We will do as we please but thanks for your input.
“Go read a real legal decision at a legitimate source not this Garbage site .”
Rush Limbaugh quoted from that “garbage site.”
I see you still do not know how to handle a period at the end of the sentence. See this.
Trump paid propaganda, or not? I literally have no idea. Site quoted by Rush? I don’t remember one way or the other, but I’ll assume it’s true. That doesn’t mean that this piece isn’t a worthless piece of analysis.
SCOC is not a subordinate court to SCOTUS. However, a Writ of Certiorari will lie on constitutional issues from the decisions of the highest court of a state, so its subordinate in sort of a figurative sense. Subordinate courts, ruling in very important issues, ROUTINELY stay their own orders pending review.
That SCOC did so in a tacit acknowledgement that their decision is wrong, the central point of this article, is just BS. There is no doubt SCOTUS would have issued a stay if SCOC did not. Yes, they’re hacks, but in their hackery they still observe the forms of the law
This opinion is wrongly decided, and will be reversed. The District Court should not have even reached the issue of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, because the judge correctly decided that, under the plain language of the 14th Amendment, the prohibition does not apply to him
One of the dissents to this decision correctly points out that there is no enforcement legislation on the amendment. So you’re left with the language of the amendment. When statutory language is clear, the analysis stops there. You don’t proceed on to determine legislative intent. In this case that’s what SCOC relied on. However they didn’t cite any legislative history; they just said they couldn’t imagine that the framers would intend it to apply to sheriffs, but not the President
In short, others are correct that this decision is law porn for the left, and they’re doing the Toobin even as we speak. But this article is useless in analyzing the situation