Is anyone else rocked a little by the notion that nobody really expects the Supreme Court to do the right thing? I think they probably will, but only because they’ve exhausted every other option. You can get a couple of smart people with knowledge of the law to write an opinion supporting or defending anything. The fact that they’re twisting themselves into pretzels to try to find a way to say that the OFFICE of the Presidency isn’t an OFFICE is just doublespeak and wrong. Full Stop. What the hell has this country become? If MAGA really want’s to make America great again, all the have to do stay home, maybe educate themselves a little, and let the real Americans who believe in real freedom, real patriotism, and sacrifice for a greater good make an attempt to pull us back from the brink of all out world wide war. A huge swath of Americans have gone to the Nazi side and nobody seems to think it’s as big of a world-ending deal as I do.
You can bet your last dollar that they’re voting, but it’s worse than that. They’re organized, they’re fanatical, they have almost unlimited money, and this is what they base their whole insane self-identity on.
If the good people in this country don’t come together, it’s all gone.
tdlr: Don’t vote for the people whom Nazi’s are voting for. Tell your friends.
How was this savvy? Trump hasn’t been constitutionally prohibited from running federally. They sued based on federal grounds. This is going to be quickly overturned by the SC; probably 9-0.
How was this savvy? Trump hasn’t been constitutionally prohibited from running federally. They sued based on federal grounds. This is going to be quickly overturned by the SC; probably 9-0.
The 14th amendment has never required that he does. This ruling does still serve somewhat as a conviction however.
“Crimes” defined in the constitution are weird and have a unique place in US law. They don’t necessarily have a criminal code nor does a prosecutor necessarily have standing to sue for it. This is the way they are typically tried.
Well, its Gorsuch I was referring to, not Trump. I suppose the best way to know would be to look at his rulings and opinions and see whether he has contradicted himself in the past.
(During his confirmation hearings, he was very forceful in stating that he would rule based on the facts and the law, not based on which people were involved)
Eh not really. The Gorsuch case was a slam dunk, the case of eligibility was based on whether the candidate was a natural born citizen to run for president which is rather straight forward. The only precedent it set was that as Colorado law states, only “eligible candidates” can be on a primary ticket, no one is really attacking that part of the law.
The question of whether what Trump did on Jan 6 violates the 14th amendment is a much much more complicated question.
Reading through the opinion, the core part of it ( overturning the notion that the president is not an officer of the United States) leans heavily on the analysis by Baude and Paulsen, the two Federalist society law professors that wrote a definitive, recent paper on article 3: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
(there’s long sections in there to support the ideas that art. 3 is self executing, that the president is an office holder, and that freedom of speech is not a viable defense. It’s worth a read)
By quoting Gorsuch, they are putting him in a bit of a bind. If he is to be internally consistent, he should affirm the SCCO ruling.
Not to mention that a majority of the conservatives (if not all?) are FedSoc members, so the conclusions of Baude and Paulsen should carry some weight with them.
Its quite plausible that Gorsuch and Roberts would join the liberals on the court to uphold the Co ruling.
The Gorsuch opinion they quoted was about a state’s rights in regards to excluding someone who is not eligible for office. It’s quite relevant here as well.
Also, the issue isn’t really whether Trump violated the 14th amendment. Both the lower district and state supreme Court found that he engaged in insurrection. The complicated aspect is whether the US supreme Court will let their partisan divide show instead of adhering to their alleged textual interpretation of the Constitution.
Eh not really. The Gorsuch case was a slam dunk, the case of eligibility was based on whether the candidate was a natural born citizen to run for president which is rather straight forward. The only precedent it set was that as Colorado law states, only “eligible candidates” can be on a primary ticket, no one is really attacking that part of the law.
The question of whether what Trump did on Jan 6 violates the 14th amendment is a much much more complicated question.