https://thehill.com/opinion/ju...-an-insurrectionist/

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.” Section 3 provides:

“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 . . . .”

As Judge Sarah Wallace puts it in her 102-page decision: “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.”

Then, bizarrely, finds that as President he was not an "officer" of the United States.

Only way I can make it make sense is she was punting that portion to the State Supreme Court, which is hearing it next week.

Nothing makes sense in American politics!

It is diarrhea of the clueless!

Rulers and ruled!

quote:

Only way I can make it make sense is she was punting that portion to the State Supreme Court, which is hearing it next week.

She set it up, then kicked the can down the road. I don't blame her for not taking the heat. Trump and his slaves are dangerous.

The decision about the insurrection is solid with good evidence. The part about free speech is solid too, based on precedent decisions, and facts. Those parts are not likely to be overturned.

The constitutional interpretation is weak, on purpose, IMO, and vulnerable.

The Colorado Supreme Court has seven justices. One would hope their decision is unanimously unfavorable for Trump.

That would make it difficult for SCOTUS to overturn.

A judge should only rule on the issue that’s dispositive of the case. If Trump isn’t subject to the Amendment then all the rest of the opinion is exactly that, her opinion, be it right or wrong. An ethical jurist would have never imposed 120 pages of how she feels on the world.

JudgeG is absolutely correct. Today many of these jurists are to me unethical and appear very politically biased and don’t care about it. It is NOT a good place for The American judicial system.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
A judge should only rule on the issue that’s dispositive of the case. If Trump isn’t subject to the Amendment then all the rest of the opinion is exactly that, her opinion, be it right or wrong. An ethical jurist would have never imposed 120 pages of how she feels on the world.

She made a factual finding on the facts and sent the interpretation of the intent of the Amendment to the State Supreme Court, where I assume Trump's argument in the Georgia case that he was, indeed, a "Federal Officer" will be brought up.

quote:

Originally posted by clayman216:
JudgeG is absolutely correct. Today many of these jurists are to me unethical and appear very politically biased and don’t care about it. It is NOT a good place for The American judicial system.

That's why Trump and conservatives were so keen on appointments to SCOTUS of far-right justices, and so many fed court appointments.

It's kinda funny though that in many cases most of them appointed have made decisions against Trump's BS and other far-right skewed issues.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...91d3866bade417&ei=47

The Disqualification Clause is clear — let’s use it

(excerpts)

Now consider this scenario:

The U.S. Supreme Court rules Donald Trump cannot be president again because he broke his first oath of office when he rebelled against the Constitution. Meantime, a 125-year-old clause in the Constitution purges Congress of more than half of its Republicans. Democrats and Independents use the opportunity for a historic collaboration to restore the people’s confidence in democracy.

A purge on this historic scale may be implausible, but it’s theoretically possible because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, also known as the Disqualification Clause. It says public officials who aid or take part in an insurrection against the U.S. Constitution violate the oaths they took to support it. Section 3 disqualifies them from serving in state or federal government again.
Taken literally, the clause applies not only to Trump but to scores and even hundreds of people in Congress, state legislatures and other public offices who aided or participated in his plot to defy the Constitution and remain in power after losing the 2020 election. Many plan to run for reelection next year.

Voters and voter organizations have filed lawsuits in more than half the states to enforce the Disqualification Clause. The news media have faithfully reported on lower-court rulings so far, so I won’t rehash the details. But a few points deserve more attention:

* On Jan. 6, 2021, 147 incumbent Republicans voted against certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. Following last year’s midterm election, 126 are still there. None have been held accountable for violating their oaths by participating in Trump’s efforts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

Last December, a bipartisan group of 36 former House members called on the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate members who allegedly played roles in Trump’s scheme. It hasn’t happened. Instead, several insurrectionists have risen to even more powerful positions in Congress, including Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson, the former and current Speakers of the House.

For example, Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace ruled that Section 3 might not apply to Trump; although it applies to “any officer” of the United States, it doesn’t specifically mention the president of the United States. She also noted that the clause applies to oaths to “support” the Constitution, but the presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” it.

With everybody accusing everybody else of weaponizing government, we don’t have to weaponize the Constitution. Section 3 is already there, apparently ready to be locked and loaded in democracy’s defense. We should dust it off and use it.

Not one Republican who voted to reject Biden's election has demonstrated that they believe the election was fraudulent by vacating their own seat won in that same election.

Every republican who is leaving congress seems to be pissing on their GOP colleagues on the way out, I.E. Bucks, but how many had the guts to speak up while they were there? Cheney, Kinzinger, and that's it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
https://thehill.com/opinion/ju...-an-insurrectionist/

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.” Section 3 provides:

“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 . . . .”

As Judge Sarah Wallace puts it in her 102-page decision: “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.”

Gee, Colorado female judge, why am I not surpried?? By the time this nonsense makes it through the court system (I am figuring it goes all the way to the Supreme Court) Trump will have died of old age.

quote:

An ethical jurist would have never imposed 120 pages of how she feels on the world.

Amen brother!

I wonder if she is a distant relative of ME’s? They behave so similarly.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

An ethical jurist would have never imposed 120 pages of how she feels on the world.

Amen brother!

I wonder if she is a distant relative of ME’s? They behave so similarly.

Now that's almost funny.

Of course I haven't read the 120 pages. I've only read a few summary articles mixed with opinion. I may have even read something from FoxNews by accident.

But, I would be among the first to criticize the Judge if those 120 pages contained even a hint of her "feelings".

What I would expect to see is a lot of evidence, facts, testimony, (findings) and precedent law, logic, reasoning, and finally a conclusion summary.

I think those who make up this chit about "feelings" are projecting on their own way of "knowing" stuff on the judge, and perhaps the whole judicial system. That is why the constitution and rule of law is supposed to be secular, per the Founder's intent. When you mix the "True Believers" of religion with the secular law then it gets muddied. That's when "feelings" are conflated with critical thinking.

They aren't called "True Believers" for nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
A judge should only rule on the issue that’s dispositive of the case. If Trump isn’t subject to the Amendment then all the rest of the opinion is exactly that, her opinion, be it right or wrong. An ethical jurist would have never imposed 120 pages of how she feels on the world.

She did rule on the issue that's dispositive of the case. trump gets to be on the ballot. The length of the opinion relates to the fact that the subject matter of the opinion/order is, or is going to be, a matter of national significance. You'd think that somebody who claims to be a judge would recognize that.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

An ethical jurist would have never imposed 120 pages of how she feels on the world.

Amen brother!

I wonder if she is a distant relative of ME’s? They behave so similarly.

Now that's almost funny.

Of course I haven't read the 120 pages. I've only read a few summary articles mixed with opinion. I may have even read something from FoxNews by accident.

But, I would be among the first to criticize the Judge if those 120 pages contained even a hint of her "feelings".

What I would expect to see is a lot of evidence, facts, testimony, (findings) and precedent law, logic, reasoning, and finally a conclusion summary.

I think those who make up this chit about "feelings" are projecting on their own way of "knowing" stuff on the judge, and perhaps the whole judicial system. That is why the constitution and rule of law is supposed to be secular, per the Founder's intent. When you mix the "True Believers" of religion with the secular law then it gets muddied. That's when "feelings" are conflated with critical thinking.

They aren't called "True Believers" for nothing.

If all of that is true…why did she “say” one thing but do another?

It was all a masquerade and a waste of taxpayer money.

quote:

If all of that is true…why did she “say” one thing but do another?

It was all a masquerade and a waste of taxpayer money.

The thorough answer to that would require knowledge that I don't have.

Limited reasonable speculation may be ok.

I don't think it's true that she said one thing and did another. I think she was creative, yet still within the boundaries.

I think she made good solid "findings" based in plenty of facts and evidence. To not do that would have been grossly negligent. She knew the case would be appealed by both sides. So deciding on the insurrection and freedom of speech part was a slam dunk. Take the low hanging apples, at least, and set it all up for the inevitable appeal. The constitutional issues are better for the CO Supreme Court has seven justices to decide. Better spread the heat there. They can better afford lifetime body guards for themselves, family and friends.

quote:

I think she was creative,

Exactly! You never disappoint!

You miss the whole point.
Real jurists shouldn’t go one word further than what’s required to determine the issue(s) at bar. The case should have been decided without any egotistical compulsion to decide any issue other than if Trump was subject to the 14th Amendment. And, that’s a legal question, not an evidentiary one. While all the additional tripe may or may not be true, the judges ego and/or ignorance caused he to grab her 15 minutes of fame. Weak mind or weak character. Poor showing, indeed.

And, the reason I called the opinion “feelings” is that it matters not a twit after she determined Trump wasn’t subject to the 14th Amendment. It’s just running her mouth to stir shit in the TDS masses…. Kinda like what Trump did re: January 6th with his followers.

I would bet there is not a jurist alive that has not written dicta in an opinion from time to time. I have not read this opinion so I cannot comment on whether it goes above and beyond in this regard but dicta is quite common, as you know, and is frequently used by courts to telegraph future rulings on issues not directly presented.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You miss the whole point.
Real jurists shouldn’t go one word further than what’s required to determine the issue(s) at bar. The case should have been decided without any egotistical compulsion to decide any issue other than if Trump was subject to the 14th Amendment. And, that’s a legal question, not an evidentiary one. While all the additional tripe may or may not be true, the judges ego and/or ignorance caused he to grab her 15 minutes of fame. Weak mind or weak character. Poor showing, indeed.

And, the reason I called the opinion “feelings” is that it matters not a twit after she determined Trump wasn’t subject to the 14th Amendment. It’s just running her mouth to stir shit in the TDS masses…. Kinda like what Trump did re: January 6th with his followers.

I don't disagree it's a little unusual, at least in state court practice. Federal district court judges frequently issue orders/opinions that go well beyond "Granted" or "Denied" and that provide detailed discussions of the issues presented and the analysis utilized to reach the decision. This judge is clearly framing the issue for appeal.

quote:

This judge is clearly framing the issue for appeal.

That's the point. Also a point - if she didn't "frame" it for appeal, then accusations of whatever may be appropriate. IMO, she did a good job and deed.

And in fact, appeal is gonna happen, and none of us can predict the outcome.

But I give it a better than 60% chance of being unfavorable for Trump, despite the conservative Justices.

Here's your idol, Lane....fuck him

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...213cb670f5d4fe&ei=25

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Here's your idol, Lane....fuck him

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...213cb670f5d4fe&ei=25

Donald Trump Says He Never Swore Oath 'to Support the Constitution'
Story by Ewan Palmer • 10h

That's not surprising, given all the other lies he's spewed.

His capacity for skewing and lying is beyond my imagination, but on top of that are the numerous fellow citizens who buy into it. It's real but hard to accept as reality of what's happening. Yet, we need to focus on that. The effect is as clear as the affect and the fodder.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Here's your idol, Lane....fuck him

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...213cb670f5d4fe&ei=25

Only in trump-world would such an argument hold weight with anybody. Lane will be along shortly to come up with some sort of bullshit argument agreeing that he is right.

I wish they would get something solid soon.
I would like to hear more about some of the other candidates would have to say.
It would be nice to vote for someone, not against. If it ends up Biden and Trump, it's against two someones.

Well, that "sounds" good, and it's been said many times, and most of us share that sentiment.

But the reality is that ANY GOP candidate will be swayed by the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. If they don't cave to it, they will be spending their valuable time fighting it.

Then there's the Christofascist bunch, like MAGA Mike.

So, basically, it's not just about Biden vs Trump. It's much more.

And the left by Soros. We no longer get what we want, or like to have in politics.

quote:

And the left by Soros.

I think that's a theory, fancied by the Right.

I haven't researched it, so I don't know for sure. But given all the other BS theories from the Right, I suspect that it's a lie.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Nothing makes sense in American politics!

It is diarrhea of the clueless!

Rulers and ruled!

And, you don't have sperm rulers? Talk about not making sense.

Do your research kabob. He is waist deep in it.

quote:

Do your research kabob. He is waist deep in it.

I will, and get back to ya.

quote:

Soros. Do your research.

Quick research:

Per Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...e%20election%20cycle.

"For the 2022 United States elections, Soros was the country's largest donor. He donated $128.5 million to support the Democratic Party in the election cycle."

There's a lot more out there. https://www.google.com/search?...IRgK&sclient=gws-wiz

So, he is more than waist deep - he puts his money where his mouth is not enough.

But I concede, you are right in the prime aspect. However, his heart is in the right place.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
Here's your idol, Lane....fuck him

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...213cb670f5d4fe&ei=25

Donald Trump Says He Never Swore Oath 'to Support the Constitution'
Story by Ewan Palmer • 10h

That's not surprising, given all the other lies he's spewed.

His capacity for skewing and lying is beyond my imagination, but on top of that are the numerous fellow citizens who buy into it. It's real but hard to accept as reality of what's happening. Yet, we need to focus on that. The effect is as clear as the affect and the fodder.

Technically, he's right.

The Presidential Oath requires that he " preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution".

The Vice President, Members of Congress and military, enlisted and commissioned, swear to support the Constitution.

The Colorado Supreme Court and, probably, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide if it's a distinction without a difference.

If the POTUS doesn't take an oath to abide (at least) the Constitution, I will be astounded. That just doesn't seem right, somehow.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
If the POTUS doesn't take an oath to abide (at least) the Constitution, I will be astounded. That just doesn't seem right, somehow.

The Presidential Oath says exactly what I posted.

I'd let everybody in the fucking world see it were it a public document anybody could look up but since I have the only known copy you just have to take my word for it.

quote:

The Presidential Oath says exactly what I posted.

I am certainly not disputing that.

That's why I used the word "abide".

I would be surprised that a court, especially SCOTUS, would agree with what Trump said.

"a distinction without a difference" is exactly correct.

Personally Kabob, I dont feel that any one thing or person, is more than waist deep. Waist deep meaning half the issue.
The economy plays a big part, also world events, wars etc. play a part.
Many things that make up how people feel when it comes election time.

quote:

Waist deep meaning half the issue.

Agreed. Probably less than half.

And I agree with the rest of your last post.

Especially:

quote:

Many things that make up how people feel when it comes election time.

this is one of the DUMBEST things Trump had ever argued -

Here's the text of the POTUS oath

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."