Posted on 02/09/2024 3:45:02 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has said that a constitutional ban on insurrectionists taking office was created for state appointments, not the presidency, yet this has not been raised by Trump's lawyer in his ballot ban challenge.
During oral arguments on Colorado's ban on Trump's inclusion on the state ballot, she told the former president's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, that she was surprised that the historical record was not a major pillar of his arguments for keeping Trump on the Colorado ballot.
Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, said that the historic record shows that the ban on insurrectionists under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was introduced to stop former Confederates from taking positions in state government and then using that to reestablish the Confederacy, and didn't seem to refer to the presidency.
Responding to Mitchell's arguments, Brown Jackson said: "I guess I'm a little surprised...because I thought that the history of the 14th Amendment actually provides the reason for why the presidency may not be included........
She also questioned Mitchell's definition of an insurrection.
"For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence," Mitchell said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
BTTT
What do we expect? She can’t even define what a woman is.
Another DEI appointment thanks to three brain dead WHITE seniors: Schumer, McConnell and JOE BRIBEM. OBAMS MUST HAVE PICKED HER
Nice excuse for your vote to allow Trump on ballot! Being a Lib you know that you need cover!
They use Confederate examples, but at the time, Trump was the sitting president of the USA.
There is no comparison here.
I was critical of Ketanji Brown Jackson yesterday, saying I thought she penciled her eyebrows in a bit too high.
It’s clear to me now... she looked surprised.
Name one person found guilty of insurrection in a “fair court” not the DC kangaroo courts.
Both sides attempted to drag Mitchell into re-arguing the initial kangaroo court decision of 'insurrection' that Judge Wallazz supposedly held in abeyance by a technicality of interpreting the word 'officer', but in reality she had merely teed up for the Colorado Supreme Court miscarriage of justice.
Mitchell actually cut through both Justice Barrett's and Justice Dread's obfuscations like a hot knife through cheap butter. Hell, Justice Dread was all too eager to move on once Mitchell had laid bare her actual intentions, which was to trap him into arguing the trial court's decision.
Ya'll need to wise up.
JUSTICE BARRETT: He had no due process right?MR. MITCHELL: We made that argument below. We did not make that in our briefs to this Court for several reasons. I mean, Your Honor's, I think, suggesting and this is correct that the proceedings below, to put it charitably, were highly irregular. JUSTICE BARRETT: Well, I wasn't suggesting...
MR. MITCHELL: The question seems to suggest that there might be due process issues. But we didn't develop that argument in this Court for several issues.
Winning on due process doesn't really do as much for our client as the other arguments that we've made because that would be a ruling specific to this particular proceeding in the State of Colorado and would leave the door open for Colorado to continue on remand to exclude him from the ballot.
JUSTICE JACKSON: Is there any evidence to suggest that the presidency was what they were focused on?
MR. MITCHELL: There is some evidence of that. There were people saying we don't want Jefferson Davis to be elected president, and there was also -- one of the drafts of Section 3 specifically mentioned the presidency and the vice presidency.
It wasn't the final enactment, but it does show that there was some concern by some people about Confederate insurrectionists ascending to the presidency. And we didn't want to make a law office history type argument where you just look at the historical evidence and pick the evidence that we like and interpret it tangentially because the other side can come back with us and throw this countervailing evidence back in our face.
So we wanted to focus more on the text of the Constitution because this was ultimately a compromise provision that was enacted in Section 3, and...
JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Let me ask you another question...
At various points in 2025 and 2026...I expect a thousand individuals throughout the 50 states...to be brought up on insurrection charges. Whoever is Trump’s AG...will make it a practice to demonstrate how far insurrection can go.
Before the 2028 election...I expect one of the ten top topics for the Democratic candidate to be newly defining or erasing the entire 1865 meaning of insurrection.
Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is surprised almost every days about things she had no idea existed, or by interpretations of everyday things that counter almost every one of her most deeply held beliefs.
Simultaneously both woke and largely ignorant. Let us hope she is not also adamantly stupid as well. You can teach the ignorant, but you cannot fix stupid.
Thanks for posting that illuminating “snippet” StAn. 👍
Here Mitchell schools Dread on the Constitutional process for removing a Bill of Attainder, which she is preciously unaware of lofl ... the whole debaunch dissolves in laughter as Kagan runs to Roberts for cover in an attempt to reserve time from Dread's dead-end questioning to revisit "the 'officer' stuff", in search of a 'gotcha' moment that never came.
JUSTICE JACKSON: So does it have something to do with the fact that the particular circumstance that you're talking about can change? Is that what you mean? I'm trying to understand ...MR. MITCHELL: Yeah.
JUSTICE JACKSON: The distinction between the provision in the Constitution that relates to disqualification on the basis of insurrection behavior ...
MR. MITCHELL: Mm-hmm.
JUSTICE JACKSON: And these other provisions that Justice Sotomayor points out. They all seem to me to be extant constitutional requirements. So you --but you're drawing a distinction.
MR. MITCHELL: Right. I'm drawing a distinction because some of them are categorical, such as...
JUSTICE JACKSON: What do you mean by "categorical"? Whether or not you are an insurrectionist is or is not categorical?
MR. MITCHELL: It is not categorical because Congress...
JUSTICE JACKSON: (rudely interrupting) Because?
MR. MITCHELL: Because Congress can lift the disability by a two-thirds vote. And there is...
JUSTICE JACKSON: But, but why does why does that change the initial determination of whether or not you fall into the category? I don't understand the fact that you can be excused from having been in the category -- why does that not make it a categorical determination?
MR. MITCHELL: Because we don't know whether President Trump will be excused before he's sworn in, if he wins the election, on January 20th, 2025. And a court that is saying that President Trump has to show now, today, that he would qualify under Section 3 is accelerating the deadline that the Constitution provides for him to obtain a waiver from Congress.
JUSTICE JACKSON: But that's by virtue of the "hold," right, "hold office." This is...
MR. MITCHELL: Correct. Yes.
JUSTICE JACKSON: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Section 3 bans him only from holding office. It does not...
JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. Can I ask you --I'm just --now that I have the floor...
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
JUSTICE JACKSON: Can I ask you to address your first argument, which is the office/officer point?
JUSTICE KAGAN: Could --could ...
JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, sorry.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah, why don't we...
JUSTICE KAGAN: Could we...
JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Is that okay if we do this and then we go to that?
JUSTICE JACKSON: Sure. Sure, sure, sure.
JUSTICE KAGAN: You know, but...
JUSTICE JACKSON: Go ahead.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Will there be an opportunity to do "officer" stuff, or should we...
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Absolutely. Absolutely.
(Laughter.)
Jackson is a TYPICAL WOMAN DEMOCRAT....RUDE!
I don’t believe any J6 defendant has been charged with insurrection.
The president is not “the government”. The president is the head of one branch of the government, and the branch that was supposed to be the weakest under our Constitutional system. So yes, a president could attempt to overthrow the government that he himself is a part of. For example, if a president tried to disband Congress or the Supreme Court by force or tried to remain in office by force, that would probably qualify. (I’m not saying that’s what Trump did, I’m just pointing out the error in your reasoning.)
I listened to that back and forth...I’m glad you transcribed it here. I couldn’t understand it all when listening.
Jackson was getting a bit boisterous at the beginning of that and I thought to myself, here we go...but she calmed down. She’s the very least qualified to be there and it shows.
I agree, except for the "through violence" part. I think the Dems are currently conducting an insurrection, just without the violence. A "cold insurrection", if I may...
It would be wonderful to go back to our system of the pres treated as the weakest. Unfortunately, our people now treat them as kings and protect them at all costs. Presidential power is very limited and controlled in our Constitution, as you well know, yet the parties always want and expand power for the executive.
It’s not enough that SCOTUS returns a 9-0 verdict against Colorado. Every CO lawyer and judge involved in this travesty must be sanctioned, disbarred and shamed.
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.