Here is the opinion

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

I found something unique in this decision.

States through state courts can disqualify individuals from running for state office through the IC.

So, this opinion is not any help to that guy out in New Mexico.

While i may not agree with each case of a State doing State's rights things, I approve all cases of States Rights, understanding, from time to time, there will be a sh!t sandwich to eat

Hey, Joshua,
the kleagle of peckerwood county firmly states that this RULING "all but invites" Jack Smith to file charges in another court. I've asked him to quote the exact passages that does so -- Did you notice where the Ruling does so? I seem to be too underinformed to find it, and perhaps a less biased read could find it -

thanks in advance

WINNING

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Hey, Joshua,
the kleagle of peckerwood county firmly states that this RULING "all but invites" Jack Smith to file charges in another court. I've asked him to quote the exact passages that does so -- Did you notice where the Ruling does so? I seem to be too underinformed to find it, and perhaps a less biased read could find it -

thanks in advance

The best I can answer that is President Trump has not been charged in any Federal District with seditious conspiracy, treason, nor insurrection or conspiracy to so commit.

The opinion does not address President Trump’s conduct. It does not state whether his behavior satisfies the insurrection or rebellion prongs of the I.C. The opinion focuses of justification the I.C. creates.

Thus, one can argue that were President Trump charged and convicted for one of the three (really 5 conspiracy to commit treason or conspiracy to commit insurrection) crimes, the S. Ct., would be forced to allow application of the IC clause.

Maybe if decided in a vacuum. However, with this opinion reached setting jurisdiction and the only historical example I kind find using the model adopted by the option of Congress vacating a House seat post conviction, I cannot agree.

More narrowly, one can argue that since the S. Ct., opinion does not address conduct, Jack smith must file those charges so a court of competent jurisdiction can address the underlying conduct. You have statutory element problems that I do not believe can be overcome. One cannot conspire alone. We would have to link President Trump’s conduct directly to the conduct of someone who has been so charged. That factual proof does not seem to exist. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers could not be got at through treason or insurrection as criminal charges.


This case should never have been brought. However, we know have a blank spot on the constitutional map filled in. That is worth something.

Those two options are the best I can do.

When I say the opinion is not reasoned the best it is because I would have went further in addressing the question. However, we knew the S.Ct., was not going to do that, and said so. I also am not too sure they are correct that Congress and not the Fed courts was meant to have jurisdiction over this question. Again, they followed the one historical example, and are correct that states were not the proper jurisdiction.

So from what you are saying, you disagree with the concurrence of the liberal wing?

They basically said, we agree but don't go along with the attempt to answer some of the questions until they are brought forward...

I do agree with you that they need to shut this down. Lawfare the whole way in to the election is pointless.

If the DOJ couldn't get enough together to charge Trump in 3 years, then waiting for another impeachment attempt seems reasonable, albeit uncertain- first he would need to win the general.

Why is it the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment subject to enforcement by the courts, but Section 3 of that same amendment is not?

Where does it say Congress shall decide?