I am [Added filler text to meet minimum character requirement.]
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that Trump incited the January 6 crowd.
The Hasan case that you cited is an unpublished opinion. Generally, unpublished opinions have limited value as precedent.
I think Washington would’ve had a lot of firsts tbf
Is this not putting the cart before the horse lol? Or did I miss a conviction where Trump is in jail?
Democrats go as far as removing people from the ballot and they claim they support democracy 
. Let the people vote. Fucking clowns
Well, Trump was not charged with “insurrection” or convicted of it so shouldn’t be punished for it. It’s just a bunch of libs calling it an insurrection. No guns, no plan. It was a riot that got out of hand! Courts threw the book at all these people who got caught up in the moment. Years in jail for trespass. Meanwhile, antifa burns federal buildings and nothing happens. Total double standard!
Was Trump convicted in insurrection? Or what conviction proves he committed an offense warranting removal from the ballot?
[deleted] [Added filler text to meet minimum character requirement.]
The person in charge of administering elections - the Secretary of State, one person - is actually the one who decides. We’ve now had two courts above and beyond that rule on the decision.
And that decision is based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Something something foisted on own petard…
Is he constitutionally prohibited from assuming office?
"WHO ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED "
being the key words . Running for president is a right with very specific constitutional requirements that trump meets. You cant just remove someones constitutional rights absent a trial of wrongdoing and it sure isnt a random states ability to sidestep a federal trial and just assume trump is guilty of insurrection .
This is awesome. Also hilarious because Trump’s election-fraud game was so big on turning the show back to states, and because the constitutional issue in question was a federal constitutional matter concerning qualifications to be president.
And nobody in the GOP would have worried about it because CO was banning a naturalized citizen named Abdul from the ballot.
Edit–I was trying to think of some analogy involving bootstraps, best I can come up with is hanging yourself with your own shoelaces.
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it’s a huge deal for these reasons:
It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling.
No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn’t control their own election as the current law states.
I’d bet my next years pay that the Supreme Court will come back and say,
“Well, technically he hasn’t been charged and found guilty of partaking in an insurrection in a court of law therefore he stays on the ballot.”
I’m too jaded to get excited over this.
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it’s a huge deal for these reasons:
It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling.
No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn’t control their own election as the current law states.
The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.
Is already part of the court record
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it’s a huge deal for these reasons:
It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling.
No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability”, but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn’t control their own election as the current law states.
Scotus doesn’t care about precedent