SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts
ha!
This is factually true. SCOTUS doesn’t just rule on all details of cases. His statement is based on what the Supreme Court actually does. It has nothing to do with individual Justices views or biases.
SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts
ha!
What does that matter when they can invent precedent out of thin air?
This is factually true. SCOTUS doesn’t just rule on all details of cases. His statement is based on what the Supreme Court actually does. It has nothing to do with individual Justices views or biases.
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.
It matters in a lot of ways that I can’t be bothered to type up. Legal shit is complicated and it would be bad if they could overturn what has been previously established as fact.
They are still far too powerful, but that is not what we are talking about. Your issues with them are separate from the conversation.
What does that matter when they can invent precedent out of thin air?
They already did that. Every single GOP judge testified during their nomination hearing that Roe v Wade was established precedent.
It matters in a lot of ways that I can’t be bothered to type up. Legal shit is complicated and it would be bad if they could overturn what has been previously established as fact.
They are still far too powerful, but that is not what we are talking about. Your issues with them are separate from the conversation.
They already did that. Every single GOP judge testified during their nomination hearing that Roe v Wade was established precedent.
That’s what i was trying to say.
Hey, there, fellow Montanan!
'Ello, I am sorry to say but I have left for more Urbanist pastures in Seattle. However I adore my time in Montana and remember it fondly.
Honestly I think this goes to show that my understanding of legalese is not that bad. Legal Eagle really is the Duolingo of American Law.
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.
So SCOTUS could say that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the president, and that means that Colorado can’t disqualify Trump on that basis. But if it does apply to the president, they can’t tell Colorado how to conduct elections
That’s the kicker. Under their own recent precedents, state courts are entitled to deference from federal courts in these situations. So expect them to try and have their cake and eat it by saying state courts are still entitled to that deference, just not here because: reasons.
They could say section 3 doesn’t apply to the president, or that it does but the state court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the insurrection issue, or that a conviction is required for a finding of insurrection, or that the ruling was wrong because of Trump’s 1st amendment rights, or anything really. They have shown themselves to be masters of inventing legal reasoning where none exists. My hope is just that there is actually no ruling here wherr trump and the Republicans emerge unscathed.
Don’t you still need to convict him of the crime of insurrection, which no lower court has done so far? This was the basis of one of the dissenting opinions. That is potentially an avenue for SCOTUS to overturn this ruling.
I don’t think so, though that argument would make some sense to me. The 14th amendment doesn’t reference criminal convictions as a requirement, nor is the language of “rebellion” or “insurrection” intended to direct lawmakers to specific criminal statutes. My understanding, based on long since forgotten history, is that confederate soldering soldiers were based from office using this clause but that they were not pursuing criminal liability for all confederate soldiers. That is, the amendment was never intended to rely on the support of a criminal conviction because the Union never had any intention of criminally prosecuting entry confederate.
If they had intended to require criminal conviction before barring confederates from office it likely would have Cooler the nation’s criminal justice system and jeopardized the new peace.
Appeals courts, including SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts. They do not usually reexamine facts agreed upon by the lower courts.
It’s a stretch to say that:
Trump engaged in insurrection, and
the 1st Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech
are findings of fact. These are conclusions of law or, at most, mixed findings of fact and law, and reviewable by a superior court.
Appeals courts, including SCOTUS only look at the application of the law to the facts. They do not usually reexamine facts agreed upon by the lower courts.
It’s a stretch to say that:
Trump engaged in insurrection, and
the 1st Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech
are findings of fact. These are conclusions of law or, at most, mixed findings of fact and law, and reviewable by a superior court.