right now we’re fighting a surrogate war against Hamas and Iran. So, I qualify in the Republican party’s primary for POTUS in Georgia. I then bring suit that Biden was a party to financial aid to Hamas or the PLO (or pallets of cash to Iran). Four appellate judges might well decide that the ends justify the means and take Joe off the ballet. “Aid” is the most dangerous word… maybe not today, but what goes around, comes around… every damn time!

JMHO

I agree in part. You would have to be an actual candidate to have standing as you point out. but However, to make matters worse we can and have seen the Supreme Court ignore standing from time to time.

If the S.Ct., answers this issue being Whether individual states can remove a candidate from the ballot for President through application of the Insurrection Clause, the Supreme Court is going to have to give a factor test on how to apply and define insurrection. This is because the Federal Legislature has not codified insurrection. The Colorado trial judge identified this issue.

Appellate Courts exist to feel in the gaps, define terms not defined by the legislatures. There are legal principles that guide interpretation.

This would limit the scope of appeals. Now, that would not affect the overall number of appeals.

This Court has shown it is not willing to provide factor test like previous courts which are ground in more objective thought, but rely on “historical understanding” which is more subjective and debatable.

Whose “historical understanding” controls?

It is interesting.

I actually agree in total. Without guidance from this Court or Congress on what is an act of insurrection the scope of application will be very broad.

Now, the S. Ct., could do that in an opinion that allows states on a case by case basis limiting the scope, not number of appeals.

The problem w that approach remains.

From what I've read, seditious conspiracy is defined in law, and it's a criminal charge/conviction. Several actors on 1/6 have been convicted on that and sentenced.

Insurrection, as I read it, is civil. Thus it isn't defined in criminal law.

(excerpt from article)

For the first time, a judge, having heard evidence and conducted a hearing under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, has stated unequivocally that Donald Trump committed an “insurrection against the Constitution.”

“The court finds that . . .Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace

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

The Colorado case was civil.

Insurrection against the Constitution is utmost significance. It's not an insurrection against the government or the US - it's the Constitution, which has direct implications towards "Office" and oath to support.

Remember the specific words: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office . . . under the United States . . .who, having previously taken an oath, . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution . . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same . . . .”

Note the word "rebellion" above, which as far as I know hasn't been defined in law either, especially criminal law.

The judge must have had a definition for "insurrection", first and foremost, and secondly, the finding quoted above. It makes no sense at all for a judge to make such significant finding, with no definition as basis.

Could it be that the Colorado case defines insurrection sufficiently, by example if nothing else, thus SCOTUS nor congress needs to do that, instead deal with other aspects of issue in the case?

Is it true, that if SCOTUS doesn't mess with the definition, then whatever the Colorado case says stands as precedence?

It's my understanding from the analysis I've read that no one is advocating for SCOTUS to define insurrection (civil) or offering an alternative to whatever the Colorado court says on that matter of fact.

Another thing to draw from the above questions and analysis is that no one will ever be charged criminally with insurrection. The criminal charge of seditious conspiracy sufficiently covers it.

And, specifically, sec 3 of the 14th doesn't use the term seditious conspiracy, but instead specifically uses the word "insurrection".

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
From what I've read, seditious conspiracy is defined in law, and it's a criminal charge/conviction. Several actors on 1/6 have been convicted on that and sentenced.

Insurrection, as I read it, is civil. Thus it isn't defined in criminal law.

(excerpt from article)

For the first time, a judge, having heard evidence and conducted a hearing under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, has stated unequivocally that Donald Trump committed an “insurrection against the Constitution.”

“The court finds that . . .Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace

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

The Colorado case was civil.

The judge must have had a definition for "insurrection", first and foremost, and secondly, the finding quoted above. It makes no sense at all for a judge to make such significant finding, with no definition as basis.

Could it be that the Colorado case defines insurrection sufficiently, by example if nothing else, thus SCOTUS nor congress needs to do that, instead deal with other aspects of issue in the case?

Is it true, that if SCOTUS doesn't mess with the definition, then whatever the Colorado case says stands as precedence?

It's my understanding from the analysis I've read that no one is advocating for SCOTUS to define insurrection (civil) or offering an alternative to whatever the Colorado court says on that matter of fact.

Another thing to draw from the above questions and analysis is that no one will ever be charged criminally with insurrection. The criminal charge of seditious conspiracy sufficiently covers it.

Laws vary by State, so if the Supreme Court doesn't establish a single National standard it will be left to be litigated State-by-State, under those various Laws.

The Republicans in the Senate had the chance to save their Party and the Country from this mess when presented with a very solid impeachment case and failed because of their fear of the backlash from MAGAt morons.

Jeffive, note that I was continuing edit when you quoted my draft post.

I added this part:

quote:

Insurrection against the Constitution is utmost significance. It's not an insurrection against the government or the US - it's the Constitution, which has direct implications towards "Office" and oath to support.

Remember the specific words: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office . . . under the United States . . .who, having previously taken an oath, . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution . . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same . . . .”

Note the word "rebellion" above, which as far as I know hasn't been defined in law either, especially criminal law.

And, specifically, sec 3 of the 14th doesn't use the term seditious conspiracy, but instead specifically uses the word "insurrection".

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Jeffive, note that I was continuing edit when you quoted my draft post.

I added this part:

quote:

Insurrection against the Constitution is utmost significance. It's not an insurrection against the government or the US - it's the Constitution, which has direct implications towards "Office" and oath to support.

Remember the specific words: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office . . . under the United States . . .who, having previously taken an oath, . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution . . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same . . . .”

Note the word "rebellion" above.

The argument that a President is not an "officer" under the Constitution should be a complete non-starter, he is specifically referred to as such in one of the first Acts of Congress, a Law establishing franking privileges for various "officers" including the President and Congress.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

Laws vary by State, so if the Supreme Court doesn't establish a single National standard it will be left to be litigated State-by-State, under those various Laws.

In my post above, I suggested that SCOTUS doesn't need to define "insurrection" or "rebellion", both of which are civil and sufficiently defined by the Colorado case.

Also, I suggest that if SCOTUS just breezes by that, the Colorado case will stand as precedence - on a national basis.

The Constitution and the 14th Amendment does not vary state by state. It is the law of the land; just like the Feds Government has exclusive jurisdiction over migration.

State courts do not get to define the Federal Constitution.

Federal Courts do. The issue is the continual appeals to define the scope of your path is taken. Appeals during the election. It is not workable.

ME: President Trump has not been charged w sedition nor seditious conspiracy. That is because his actions does not meet the elements of those offenses. To do so, you would have to have linked him directly, overtly planning w those who are. You cannot have a conspiracy of one.

This is where we circle back to my original objections to this course of action. The actions the clause was designed to be excluded did not happen. Close, I think so, but not a rebellion and not an insurrection that Presides Trump took direct action.

Or if he did, the Supreme Court is going to have to this time or next define insurrection with elements or factors since Congress did not to guide lower federal courts when the next round of appeals come. This assumes the Court allows the bar to stand, and allows states to address this patch work going toward

I do not think this majority will do either. I bet they kill this and butter the Insurrection Clause. They will throw in catch all language, “ We reserve the right that we may to address this matter under some unknown fact pattern in the future.” Or something to that effect.

quote:

Appeals during the election. It is not workable.

That specifically, as I understand it, is why this is a SCOTUS rush job.

For one thing, Trump would love the chaos, feed on it, fertilize with it, revel in it. Everyone knows that. Some want it, hopefully most don't.

Correct, but are they going to rush Job 15 appeals within the time frame of the election with half those states kicking the candidate.

Does the candidate spend money and campaign in those states waiting for a decision.

I do not usually go for the slippery slope, but what you are asking for is an avalanche.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Correct, but are they going to rush Job 15 appeals within the time frame of the election with half those states kicking the candidate.

Does the candidate spend money and campaign in those states waiting for a decision.

I do not usually go for the slippery slope, but what you are asking for is an avalanche.

I don't understand your above post, so I'm going to reply on what I think you are saying.

First you ended your questions with a period rather than question mark.

He's already raising and spending money campaigning in states waiting for a SCOTUS decision. Some states have stayed their decision. Some states have not accepted cases on appeal, pending SCOTUS, which will settle it. As far as I know, no state is excluding Trump from their ballot, yet, even Colorado.

What "slippery slope" are you going for?

I'm not asking for anything but to be informed. I'm hoping of course, but that's different than asking, and maybe different than expecting. Both hope and expectation are set-ups for disappointment. Sure, I'll be disappointed if SCOTUS weasels on this one, but we will all have to live with it.

But, your metaphor "avalanche" will be the consequence of a SCOTUS decision flat-out saying Trump has dis-qualified himself by his acts and words. If they don't do that, it's business as "abnormal".

Courts w/in the time frame of an election going to be able to process/adjudicate appeals. This assumes multiple states kicking a candidate off a ballot.

While the appeal churns, the candidate is off ballot. Does the candidate campaign and spend money in those states? To not campaign in a state barred is to lose those states while the appeal churns. The candidate can never get back that time.

You are inviting an avalanche of appeals from many jurisdictions that is not going to work as JudgeG points out. Unless the S.Ct., defines with elements what instruction is to limit the scope of appeals. The number will still create issues.

A latch work allowing states to define instruction for themselves will not work. Furthermore, states do not get to define the Federal Constitution. The Federal Courts
do.

I do not usually buy into slippery slope arguments. However, by not providing guidance on what behavior meets the standard of instruction, you are inviting an avalanche of disqualification actions.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Let it go
Biden or Trump wins, four more years of chaos and then ship will straighten up and we get someone else
If history is any lesson at all, there is always bad ones on top followed by good ones and so on and so forth
Enjoy the ride and another history is written

If Trump wins, after that might look like chaos at first, but it will be planned chaos. He and GOPers in congress and SCOTUS and Heritage Foundation can do a lot of damage in four years, stuff that can't be fixed, or if it can be fixed take a long, long time.

I think you are very naive, at best, to think things will "straighten up" as though this is the historical and natural course of things in politics, culture, and world events. If lies and disinformation and propaganda on a mass scale, winning, are the historical and natural course of things, then you are partially correct, but not about the "straighten up" part. From history we know that's a downhill slope.

Do you understand, or not, that this Trump era is a turning point, stemming from a fabricated and fomented crisis, for the GOP foremost and also for the country?

He, with a lot of help from the GOPer elite and propaganda media machine, has not just morphed the GOP but has exposed its real character.

Imagine - "straighten up" from a historical system's transition into something else, recognized and feared by the Founders. I won't use the "F" word, but the system Trumpism seeks is as close to the "F" word as can be.

The Founder's experiment will be over, Goodby, under Trumpism institutionalized.

I think you with your TDS are loosing it

1/6 was not an insurrection , it was simple protest that turned somewhat ugly
It’s just political justification for democrats to have something on DJT
All you freaks just take a chill pill and relax

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Courts w/in the time frame of an election going to be able to process/adjudicate appeals. This assumes multiple states kicking a candidate off a ballot.

While the appeal churns, the candidate is off ballot. Does the candidate campaign and spend money in those states? To not campaign in a state barred is to lose those states while the appeal churns. The candidate can never get back that time.

You are inviting an avalanche of appeals from many jurisdictions that is not going to work as JudgeG points out. Unless the S.Ct., defines with elements what instruction is to limit the scope of appeals. The number will still create issues.

A latch work allowing states to define instruction for themselves will not work. Furthermore, states do not get to define the Federal Constitution. The Federal Courts
do.

I do not usually buy into slippery slope arguments. However, by not providing guidance on what behavior meets the standard of instruction, you are inviting an avalanche of disqualification actions.

I think I'm "listening" and understanding you.

I think you are not "listening" nor understanding me.

I'll try to be concise.

What states now are barring Trump from their ballots? Pending appeal outcome or not?

What states is Trump refraining from spending money or campaigning now, presuming full expectation of being on the ballot?

What appeals (disqualification per sec3, 14th) are churning other that the Colorado case?

Appeals from many jurisdictions are certainly not going to work, but in this context, that's moot. It's speculation that isn't going to happen. SCOTUS has the job to see to it. Do you agree?

Do you agree that all SCOTUS has to do regarding definition of elements, instructions, scope of insurrection is to leave that part of the Colorado decision untouched, and that part of that case in itself stands, filtered through SCOTUS, by default, as the precedent?

All SCOTUS needs to do is say whether the section of the 14th is applicable, or not, to Trump re disqualification for reasons other than insurrection. Do you agree?

If, say, they deem him to not be an officer, or didn't take the oath, then the definition and instruction re insurrection is moot - done insofar as POTUS is concerned.

The definition, whatever and however, of insurrection might be relevant regarding the aid and support thing for GOPers in congress. In which case, Trump being an insurrectionist by a factual finding in the Colorado case, and members of congress are in fact officers and in fact did take the oath, some in fact aided and supported an insurrection and an insurrectionist.

The Colorado decision made a FACT finding that Trump is an insurrectionist. The only reason I can see to alter that is to somehow nullify the whole decision and basis.

I have been wrong before about this. We will see.

Well, there's little doubt that I could be wrong.

I'm just trying to abide and follow a logical sequence or line of thought on this, given facts and other stuff we know.

And, BTW, what I think I'm doing and trying to do is not speculate the outcome of this. That's too difficult for me and meaningless anyway.

I'm just talking about my understandings of the parameters of the case, the key points that SCOTUS will have to consider.

First, I think there's no way they will let this leave their desks knowing there will still be multiple avenues for more appeals coming up from the states, to decline or accept for novel issues on this, especially given the urgency. IMO, they have to slam-dunk it.

They will certainly want to nip the notion that Trump can be barred from office per sec3, 14th, once elected. Remember the words of sec3/14th doesn't mention ballots. It says "No person shall be....., or hold any office....under the United States....." Of course, if they can't hold the office, presumably they can be excluded from the ballot.

If they can't settle this before the election, then it could happen that he's elected and can't hold office.

Whether they want to preclude sec3/14th being applicable to congressmen/women - I don't know, but their decision either way can cover that, but only by messing with the Fact Finding of the lower court. There may be other creative ways. I wouldn't be surprised.

I don't recall if Trump appealed to Colorado Supreme court included challenging the fact finding of insurrection or not. But if it didn't, SCOTUS can deny his appeal on that part. As I recall, you can't appeal to SCOTUS something that wasn't appealed in lower court.

I realize I did not answer your questions. I did not have time. I apologize. You take a position. That deserves a response.

A will focus on can the Supreme Court adopt Colorado’s definition of insurrection? No, that is because Colorado state court opinions did not define or provide guidance to what is actually the insurrectionist behavior. In fact, the trial court explicitly stated that Congress was best to define. Assuming Colorado had laid down an object test, then my answer would be yes. However, in so adopting the Supreme Court would be applying that object to the entire 14th Amendment, Insurrection clause that all courts would have to adopt. Litigation would continue as fact patterns seek to test, those factors. Thus, scope of litigation away from JudgeG’s example would narrow. Yet, actual appeals and attempts to remove opposition candidates within the scope of that test, will grow. The effect is to create a watershed where candidates are going to have to run to federal court to prove qualification as states controlled by opposition party bars them. Do you really want to empower Texas GOP or some Texas Judges to decide what insurrection and rebellion mean so strict guidelines by the Supreme Court. For Heaven’s sake, this contingent is already here telling us how President Biden is a traitor.

If he is not an officer, you are correct. However, he stays on the ballot. Moot is not the correct term. Moot means a legal dispute is resolved. What you are describing is an element to disqualification being an officer is not present. I cannot stomach he is not an officer. By definition the presidency is a civilian officer Commander and Chief. The entire clause says, “no person shall hold any office, civil or military who has been an officer and taken an oath…..”

The oath is more perplexing. The trial judge in Colorado is very intelligent distinguishing between the oath to support that most take with the President’s oath to defend. Again, this underscores the role of the president as an officer. He has an affirmative duty as commander and chief to defend. Assuming the S.Cr., accepts this distinction in oaths however; President Trump, like the trial judge determined, stays on the ballot. This is because the Insurrection Clause only bars those class of candidates that previously swore to “support” the Constitution. To catch a president that swore to defend, one would need to amend the language to include “defend” according to this logic.

That is just it, I am not thinking of just Presidential Trump. I am thinking about the next candidate who is disqualified after having swore to support the Constitution in a prior office running for President such as a Senator or Governor who are clearly class of persons caught in the 14th Amendment. Let us say Gov. W is declared disqualified by the State of Wisconsin or Pensilvania. Tge facts for disqualification is he voted not to impeach President Trump as a member of the House of Reps the second time, and spoke out in favor of those who are convicted for Jan 6. Is he going to spend money and time in either of those battleground states while he spends money and time appealing those decisions? If those decisions are overturned at some point during the election year, look at how much time he lost in those two swing states that the opposition got uncontested. This is why hard, objective elements defining institutions must come from the S.Ct., if they are going to allow President Trump’s disqualification to stand.

States that have appeals concerning President Trump’s resolution at the Supreme Court include:
Oregon,
Maine,
Michigan (kind of, the one judge opinion issued w the order stated the issue would be ripe if President Trump advanced to the General Election),
I expect if disqualification is permitted states will jump at the chance. That is an assumption.

I think I have responded to your positions.

Do you think if Pennsylvania disqualified President Trump his campaign would be spending time and money in Pennsylvania during an election? I do not.
I think those who seek to advocate for positions be those positions legal theories or policy need to try to grasp the foreseeable ramifications, consequences of what we propose. In the same vain, when we access the positive or negative of policy being debated, we need to do the same thing.

These discussions are for and by us as much as they are Presidents and Senators. Otherwise, we are just watching images on a cave. Sadly, we have been watching too many images on caves lately.

I think, you have landed on two very possible resolutions from the Colorado trial court of how the S.Ct., may resolve this w President Trump staying on the ballot that being he is not an officer (dubious bit he it is their call to make) or the oath distinction. That means the insurrection clause will not be applied to Presidents going forward across the states unless another Amendment happens catching those distinctions.

I think something worse is going to happen. I think an Opinion or concurrence by Justice Alito welding a majority together in result giving his view of “historical application and understanding” of the 14th Amendment will happen (see previous debate) and kill the Insurrection Clause in the crib. Even President Trump will not affirmatively take up arms, arm, or fund those who would allowing for such a “historical understanding” test to be satisfied. Why do I think that, he has said it in 3 major opinions last year.

When the decision comes out, the sad part is no one will read it. If it fits any caselaw, no one will go read that caselaw. It is conversation la like this that will shape the general understanding of the decision.


The Supreme Court has already shown by accepting the Petition for Cert that was poorly written and very board, that they are going to look at the whole case.

Again, I think I have responded to your positions or inquiries directly.

Well, thank you kindly for such a thorough analysis.

So, you think SCOTUS will not find an off-ramp to escape this quandary, and save face?

They do have an off ramp, you know, perhaps several.

Here's a quick one, which I mentioned before:

Sec3/14th doesn't use the words ballot but instead "No person shall be....., or hold any office....under the United States....."

Also, I don't see the word disqualified.

I do see qualifications and eligible:

https://constitution.congress....Years%20a%20Resident

ArtII.S1.C5.1 Qualifications for the Presidency

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.

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

I know it's ridiculous, but SCOTUS could:

https://youtube.com/shorts/rPu...?si=6f1cVKQbdA428iTR

If he doesn't win the election, problem goes away, not likely to ever arise again. IOW, kick the can down the road.

If he wins, that's another circus. Go figure the odds. Somehow it will have to be resolved between November and January. What a hoot of a solution. It takes all the steam out of GOPers about election interference, etc. If I was a SCOTUS justice, that's the option I would take for several obvious reasons.

They could still resolve the questions of "office", "officer" and "oath", unique to POTUS, just in case that's needed later.

let the insurrection finding slide. Deal with that if or when the cases, for removal from office, against the congressmen who aided and supported the insurrection are appealed. In such cases, SCOTUS could just not take on such cases and let the decisions of the lower courts take effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
1/6 was not an insurrection , it was simple protest that turned somewhat ugly
It’s just political justification for democrats to have something on DJT
All you freaks just take a chill pill and relax

With a gallows for the VP of the USA

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
1/6 was not an insurrection , it was simple protest that turned somewhat ugly
It’s just political justification for democrats to have something on DJT
All you freaks just take a chill pill and relax

With a gallows for the VP of the USA

A minor technicality, with the pipe bombs.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
1/6 was not an insurrection , it was simple protest that turned somewhat ugly
It’s just political justification for democrats to have something on DJT
All you freaks just take a chill pill and relax

It was an insurrection because it was far more than merely a "simple protest" that spontaneously got ugly.

Saying that democrats are embellishing it for political justifications is like mental gymnastics. (emphasis on nasti) Such thinking process is a fine example of something contrary to critical thinking, maybe projection, maybe denial for ID protection. I don't know for sure because I'm not a psychologist. One has to disbelieve or deny a lot to think the storming of the capitol was not an insurrection attempt. There are mind games going on there. The evidence is what is spouted from the mouth or keyboard.

And it's not merely the fake symbolic gallows or the stashed guns and pipe bombs that makes what happened an attempted insurrection, although they were evidence of pre-meditation. There were many factors: The zip-tie handcuffs, the admitted plan on what the militia would have done has they caught Pence, Pelosi, or others, and their advance pre-meditated, coordinated planning. That's why some got convictions on seditious conspiracy.

First and foremost, the portion of the participants in the riot who stormed the capitol, practically all of that segment knew the sole purpose of their acts were to prevent or at least delay the ritual Pence was constitutionally tasked. They believed the BIG LIE, acted specifically on and because of it, were incited, believed their acts were sanctioned by Trump who would provide legal (and moral) cover (validation). Their purpose, intent, mission and goal was to prevent the transfer of power, thus Trump would have remained in office until the situation was resolved. With that power and allies, especially GOPers in congress, Trump would have gone full steam. It was a plan, well developed, involving many people with power of office from the inside. The storming was just part of it, and probably a last resort.

It all boiled down, after else failed, to one key man - Pence, and they knew where to find him on that specific day and time.

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

After all that, what's even more stunning and significant is that practically none of the truth as stated above would have floated to the surface if GOPers had their way. They fought it any way they could, mostly by lying, stalling, making up narratives. There would have been no prosecutions. There would have been no commission to investigate. DOJ would have been weaponized on behalf of Trump, who would still be in the WH. They would have rewritten history of their own creation. They are still trying to do just that, in many ways towards many ends - not just 1/6. If Trump gets in the WH again, all those convicted will be pardoned. This saga will mature. This insurrection if far from over. That's a fact which is primarily evidenced by the fact that Trump owns the GOP and is their presumptive candidate.

The significance of it all cannot be overstated. It can certainly be underestimated.

And Bivoj suggests that we all chill and relax, go numb like him.

Have you realized yet that everything you crazy libs do to try and get Trump just makes him and his argument stronger? Very dumb strategy.

I certainly don't deny there were some who wanted to commit acts designed to affect the government. (Gee isn't that kind of the purpose of protest?) and that some were attempting to stop the election.

You need to stop equating everyone who was involved in 1/6 with that... You don't have the facts to support that- or all of them would be convicted of seditious conspiracy.

You claim to be fact based, but here again you are not operating based out of fact, but rather a conspiracy theory of your own liking.

Like any good conspiracy theory there are a few facts that get manipulated to drive a overwhelming goal.

Were there some who wanted what you claim the purpose of 1/6 was? Yes. Were there many? No. Too many? yes.

This time you even admit that it was the conspirators who "believed" that Trump sanctioned it... which is a horse of a very different color than what you have been claiming most of the time. (That Trump was leading this conspiracy.) You still seem to think that the republican party had some direct role in the insurrection, yet that is wholly a supposition, not evidence based.

Trump was not directly involved in 1/6.

His deficiencies relating to it are there and real, he failed in upholding his oath of office and has certainly been willing to take advantage of the situation by his usual grifting... but while he's an awful candidate, its not criminal. Has he been criminally charged for anything re 1/6?

The guy is an awful candidate- even disregarding his lack of gravitas.

But you are not helping things by blaming him for everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
1/6 was not an insurrection , it was simple protest that turned somewhat ugly
It’s just political justification for democrats to have something on DJT
All you freaks just take a chill pill and relax

It was an insurrection because it was far more than merely a "simple protest" that spontaneously got ugly.

Saying that democrats are embellishing it for political justifications is like mental gymnastics. (emphasis on nasti) Such thinking process is a fine example of something contrary to critical thinking, maybe projection, maybe denial for ID protection. I don't know for sure because I'm not a psychologist. One has to disbelieve or deny a lot to think the storming of the capitol was not an insurrection attempt. There are mind games going on there. The evidence is what is spouted from the mouth or keyboard.

And it's not merely the fake symbolic gallows or the stashed guns and pipe bombs that makes what happened an attempted insurrection, although they were evidence of pre-meditation. There were many factors: The zip-tie handcuffs, the admitted plan on what the militia would have done has they caught Pence, Pelosi, or others, and their advance pre-meditated, coordinated planning. That's why some got convictions on seditious conspiracy.

First and foremost, the portion of the participants in the riot who stormed the capitol, practically all of that segment knew the sole purpose of their acts were to prevent or at least delay the ritual Pence was constitutionally tasked. They believed the BIG LIE, acted specifically on and because of it, were incited, believed their acts were sanctioned by Trump who would provide legal (and moral) cover (validation). Their purpose, intent, mission and goal was to prevent the transfer of power, thus Trump would have remained in office until the situation was resolved. With that power and allies, especially GOPers in congress, Trump would have gone full steam. It was a plan, well developed, involving many people with power of office from the inside. The storming was just part of it, and probably a last resort.

It all boiled down, after else failed, to one key man - Pence, and they knew where to find him on that specific day and time.

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

After all that, what's even more stunning and significant is that practically none of the truth as stated above would have floated to the surface if GOPers had their way. They fought it any way they could, mostly by lying, stalling, making up narratives. There would have been no prosecutions. There would have been no commission to investigate. DOJ would have been weaponized on behalf of Trump, who would still be in the WH. They would have rewritten history of their own creation. They are still trying to do just that, in many ways towards many ends - not just 1/6. If Trump gets in the WH again, all those convicted will be pardoned. This saga will mature. This insurrection if far from over. That's a fact which is primarily evidenced by the fact that Trump owns the GOP and is their presumptive candidate.

The significance of it all cannot be overstated. It can certainly be underestimated.

And Bivoj suggests that we all chill and relax, go numb like him.

Doc, apparently you didn't read my post, which you quoted.

I didn't carefully read most of your post above because the first part clearly claims something I didn't say.

See the fourth paragraph, right after First and foremost, where I say "portion", and in the same sentence used the word "segment", referring to the group as a whole.

Your argument is full of holes, but I won't bother because you got it wrong a lot, right off, first and second sentences, and so forth.

ME: Do I think the S.ct., could take either of those off ramps? The answer is they could. I find the oath path more convincing than he not being an officer. See the discussion above.

However, either off ramp does not accomplish the stated goal being disqualification under the 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause.

The 14th Amendment Insurrection Clause amends the Constitutional qualifications for president. The issue is not that he is running for president. The issue is as Colorado framed it, whether President Trump, as then president, engaged in insurrection, is an officer, and as president took the oath. All three factors have to be present.

As to the larger discussion about Jan 6. It was an insurrection being violence directed at the mechanism of government acting in due and vested authority by the Constitution to overthrow the government. In this case, the successor government.

President Trump moved the mob, he did not stop the violence as he is empowered and required by his oath and the Constitution. However, he took no direct action to engage in violence. He is not charged with sedition or any violent felony.

President Trump’s failures were political, moral. His Oath of Office is not codified in a penal code. Though shall perform the oath or face a criminal trial with x penalty. No one ever thought, we would have to so codify. The answer to President Trump’s actions leading up and Jan 6 was to impeach him. We failed to hold him accountable. Now, his lies are perceived truth. See Bivoj’s response and Dr. Butler equating it to a protest.

The difference between a protest and insurrection is targeted violence against the legitimate function of government to overturn or overthrow the government. That both the intent and the violent actions to bring about that intent were present on Jan 6.

I agree w Ann. If the Supreme Court uses either off ramp or rejects the application of the Insurrection Clause concerning President Trump. President Trumps is made stronger in the view of public support. Either off ramp you identify is equal to the Supreme Court saying, “The Insurrection Clause does not apply at all to President Trump.”

Any nuance to such a ruling will be lost. It will be immaterial, ignored, and useless for such an opinion to say, “We take no position or gender no finding on whether the President’s actions amounted to an insurrection. We need not address that matter to resolve the issue.”

Last count there are 200 something people convicted of felonies due to their acts on Jan 6. Felony behavior to prevent the due and legitimate transition of power, transition to the people’s next government.

200 out of 700 convictions (give or take) have been felonies.

Well, you ARE thorough.

Thanks.