The court heard arguments about whether the former president’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election disqualify him from again holding office. Justices across the ideological spectrum questioned several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.
No. It isn’t. If you read the summaries I saw from today, it says the Justices didn’t even discuss whether he participated in insurrection. (Ed. nor anything about conviction. What have you been reading??)
Also if you look at the original Colorado ruling, it lays out in pretty great detail, based on the evidence presented, that Trump did, in fact, participate in insurrection.
“Colorado laid out in detail why someone shouldn’t be on their ballot…” So, by allowing this, any state in the country can do this…“Texas laid out in detail why Biden shouldn’t be on their ballot, therefore, he’s not…”
Texas use word salad. Co used evidence from congressional hearings. These are not the same.
Right, and so we end up with even more of a mess than usual with presidential elections. Because some judges will actually do their job while others will find any excuse to play dirty.
The flip side is someone who actually participated in insurrection, like Trump, gets to be elected to office until Congress establishes a new set of laws for eligibility. Which won’t happen with the current political parties. But… What can you do.
It doesn’t matter if Colorado lays out that Trump is an insurrectionist.
It doesn’t matter if Trump in reality is an insurrectionist
It matters if he has been found guilty of insurrection, or an insurrection-like offense, through a final judgment on the merits
It doesn’t matter if Trump in reality is an insurrectionist
That’s incorrect. It absolutely does matter if the candidate is an insurrectionist. It’s literally the only thing that matters.
Read Section 3 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Disqualification_from_office_for_insurrection_or_rebellion ):
The language is deliberately vague here. It doesn’t say a person needs to be convicted of anything, only that they committed the act. Colorado put forth an excellent case that the actions Trump engaged in count as insurrection.
During oral arguments in the court today, the justices hand-waved this aside and changed the subject, asking “what if” questions about them allowing Trump’s removal, speculating that any state could easily gin-up boloney insurrection arguments against any candidate and have them yanked off the ballot. “What would we do then?” they kept asking.
From home, I’m yelling “You do your fucking job.” Let the speculative bullshit charges be made, appealed, heard and rejected for the bullshit that they are, shaming the shit-slinging politicians for wasting the peoples’ time.
It’s hilarious that you got this exactly wrong. Nowhere does it say he needs to be convicted. Prior uses of this amendment haven’t required convictions.
So what? Even if true, why would SCOTUS care about that?
Trump is a former president of the United States who allegedly engaged in insurrection while actively serving as president, and was never convicted of any crime relating to that alleged insurrection.
Given those facts, you seriously think Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts are incapable of finding that those facts are so unique as to materially distinguish him from any prior application of the 14th amendment? Even after Dobbs? And Heller? And Citizen’s United?
You’re acting like you believe that SCOTUS must apply the law according to its plain text and in conformity with legal precedent. That is a delusion and a fairy tale.