Trump, 14th Amendment put Supreme Court on the spot

[Smokin Joe]

18 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

To determine whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, a jury must convict Trump. Failing a jury verdict, legally, Trump is not an insurrectionist, regardless of appearances.

 

It's like calling someone a murderer who hasn't been tried yet.

 

You may have just made an accurate prediction of the SCOTUS decision.

[Danderman123]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That is NOT what the amendment says IN ANY WAY.

I get that you think that is a fair way to do it, but again, no such stipulation in the amendment.

So why repeat that misinformation? 

The problem comes in determining the facts required for disqualification.

 

In the case of the Civil War insurrectionists,  it was easy - they joined the rebel army. No need for further proof.

 

But with Trump, his lawyers are simply denying everything,  and without a jury conviction for sedition, there is no proof he was an insurrectionist.

 

The Supremes will explain further.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The problem comes in determining the facts required for disqualification.

 

In the case of the Civil War insurrectionists,  it was easy - they joined the rebel army. No need for further proof.

 

But with Trump, his lawyers are simply denying everything,  and without a jury conviction for sedition, there is no proof he was an insurrectionist.

 

The Supremes will explain further.

I agree that SCOTUS will allow Trump on the ballot but I don't think the reason will have anything to do with your above explanation. I could be wrong. I give this court ZERO credibility. I think they would allow him on the ballot because they don't want their court already with ZERO credibility to be responsible to eliminate someone as popular with the public from the ballot which could even cause a civil war. Not because of the amendment. So not doing their job. 

[Walker88]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

To determine whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, a jury must convict Trump. Failing a jury verdict, legally, Trump is not an insurrectionist, regardless of appearances.

 

It's like calling someone a murderer who hasn't been tried yet.

The line i put in bold not only says 'insurrection', but also disqualifies those who 'have given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof'.

 

Obviously trump did that. Some of the terrorists were convicted of insurrection, and trump gave them aid and comfort, including announcing he would pardon them.

 

Also, though it might be implicit, it does not state conviction.

 

I realize there is zero chance that court is going to rule in CO's favor, and I also know that if they did rule in favor, States like TN, KY, WV, FL (DeSantis) and TX (Abbott) would take Biden off the ballot with some flimsy excuse.

 

I wish SC Smith had charged trump with Insurrection, even Sedition, but I understand why he didn't. Still, the # of terrorists who would have showed up had trump not called them, or attacked the Capitol if trump hadn't wound them up, is ZERO. His lies and his fomenting brought them to DC and sent them to attack the Capitol.

 

It is 100% trump's fault.

[thaicurious]

Listening to the court case I kept shaking my head. That Colorado lawyer blew it. Trump's lawyer did a way better job. I'd imagine in the more professional briefs submitted by better lawyers, professors and the like, the evidence would have favored Colorado, but this hearing favored Trump. Better luck at the ballot box.

[Danderman123]

29 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

The line i put in bold not only says 'insurrection', but also disqualifies those who 'have given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof'.

 

Obviously trump did that. Some of the terrorists were convicted of insurrection, and trump gave them aid and comfort, including announcing he would pardon them.

 

Also, though it might be implicit, it does not state conviction.

 

I realize there is zero chance that court is going to rule in CO's favor, and I also know that if they did rule in favor, States like TN, KY, WV, FL (DeSantis) and TX (Abbott) would take Biden off the ballot with some flimsy excuse.

 

I wish SC Smith had charged trump with Insurrection, even Sedition, but I understand why he didn't. Still, the # of terrorists who would have showed up had trump not called them, or attacked the Capitol if trump hadn't wound them up, is ZERO. His lies and his fomenting brought them to DC and sent them to attack the Capitol.

 

It is 100% trump's fault.

Everything you say is subjectively true.

 

But, let's say someone lied about Biden, and claimed that he was aiding insurrectionists. Would that be enough for a Republican judge to disqualify Biden?

 

There is a clear legal standard: a jury decides facts. No jury has convicted Trump of insurrection.  Yet.

[Jingthing]

45 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Everything you say is subjectively true.

 

But, let's say someone lied about Biden, and claimed that he was aiding insurrectionists. Would that be enough for a Republican judge to disqualify Biden?

 

There is a clear legal standard: a jury decides facts. No jury has convicted Trump of insurrection.  Yet.

That's not the off ramp that scotus will use.

[ozimoron]

MAGA freaks out after Trump is removed from ballot in a third state

 

A state judge in Illinois has ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot appear on the primary ballot due to being disqualified under the Insurrection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — the third state where this has happened, after Colorado and Maine.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/maga-freaks-out-trump-ballot-illinois/

 

 

 

[johng]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

being disqualified under the Insurrection Clause

Guilty without even being charged.

 

The other ballot bans have been overturned on appeal.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/9/2024 at 6:18 AM, Danderman123 said:

To determine whether Trump engaged in an insurrection, a jury must convict Trump. Failing a jury verdict, legally, Trump is not an insurrectionist, regardless of appearances.

 

It's like calling someone a murderer who hasn't been tried yet.

Gosh, I could have written that, and have done so on many a time.

Congratulations.

[Danderman123]

The SCOTUS is allegedly going to rule on this today.

 

My guess is that they will describe how the fourteenth amendment should be implemented. 

 

Spoiler alert: Trump will still be a candidate after their ruling.

[Danderman123]

The Supremes went as expected, but on the basis that states don't have the right to bar candidates for Federal office, only state office.

[Tug]

Sad but not in the least surprising that being said there is absolutely no excuse for dragging out the timeline for the j6 trials none I know they want to kick the can down the road and let the election settle it.in my humble opinion they are shirking their duty to adjudicate this matter.we as a nation are allowing this cancer of a human being to distract us from the important things at hand and weaken us as a nation.we need to put trump behind us and move forward enough!!

Edited March 4 by Tug

[ozimoron]

It's important to note that the SC did not rule on whether Trump committed insurrection. Only that the states had no authority to remove him unless he committed a state offense. I disagree with the ruling because it means that only congress could remove him from the ballot. N ow the insurrection trial needs to be allowed to go ahead.

[johng]

The SCOTUS have ruled that Trump can't be removed from the ballot.