Posted on 12/23/2023 8:20:57 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Have ALL of these “experts” forgotten about due process? They seem to be intellectually flaccid, incapable of standing up for the truth.
I heard a guest “expert” on a right wing talk show who said he thought the Supremes would “very quickly” cut off the Trump off the ballot attempts and “they probably have drafts with partially complete arguments to use in their decision” which could come within a week or so.
But it didn’t happen.
Of course it wasn’t insurrection, but there’s no need to even address that question. If their basis for reversing the Colorado decision is that Trump was not involved in an insurrection, they would still be leaving a can of worms half opened to be exploited down the road.
On a separate but related note, does presidential immunity extend to someone serving as President, who acquired his position through fraudulent means? Hopefully SCOTUS will address that issue in Trump 2.0, and hopefully they will rule in the correct way.
Either democrats or law and order. Pick one
You said, “Have ALL of these “experts” forgotten about due process?”
I’d say the answer is NO. Remember due process ONLY applies to Democrats.
Trump is guilty without a trial or conviction because he is a Republican. Even worse, Trump is guilty without a trial or conviction because he is Trump. Trump has been tried and convicted in the MINDS of the deranged and clinically insane Left.
Their form of due process is whatever they believe it to be at any given time in their demented insane world.
No need to dodge a single thing.
Deny the attempt to block him, and remind Colorado that they
are attempting to ding him for offenses unproven in a courtof law.
The 14th Amendment prohibition did not require ‘due process’ to prohibit ex-Confederate office-holders and military officers who had previously sworn an oath to the Constitution from holding public office. Few, if any, were charged with any crime, let alone found guilty of any crime. Their Confederate service was public knowledge. And few would deny that the Civil War was an insurrection.
The problems are, did the events of January 6 constitute an ‘insurrection’ ? Seems to me to be a pretty big stretch. It lasted hours at most and resulted in one death, an unarmed ‘insurrectionist’, and caused what, thousands of dollars in damage to the Capitol. less than the bomb that went off in the Senate.
And then there is President Trump’s role in the so-called insurrection. How can a sitting President lead an insurrection against his own government? Did he lead people into the Capitol? Did he encourage violence?
What role did the Speaker of the House play in the ‘insurrection’? If trouble was suspected, why did the Capitol police escort people into the Capitol?
It would be nice if SCOTUS declared the charge of insurrection is absurd on its face.
I would have to say that they have been trying to deny rights
to people they think of as terrorists. That’s us.
They don’t think we get full rights any longer.
We need to rethink some things we allowed to become law.
Their insurrection mem is decaying on the vine.
Good job to Epoch.
We could use our side challenging SCOTUS to put a fork in it already.
Actually two deaths and both were unarmed women.
I predict the supreme Court will not hear the case and 20 states will ban Trump. A painless assassination. GOP will drop him for a Deep State approved fellow—Chris Christie? Mitt Romney, or Nickie Hallie. (She’s a woman you know and of color) Biden will drop out and Newsom will be place in the chair—to smile—talk big and do as Obama tells him. Trump is done—by hook or by crook they will end him only honoring him when he is dead. (Like Reagan).
You don’t suppose Iranians have crossed the border to avenge Assam Soleimani with a drone or two?
The Supreme Court can’t rule on the one without the other.
As for insurrection, the 14th amendment does not apply to the president, it carefully limits him out. Roberts has already ruled that the president is not an officer of the government.
“It would be nice if SCOTUS declared the charge of insurrection is absurd on its face.”
Why are they hair-spitting on whether Section 3 includes the President and VP? I think section 5 is plain. Congress reserves to itself the enforcement of the amendment, not state courts or legislature.
When the French had their "insurrection", it wasn't lead by grandmothers with iPhones on selfie sticks.
The peasants were carrying sticks (pikes) alright, but they didn't have iPhones mounted on them. They mounted the heads of their "elites" on them. I think that our "elites" understand that - and it terrifies them.
(Explaining the extreme overreaction to the events of January 6th, the efforts at censorship, the efforts at gun control...)
For all we know, some or all of the justices are under house arrest.
SCOTUS is now just a rubber stamp for Deep State.
Such crapweaseling ascribe to the SC.
To rule that the 14th amendment clause doesn’t apply to a president will not gain SCOTUS any brownie points. They’ll still be accused by the left of interfering with elections.
I don’t think so. The Immunity issue is out there on a dozen other cases. Supes would be foolish and would make a LOT more work for themselves to ignore this.
And this court DOES NOT like to work. They take a paltry load of cases-—could easily do 2-3 times as many cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.