Posted on 02/05/2024 2:16:29 PM PST by NoLibZone
That’s ten minutes more than Trump got before they unilaterally kicked him off the ballot. And ten minutes more than Trump got when election fraud was brought before them in 2021.
Geller Report Mr. Snipe opines:
‘The real question is why the SCOTUS is hearing this case at all? Give her one minute. Why not tell this nut that the case has “No Standing” like Roberts did when election fraud was brought before them in 2021? Is Roberts going to rewrite the US Constitution on 14th like he did with Obamacare?
There are several immediate constitutional issues that even a squishy John Roberts and Amy Squishy Barrett should understand if they can read the 14th Amendment.
Prior constitutional scholars have argued that the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidents since he is a member of the executive branch and not as a public official or military member.
Trump has not been convicted of an insurrection under 14th Amendment Section 2. He was charged in second fake impeachment in 2021 and found not guilty.
The state elected courts, election boards, secretary of states, do not have jurisdiction over the 14th Amendment no matter what their state constitution states.
Even if Trump had been charged and exonerated of an insurrection by the US Senate during the second fake impeachment in 2021, under the 5th Amendment of double jeopardy he cannot be tried twice for same offense.
Even if Trump had been charged and convicted of an insurrection only Congress under 14th Amendment Section 5 can remove him from ballot using simple majority vote.
If Congress under 14th Amendment Section 5 removed him from ballot using simple majority vote, unlike an impeachment conviction he can still appeal his removal to the federal courts.
If Trump had been charged and convicted of an insurrection by the US Senate in 2021 by 2/3 vote during the second fake impeachment in 2021, he could not appeal the conviction and removal from the ballot.
So there-what’s all the fuss about?
Supreme Court Gives Colorado Secretary of State 10 Minutes to Argue Why Trump Should Be Blocked From Ballot The top court is weighing whether to rule in favor of or against a Colorado Supreme Court decision to bar Trump from the ballot on 14th amendment grounds.
By Tom Ozimek, February 2, 2024:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold—who called former President Donald Trump an “ineligible insurrectionist”—just 10 minutes at a hearing next week to argue before the court why she thinks he should be barred from the ballot.
Ms. Griswold, a Democrat and fierce Trump critic, has filed multiple briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, which is weighing whether to rule in favor of or against the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar President Trump from the ballot on 14th amendment grounds. In a Jan. 26 filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, Ms. Griswold asked for enlargement and division of time for oral arguments at a hearing next week so that she could have time to provide the court with an “important perspective” on Colorado’s election laws. Story continues below advertisement
The Supreme Court said in its decision that it would grant Ms. Griswold just 10 minutes to make her case for why, according to her subsequent Jan. 31 filing, President Trump supposedly engaged in an insurrection and so should be barred from appearing on Colorado’s presidential ballot.
Even though Ms. Griswold did not take a position on President Trump’s eligibility during a trial in district court, she’s revealed her anti-Trump bias repeatedly, including when she went on CNN to denounce the former president as a “danger to American democracy.”
But when, on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled to bar President Trump from the ballot based on the idea that he had “engaged in insurrection” by delivering a speech on Jan. 6, Ms. Griswold said the court “got it right.”
What could happen is a state could IGNORE a Supreme Court slap-down and keep Trump off the state’s presidential ballot in spite of the SCOTUS ruling they cannot do so.
How would that get resolved?
We have individual states NOW deliberately in open rebellion against SCOTUS rulings on several subjects, including gun control and discrimination in college admissions.
Nine Supreme Court justices cannot crush open defiance of their orders. They have no armed divisions of troops to enforce their orders especially when the current corrupt administration is cheering on this defiance.
Well how do you then prove it? Could one of those Confederates argue that the officer he's accused of being was NOT him?
All of those Confederates knew they were in the Confederacy and didn't dispute it at all.
It was a huge war with thousands of deaths and destroyed property over a great portion of the land, with Americans shooting, bombing, and shelling each other to death.
The war stands alone. The amendment addresses that single historic point.
Now a situation exists where some (who has authority?) can say he "committed" insurrection, but, importantly, unlike the Confederate officers of old, President Trump states he did no. such. thing.
The only thing that could, under the 14th amendment, make Trump guilty would be a declaration from Congress saying so.
There must be some sort of standard for what exactly an insurrection is. There is the Insurrection Act of 1807 which obviously predates the 14th Amendment. Lincoln apparently used the Insurrection Act on Apr 15th, 1861 to mobilize troops. I must have missed when the president declared an insurrection on Jan 6th, 2020.
And the Hamptons
Uh, no, that’s not correct. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
The whole wide world knows how the “wise Latina” is going to vote. Why not just mail it in. Has there ever been anyone more radical than her?
Yeah, I agree, but I didn’t know the time constraints. (Still bugs me, ha!)
So she’s hogging ten minutes that could be better spent.
Going to be a 9-0 decision in favor of Trump. I would not want to be the Colorado attorney defending the Colorado Supreme Court.
You are right, the justices have read and analyzed all the briefs and are completely familiar with the argument of both sides. However, oral argument consists mostly of questions from the court to the litigants. You never get more than a few words out before you are interrupted by a question. They come rapid-fire, one after the other. That’s really how you prepare best for oral argument, by anticipating the off-angle questions the court might ask and, preparing good answers that will lead back to your argument.
If they say impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeaners, doesn’t that make it a criminal proceeding?
How about this. One over reach point and they direct she be disbarred.
Except for the fact that Lincoln declared an Insurrection. No such status has ever been recognized or declared except by Democrats and the media.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” have a somewhat different definition than in criminal proceedings. Impeachment is not limited to indictable criminality, nor does Impeachment have to be initiated due to indictable criminality.
It’s a process undertaken by a political entity.
Thanks. Good points…
Ok Thanks
And how could he uprise against himself since he was President? This liberalism gone to the nth degree and has to be stopped.
Maybe they want the world to see what fool she is. If others think you are a fool, some people cant help but open their mouth to proof them right
Except for the fact that Lincoln declared an Insurrection.
With liberal logic, anything is possible.
I’m older now and my kids are Democrats because of their mom.
I almost want them to allow Trump to be kicked off the ballot and let’s expedite whatever is going to happen as the chasm deepens between government workers and those who pay their salaries in the private sector.
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.