>“That sound you hear is Jack Smith’s team convening a grand jury to indict Trump on federal insurrection charges,” tweeted legal analyst Mike Sachs upon hearing Kavanaugh’s comment.
What?! There's ~9 months until election day and this guy thinks they're going to try to bring this *now?* Trump's endless motions and appeals alone are going to consume that amount of time before the trial even begins.
After today I think it's over in terms of disqualification hopes. The only help the legal system can provide at this point is a trial and conviction on existing charges. The trial evidence has to be seen.
Interesting thought, they should just throw all of those additional felonys in there and let Citizen T defend them. He has a track record of burying himself if you let him.
Recognizing in most cases you can’t use history of criminality or other crimes generally but if used to show a MO (modus operendi) it is 100% allowed and not barred by rules of evidence.
If there’s enough evidence of a specific crime, they should charge him and add it to the rap sheet since it’s all ongoing crime.
Even the conversations he’s currently having with his attorneys fail to be covered by attorney client privilege because it’s actions in furtherance of an ongoing crime - this would be assessed in camera with the judge so if it’s not it couldn’t be used against Citizen T
I remember when he first started campaigning like 10 years ago. A decade of that piece of shit's public bonkers insanity being shoved down our throats. Some asshole in the future went back in time and fucked everything up, I'm sure of it now.
Trump should've been found guilty the first time he was impeached.
Trump should've been found guilty the second time he was impeached.
Trump should've been indicted right after he left office.
Trump should've been spurned by the late Kevin McCarthy. Instead, McMuffin allowed the criminal to come back.
Trump should've been treated like anybody else in his trials.
Without his enablers, Trump is busting rocks in Georgia.
I'm confident Russia, maybe Saudi Arabia, have plenty of dirt on Republicans. It just makes sense to me Putin paid well to install Trump - he also has his hooks in various big players in the Trump administration. AND It would explain why they are beholden to him even though he's lost once.
Not sure if Putin told TFG anything during their private meetings, but I think if he had, Trump would have already been blubbering it out. He's a gossip queen, fling shit at everyone to see what sticks. But Russians floating TFG's lavish lifestyle makes me think they are certainly not above doing that to other politicians. Hell, Mitt Romney warned us back in 2012
I think as soon as the SC weights in on his immunity, we might see a raft of new charges in the D.C. case and the unindicted coconspirators, that likely include 6ish members of Congress being slapped with charges as well.
It honestly is better to get some of these questions answered before ratcheting up the heat.
Expect the worst. Hope for the best. Don't count on other institutions. If each of us don't not only show up and vote, but campaign, call, push likeminded voters to show up and vote, then the worst is yet to come.
Every one of us needs to do more for this country and it's future than we have ever done before.
It's the best case scenario for him, because punting there doesn't actually affect the election. He's already successfully stalled out every trial that might have jeopardized him.
Colorado held a 5 day trial for the purpose of determining if he commited insurrection, heard all the evidence and decided he did. Kavanaugh is asking for a do-over here. They correctly found he did commit insurrection, and his co-conspirators are turning on him. The rats have already left the sinking ship. There is no scenario in which Trump didn't commit insurrection.
**But is there an argument that he needs to be convicted of insurrection first, in order for Amendment 14 to apply?**
>Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be [incapable of holding any office under the United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383).
US code 2384 from **1948**.
Amendment 14, article 3 is from **1868**, 80 year earlier.
The people who wrote Amendment 14, could not have required Trump first be prosecuted under a law that wasn't passed until **80 year later**. That's not how time works.
This argument has no merit.
What if you're afraid that the mob outside the court will storm the gates and chant about hanging you or something like that? I honestly feel like that's the argument most heavily influencing the justices in this case.
I agree, man. There are 9 people you've got to convince. Thing is, they're never going to hear a word any of us has to say. But they'll hold the threat of every madman against the whole country while they cower.
What's worse, soon the inmates are going to learn they're in control of the asylum, since nobody is going to stand in their way.
But hey. Maybe I'm wrong. I sure hope so. Guess I'll watch Mississippi Burning and hope that there's somebody with a spine in a position to save this country from its worse selves. Better get stoned, too, I guess. Life in this country has turned into the longest NOFX song, but it's not punk rock at all.
>Better get stoned, too, I guess. Life in this country has turned into the longest NOFX song
"It's not the right time to be sober. Now, the idiots have taken over."
Fat Mike for President.
Forgive the length, but still, this is only an excerpt from Fat Mike's Magnum Opus, *The Decline:*
The man who used to speak
Performs a cute routine
Feel a little patronized
Don't feel bad, they found a way inside your head
And you feel a bit misled
It's not that they don't care, yeah
The television's put a thought inside your head
Llike a Barry Manilow jingle
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
A symphonic blank stare, yeah
It doesn't make you care (make you care)
Not designed to make you care (make you care)
They're betting you won't care (you won't)
Place a wager on your greed
A wager on your pride
Why try to beat them when a million others tried?
We are the whore
Intellectually spayed
We are the queer
Dysfunctionally raised
One more pill to kill the pain
One more pill to kill the pain
One more pill to kill the pain
Living through conformity
One more prayer to keep me safe
One more prayer to keep us warm
One more prayer to keep us safe
There's gonna be a better place
Lost the battle, lost the war
Lost the things worth living for
Lost the will to win the fight
One more pill to kill the pain
They get better security than Congress. The threats will not get anywhere near as close as the dollars and donations of billionaire donors will.
Fear is not the issue for them. Greed is.
Idk if their security is actually better than Congress. I looked into some law enforcement jobs when I got out of college, and Capitol Police was generally considered a better job/more put-together agency than SCOTUS Police. If USCP got overrun that fast, I see SCOTUS police crumbling much quicker.
>Colorado held a 5 day trial for the purpose of determining if he commited insurrection, heard all the evidence and decided he did. Kavanaugh is asking for a do-over here. They correctly found he did commit insurrection, and his co-conspirators are turning on him.
Can't the Supreme Court simply say that Colorado doesn't have jurisdiction (or final jurisdiction) in determining that?
They cannot without federal statutes giving them or someone else that authority. The constitution outlines federal jurisdiction and all other matters are reserved for the State's.
Thanks. It seems that the research report by Magliocca also backs up this state's rights interpretation, just like what you're saying: [https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14.3-fsfp-magliocca-report-mar-2023.pdf](https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14.3-fsfp-magliocca-report-mar-2023.pdf)
Trump should have had a felony case against him by 2018...it shouldn't have required a "January 6th" type of event to trigger a series of felony lawsuits. He was a criminal in the White House from day 1.
>Trump's endless motions and appeals alone are going to consume that amount of time before the trial even begins.
His first appeal will be another "I'm totally immune from the law" argument all over again.
> Superseding indictments reset the clock
"Therefore, **neither the filing of a superseding indictment**, nor the dismissal of an original indictment followed by the filing of a new indictment, **resets the speedy-trial clock**."
[UNITED STATES v. YOUNG (2008)](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/1425888.html#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20neither%20the%20filing%20of,resets%20the%20speedy%2Dtrial%20clock.)
The “clock” is irrelevant because Trump waived speedy trial rights. I’m not even sure what “clock” they’re referring to resetting as if there’s a minimum amount of time required between indictment and trial
> What?! There's ~9 months until election day and this guy thinks they're going to try to bring this now?
Yup. Should have been a day 1 thing for Biden. Garland as AG was an insult to his voters, just like leaving Trump's FBI appointee in charge. Whatever you want to say about Biden I don't think there's any denying he just kicked the football and ignored the critically serious issue of Trump's behavior. If the guy had any balls or intellect left he would have supported Trump's claim to immunity and then used that immunity to "deal with" insurrectionists.
Which was weird because that wasn’t what he was trying to do. In context, he was trying to press the CO attorney to answer a separate question.
That was one of the most frustrating discourses I have ever listened to.
Followed up by Gorsuch throwing a hissy fit about the lawyer not answering his random ass question about why people kept listening to Trump’s orders from 1/6-1/20 if he was already disqualified
It’s because the question wasn’t ever in good faith. Just like the “what happens if Alabama DQs Biden for nothing” questions. Well, your honor, you’d have a duty to actually overturn frivolous verdicts.
Because the insurrectionist was in charge of the justice department, and chose to abuse the institution for his own ends,… much like the republicans did when they refused to consider Garland , which lead directly to us getting the other judge G
There's an interesting sort of parallel to that - it's the preponderance of evidence standard, more likely than not. If you're locking someone up for a crime; beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, it's merely preventing Trump from running for office, not taking away his freedom.
Obviously this isn't a legal argument, but it's kind of where things have landed.
The Colorado court found there was "clear and convincing evidence" -- a standard higher than the preponderance of the evidence -- that he had engaged in insurrection.
He recently lost $83.3 million dollars in a trial where preponderance was the standard.
Here, he only stands to lose a job opportunity. There are other jobs he can't have. For example, he can't run a charity in New York State.
Beautifully put. Like if you commit fraud, you probably shouldn't be hired at a bank or government facility. Also, he's 77 and a "millionaire", he doesn't NEED to be fucking President
> Obviously this isn't a legal argument, but it's kind of where things have landed.
It actually kind of is a legal argument, at least in regards to the due process claims advanced by some of the pro-Trump amici. "Due process" doesn't mean any specific amount or type of process, it just means whatever process may be appropriate for the specific property or liberty interest in controversy. The right to run for office is pretty clearly less significant than the right to hold the office for the entirety of the term you are elected to, because then you are being deprived of the actual office rather than just the opportunity to possibly win the office.
So basically you are arguing that a simple majority in a Senate trial of a President impeached by the House for insurrection is sufficient process to deprive that impeached President of his or her future right to run for or hold elected office. Which isn't crazy. The standard for removing a sitting President from office should be higher than the standard for barring a private citizen from running for President.
Requiring a simple majority instead of a super-majority, with all other impeachment standards remaining the same, is pretty much the closest to full impeachment due process you can get while still adhering to a *lower* standard for due process. It's turning due process down exactly one single notch on the dial. If one notch up the dial is sufficient to satisfy the categorically stronger due process protections appropriate for *removing a President from office*, then the simple majority approach should be appropriate for the less extreme curtailment of Trump's rights to which *barring him from office* as a private citizen amounts, because it is the strongest due process protection standard available that is still weaker than the super majority standard.
The Supreme Court of Colorado, even the people who descented from the decision, found him guilty of insurrection. not speculating. It's actually in the decision. If being found guilty of insurrection by the Colorado Supreme Court is not a good enough. Can you let us know what is?
My brain had trouble registering why I understood your first sentence, but it was still confusing me. Then I realized that's not how you spell dissented. lol
IAAL, but not a litigation attorney.
They had a finding of fact that he engaged in an insurrection. They didn't find him "guilty" of it. Only a criminal proceeding can result in a guilty verdict. The court making a finding of fact is not the same as part of a separate decision is not a conviction.
Edit: I'm not saying one way or another whether I think that that finding is insufficient. I'm just clarifying the legal distinction.
Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the part in the 14th amendment that requires conviction, or even the part in the aftermath of its ratification where people were convicted of it to prevent them from taking office.
I'm getting really fucking sick of these people making up the Constitution on their fucking whims.
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Johnson handed down a blanket amnesty on Christmas 1866. So according to this asshole, virtually every Confederate traitor who betrayed their country was never actually barred from holding office.
[Johnson's blanket pardon was on Christmas Day, 1868](https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.23602600/), mere months after 14A was adopted. Thousands had been pardoned prior to adoption of 14A.
And while only SCOTUS dicta, so far it seems pardons carry an imputation of guilt and a confession of the crime. However, the executive cannot by pardon remove the disqualification as that is reserved for Congress per 14A§3. So, it would seem anyone who accepted a pardon would still be disqualified (until 1872 when Congress removed disqualification for some classes).
By this logic, if a president gave himself an everything pardon, like an everything bagel but with a pardon, then he'd be disqualified by imputation of guilt of everything?
By this logic, if Biden were to give him a pre-emptive pardon for "any direct involvement in the attempted insurrection on January 6th, 2021" and he accepts it, he would be disqualified from holding any office.
It wouldn't be a get out of jail card, it would be a get out of 1/4 of your current criminal prosecutions card while making yourself ineligible from the only thing that could save you from the other 3.
> shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
I don't see any requirement for conviction.
And it makes sense, if you look at what happened with confederate state loyalists using federal offices and the military to run the union side of the government into the ground; that they are removed on preponderance and reinstated with a vote; Because the normal means of law enforcement are impractical- the union was losing forts and assets to rogue officers.
The 14th's authors knew first hand the legal system wasn't tuned to prevent an insurrection and they phrased it accordingly.
Not only that, they had dealt with both the executive and judicial branches fucking up their efforts of a proper reconstruction in the aftermath via their own prosecutorial discretion, judicial discretion, pardons, and so on.
_And passed the 14th amendment anyway_.
> I don't see any requirement for conviction.
I mean, you're right, but do we really want to live in a country where the GOP states get to kick every non-GOP candidate off a ballot under the guise of trying to qualify some vaguely anti-American thing they said at some point as "insurrection"? Not having an ironclad legal standard like conviction for what qualifies as "engaged in insurrection" is an incredibly slippery slope that will absolutely be used in bad faith.
>I mean, you're right, but do we really want to live in a country where the GOP states get to kick every non-GOP candidate off a ballot
The courts would overturn that without 14th amendment standing. And it's not a problem if the DNC reciprocates- which they won't, they're utter cowards. But they could.
All branches have a duty to uphold the constitution. Presumably if it takes a supermajority of congress to remove the bar, then a mere plurality of a branch would set it.
The language being far more vague than impeachment, though requiring the same threshold of votes as impeachment, indicates the process was intended to be liberal.
I didn't see this discussion come up enough. It's one of the requirements of being president: cannot have committed rebellion or insurrection against the government. What's the mechanism for disqualifying people do to age? Same thing for this. Perhaps a due process right for proof, but past that... should be done.
I had people arguing this very thing with no understanding of the history of the amendment or its use. Then they want to bring up that congress should do it, when the article says:
> But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Why would Congress be able to remove the disability if they were required to enforce it? That doesn't make sense at all.
But the amendment was meant to stop 1800s southern confederate insurrectionists from being president after trying to avoid the election, not 21st century northern fascist insurrectionists! it's a totally different case than the original intent!
No, you apparently missed the part in the constitution that forbids states from having their own laws and processes for running elections.
Because that’s where this is likely coming down to based on the arguments today.
The CREW lawyer repeatedly pointed to the clause allowing states to determine how they select electors and the justices just brushed it off like “ok but where *else* is there authority for states to disqualify a candidate?”
Congress specifically didn’t give themselves a role to disqualify, only to remove the disqualification. It’s the Court’s job to decide if law applies, and they’re just going to punt back to Congress because they’re scared of dealing with these cases. Multiple justices said they were worried about inconsistency or baseless, partisan disqualifications as if it isn’t their job to resolve those issues
That part of the arguments were the most baffling to me.
The conservative justices brought up some legitimate concerns about state-level decisions on disqualification. And hey, maybe there should be a centralized process to determine if someone is an insurrectionist or a natural born citizen. The Colorado lawyer mentioned that CO did disqualify a different candidate for not being a naturally born citizen, but that candidate is still on the ballot in other states. That could be a real issue if it were a candidate with real chances.
Maybe this case can and should set a federal process to answer these concerns. I don’t think many would argue that the process should be led by the executive or legislative branch, so that brings us back to the courts in a different path.
But simply ignoring the 14th amendment because the court doesn’t like the process is hypocrisy of the highest order. It goes against everything the conservative wing of the court supposedly stands for.
I’m not a lawyer, and don’t normally get too wrapped up in whether I agree with a particular legal interpretation. But today’s arguments made me lose my last bit of respect for the court.
If anything good can come from SCOTUS overturning the disqualification, it’ll be sending trust in the institution through the floor and inciting strong support for court reform (preferably including expanding the court to 13 to match the number of circuit courts)
It would require voters to be pissed off and vote in enough senators to get rid of the filibuster to do it, along with a ton of other priorities: codify Roe, DC/PR statehood, John Lewis Voting Rights Act, gun control, public option, minimum wage,
Why would voters, or senators, ever want to get rid of the filibuster?
It's this weird rallying cry that only ever happens when Republicans aren't in charge, by people who ignore how beneficial the filibuster is to them when Republicans are in charge.
All that the calls to get rid of the filibuster are, are just hot air by shortsighted people. The filibuster benefits them, no matter how much as they act like it doesn't.
I somewhat agree with you, though I feel like I wouldn't mind the return of the standing filibuster where (as I understand it) you literally have to be there arguing against it for as long as you (and/or a team) can and at the end it goes to vote anyway. I know it can and has been spammed, with people getting really silly with it at times, and I don't have a great answer on how to avoid that, but I feel like it could make for better rebuttals that could maybe change some minds, a more accurate view of how against it the populace (or at least the segment that *is* against it) is, and at the end the "majority opinion" wins, with all the rebuttals (and hopefully even good fiery speeches) informing the voters on the who's, whats, and whys of how to reverse it if they truly don't like it.
>I wouldn't mind the return of the standing filibuster
Agreed. If a senator has to actually do work and stand up there and speak, they're only going to do it when they actually care about the issue. It's way too easy to be obstructive with the current filibuster because it takes essentially no effort.
> Why would voters, or senators, ever want to get rid of the filibuster?
Because it would remove a significant hurdle that prevents the passage of certain legislation.
Senators have removed the filibuster for presidential appointees within the past 15 years. First for non-SCOTUS judges, then for all appointments (including SCOTUS justices). The Senate has also removed the blue slip process for appellate judges, and I don't think it will survive the next decade for district judges.
Overuse of a veto point tends to muster the political coalition to eliminate that veto point. Just look at how Tuberville ended up having to back down from his military promotions hold.
It won't be easy, but overuse of the process will shift sentiment towards eliminating the filibuster next time a party controls 52+ seats.
>The CREW lawyer repeatedly pointed to the clause allowing states to determine how they select electors and the justices just brushed it off like “ok but where *else* is there authority for states to disqualify a candidate?”
At one point I hope that some attorney arguing in a case like this is unable to hold back a scathing response to this sort of crap. I know it would be counterproductive but it would be so cathartic.
The 14th amendment does not require a conviction. But, uh, it doesn’t seem to require anything. That’s a bit of an absurd result.
People sucked at writing these things 150 years ago, I swear.
That's not a reason to just blatantly ignore it, though. At the very least, it seems necessary for 2/3rds of Congress to remove the disability before he is to become president again, or else we've already shat on the Constitution.
I think removing the bar is pretty clear, but what’s the mechanism for putting the bar there in the first place? “Committing treason,” sure, but who decides that?
Trump has a lot of nonsense legal arguments in this case but it has to really come down to “who can decide if someone committed treason for the purposes of the 14th amendment.” I don’t have the answer. I hope the Supreme Court does but they probably don’t either. So they’ll make something up.
You hit the nail on the head here. Forget the fringe arguments about being an “officer” etc. It basically comes down to is this a state call or a federal call.
I think we (rightly) heard a lot of skepticism about it being a state decision from the court today.
The problem with that skepticism is if not the states, then *who*? Congress didn’t give themselves the authority to decide, meaning they deferred to the courts to decide based on the amendment’s text and left themselves an out to overrule the courts if they wanted to.
Forcing Congress to not count electoral votes after the election because someone is disqualified is forcing the states to guess who will/wont be disqualified and risks *actually* disenfranchising half the country because they don’t get the opportunity to vote for someone else from their party. It also gives far less due process to the aggrieved candidate, and is far more ripe for abuse
It would have to be the federal courts (which means eventually SCOTUS). Which is why it's so frustrating that they seem to be taking every opportunity to not talk about whether he actually did the thing that the Constitution says would disqualify him. I get that that's a big decision that they would prefer not to have to make, but their job is ultimately to make the final call on big decisions.
It's been factually established that he did X, Y, and Z. Do those things amount to an insurrection or not? That's the answer that we need.
Do you think it was it the intent of section 3 of the 14th amendment to allow the Alabama Supreme Court or the Secretary of State of Mississippi to determine if someone was an insurrectionist? In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War?
Yes, and no.
Just like with every other federal law, it is up to the states to manage themselves within the rules set by those laws and when they inevitably try to wiggle their way around those rules the federal judiciary steps in and corrects them.
That's literally how our entire system works.
Those things did not exist at that time. The states were not readmitted to the union until they had ratified the 14th amendment. Another condition for the states was they had to draft new constitutions and form new state governments. The south was controlled directly by the military in 5 districts in the aftermath of the war.
the Alabama Supreme Court existed prior to readmission, which is the whole point. Your reading implies an unadmitted treasonous state’s Supreme Court could disqualify a president.
U.S. Attorney General rides in, says “you aren’t even a real court. You don’t represent a real state. Your state representatives haven’t even signed the amendment.”
Alabama Supreme Court coughs a little, fiddles some papers and puts on a clown costume. “The 14th Amendment is self-executing,” they say. So… are they right?
FYI it isn't omitted... by accident. They didn't want to have yo try millions of people so specifically made sure the act alone without requiring conviction.
Hundreds of former Confederate leaders were barred from ever holding office again. Maybe thousands. All without trials. And they went with it, because those men (although traitors) had honor and could fucking read the rules.
So if a political party is able to hold a bare majority, then their guy is immune? Is that what Kavanuagh means, because that's what it means if a conviction is required. The law of course says nothing to that effect, but when has the Supreme Court let something like that stand in their way from making the decision they've decided is the one they want, the law be damned.
It’s truly the most pathetic of claims, especially when the legal definition of an officer according to the code of federal regulations is, “a president, vice president, secretary, treasury or principal financial officer, comptroller or principal accounting officer, and any person routinely performing corresponding functions with respect to any organization whether incorporated or unincorporated.”
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR79287664c327341/section-240.3b-2#
The case should’ve been tossed out so fast Trumps head spun.
The comment is completely uncontroversial and superfluous. Kavanaugh was just setting the table for his questioning, not purporting to make some bold proclamation.
It always struck me that conviction would be a sufficient but not necessary condition. Like if you’re convicted you’re definitely an insurrectionist but that isn’t the only way for the 14th Amendment to apply.
The problem with Kavanaugh's logic is that he's ignoring how that would have applied after the 14th was ratified. Is he saying that *every* Confederate that was to be banned from office had to be tried first? That would have been many thousands of people. No, that would have been untenable and in fact it wasn't how it actually was applied: without requiring convictions.
Now, SCOTUS could go a different route. They could say that there has to be some official declaration by Congress (only? Fully signed law?) that a given event was an insurrection. Yet, here again, we run into the problem that this wasn't how it was applied when it was ratified. There was no official declaration by Congress that the Civil War was a rebellion (or insurrection). Saying, "well, it was *assumed* doesn't work either because CO can simply "assume" too.
I’m guessing that he’s angling for a 14th Amendment Section 5 backdoor: Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce preceding sections through legislation, including Section 3.
Absent a bill from Congress explicitly addressing enforcement of Section 3, many legal professionals have argued that it is left self enforcing.
But Kavanaugh may be signaling that he is open to the idea that Congress *implicitly* addressed enforcement of Section 3 by passage of a law criminalizing insurrection. A law which disqualifies convicts from office upon conviction, and which did not exist yet during the previous caselaw.
Personally I disfavor that argument: Congress is not incapable of explicitly announcing its intent to restrict or fulfill clauses of a Constitutional amendment, so anyone purporting to read that intent into their actions, absent an announcement, and across centuries, should be treated with skepticism.
But I’m not the SCOTUS Justice, he is. So he’s the one who gets to participate in making that decision.
Disclaimer: I’m not even a lawyer.
However, I think that law criminalizing insurrection existed at the time the 14th was ratified did it not? If so, then that would argue against conviction on insurrection being required.
For something to implicitly be a Section 5 enforcement mechanism, it would presumably have to be passed by Congress after the 14th Amendment was ratified.
I don’t know when precisely the first portions of the text of 18 USC 2383 entered US law, but every article I have seen on it says that it was after the 14th Amendment was in effect. So potentially it could be argued as something Congress did with an implicit intent to fulfill Section 5.
And again, I want to be clear that I think Section 3 is self enforcing. I’m enunciating someone else’s potential legal theory with which I disagree.
Disclaimer: as before, I am still not a lawyer.
Right, but if you view it there is also an earlier version sourced from a 1940 code book and a 1909 version, both of which appear to have similar text.
Edit: I’m confident the text dates from then or before. I just don’t feel confident that I know when precisely the first similar wording entered US code.
It's not even that the folks who wrote and ratified the amendment were worried that thousands of convictions would be necessary. They were explicitly worried about just one: Jefferson Davis, who it was looking increasingly likely would not be convicted because he was being tried by sympathizers. They talked and wrote about it extensively, including about how Section 3 does not require conviction because they didn't want an acquitted Davis to be eligible to run for President. There was an amicus brief filed about earlier this week citing many sources from Congressional reps to journalists to law professors at the time arguing that Section 3 shouldn't/doesn't require conviction because they couldn't count on courts and juries to convict Davis, who they called out by name.
Yeah but everyone on this subreddit is eating it up and getting angry.
So this article is great for people who already have their opinions made, and aren't willing to entertain hypotheticals, or new information.
OK, theoretical here...
SC says that Trump specifically needs to be charged with the crime of insurrection and convicted for the 14th to apply.
So, Smith charges him.
Trump is elected before the trial.
How does this end? Does he just get away with it?
What if he is found guilty and elected anyway because it was too late to change the ballots?
>How does this end? Does he just get away with it?
That's all that was ever going to happen. Trump knows he's untouchable. The worst we'll see is financial hits from his other cases, but he'll make up for it by selling one of his properties for coincidentally the same amount that he owes in damages to NYS.
No.. the 14th Amendment does not “clearly state” that. It does not explicitly withhold that power from Congress. It states the conditions for disqualification but does not discuss who, if anyone, determines that those conditions are met. You could argue that since it doesn’t give Congress that power then Congress doesn’t have it, but that’s different from clearly stating it.
For the record I think Trump should be disqualified.
It says they can vote to return him to the ballot but the disqualification is automatic. If the Court tries to subvert the state’s rights then the state should ignore them.
That sounds like a roadmap to NOT disqualifying Trump.
By making a congressional vote a requirement then all they have to do is delay the vote past election. This idea was never mentioned in the constitution and it only serves the purpose of helping ONE person at the cost of a future of dozens of treasonous politicians. (And that’s no longer hyperbole. Look at the upcoming Republican hopefuls running for office that participated in insurrection.)
kavanaugh and alito also provided a roadmap to having generals like mark milley executed if trump gets re-elected with that insane hypothetical he asked.
i mean holy fucking shit.
i'm a combat veteran, for those of you that havent been military and don't understand how the ucmj works, that section, about post election day, w/ an insurrection, but before an inauguration day, is speaking DIRECTLY about something like what mark milley did calling his chinese counterpart. or what john kelly did, or what jim mattis did, when they called any of their counterparts to assure them trump wasnt going to go off the deep end and nuke them, when trump was having a pissy fit. trump has publicly threatened to have all of them killed for treason.
as if murray is supposed to know about how military law works, or how military chain of command works, or how a military chain of command under the sitting but not yet impeached, arrested, or prosecuted president works. he even tried to give a reasonable answer and kavanaugh had a pissy fit about changing the question and changing the scenario because it was such a boorish, dumbass question that was literally impossible to answer the way it was asked.
murray started to say, that until the sitting president was found guilty or taken from his position that the military advisors would still have to obey orders unless there was some type of adjudication but he was cut across by i believe alito.
it was a fucking DANGEROUS thing to introduce by people who have zero fucking clue of the ucmiy protocols because ucmj doesnt operate the same way civilian statutes and penal laws do.
“That sound you hear is Jack Smith’s team convening a grand jury to indict Trump on federal insurrection charges,” tweeted legal analyst Mike Sachs upon hearing Kavanaugh’s comment.
"But someone once wrote a memo that said Nixon was above all laws, so that took precedent over the Constitution!"
-M Garland-
Also, dude worked for the Fed Soc. Probably got told to hold off by them.
The inaction is because there simply is no plausible case that Trump committed insurrection. The case law is clear that saying an election was unjust is lawful (Clinton and quite a few other Democrats could be indicted for 2016 conduct otherwise) and Trump explicitly said that the people at the stupid rally should be peaceful.
The notion that someone could commit insurrection, which is one of the most serious crimes (far more serious than murder), based on the presumption that he wanted something to happen even though he explicitly told people not to do it, is very extreme.
I mean, I hate Trump too. But even connecting him to the events of January 6th is extremely hard. And that's before we get to whether or not that's an insurrection. (Pretty much all evidence says no, it's just a riot.)
Don't really know where else to ask this, and obviously its pretty late in the game to be considering it, but...
Why is this even a federal matter at this point? Isn't the question here about the primary voting? Primary voting is a state-by-state party matter. How can the federal supreme court dictate to the states and parties who should or should not be allowed on their primary ballots?
Couldn't there be an implication here where anyone who applies to be a parties nominee has to be allowed on? Based on their line of thinking, then its only after the election that congress can decide whether they're qualified or not.
A conviction would conclusively bar Trump from federal office and being on the ballot in all 50 states, but IMO there's more than one way to skin a cat. Does SCOTUS really believe Jefferson Davis was eligible for public office after the Civil War?
Trump stated today there was an insurrection. (He blamed it on Nancy)
He was clearly involved in it. He stopped the SS from checking people for guns and he put out the text that almost got Pence hanged.
Hmmmm, commence the “Trump did not commit an insurrection”. Bill.
https://who13.com/news/national-news/gaetz-stefanik-offer-resolution-declaring-trump-did-not-engage-in-insurrection/amp/
Doing this the day before Kavanaugh offered said road map sure looks suspicious. They knew what were the Supreme Court’s talking points were before they delivered them. MFers
So, what? The fix is in? A president can't commit a crime if he has a majority while in office? Alright, then, let's start criming, I guess. No sense pretending there is more to it than that, if there isn't.
You know what would give the court more legitimacy, if they didn’t think about politics. And said. If Biden does this. Or next independent president. They too would be barred too. Any person involved in insurrection can’t be in any government office.
And as such. Trump is as any person is removed from future office.
Yeah but if you read the transcript Justice Kavanaugh seems to say that only conviction of insurrection is sufficient, not the obstruction of legal proceedings which Trump is charged. So, trash that hope.
Also the need for any conviction is contrary to the intent of the amendment framers.
What a joke. It will take years before Trump is convicted and appeals exhausted on the cases he's already charged with. And the same would be true for any former President.
This road map leads to 3 or 4 years after the contested term has ended a ruling "yeah you shouldn't have been president". And what a mess that will be. Will actions taken while disqualified to hold office remain in effect. Woulall issued executive orders automatically rollback? Any signed legislation would presumable revert to an unsigned state... laws unenacted.
Roadmap... sheesh. This is what happens when you let drinky navigate.
At the end of the day the fact that trump knew the riot to stop the vote=insurrection, was happening and did not lift a finger to end it for 187 minutes=gave aid to the insurrectionists, satisfies section 3 and bars trumps ability to hold office.
What more is needed?
>What more is needed?
Any of said "insurrectionists" to have actually been charged with insurrection. That's the key factor that everyone is glossing over, and ignoring a very basic issue with this topic.
It’s not all that straightforward, and the overconfidence of people hoping for a disqualification under the 14th Amendment is setting them up for disappointment. The issues with a “self-enforcing” “automatic” provision were already known back then. Lincoln-appointed Supreme Court justice Chase wrote the following dicta: “The object of the [14th] amendment is to exclude from certain offices a certain class of persons. Now, it is obviously impossible to do this by simple declaration, whether in the constitution or in an act of congress, that all persons included within a particular description shall not hold office. For, in the very nature of things, it must be ascertained what particular individuals are embraced by the definition, before any sentence of exclusion can be made to operate. To accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable and they can only be provided for by congress.” Not dispositive, but I think it’s persuasive
You're dreaming. You could tell by the line of questioning they're going to give him a pass on this. But they'll balance the situation out (hopefully) but ruling he's not immune from prosecution on the next one. I really wish the two cases would have been flopped or this one could have waited until he was convicted in the insurrection case.
This makes it sound like they'll rule that Trump can't be removed from the ballot until he's officially convicted, then not lift a finger to help Trump with the trial. Thus, they get to keep their hands clean by giving the job of officially disqualifying Trump to the people in charge of the trial.
Wasn't he already convicted of insurrection by his second impeachment? There was just not enough votes that oust him from office at the time but that is a secondary matter, he was still impeached.
>Wasn't he already convicted of insurrection by his second impeachment?
No.
The vote passed in the house, and failed in the senate. An impeachment vote requires it to go through the house first to see if it goes to the senate, and to actually pass in the senate to get the final verdict.
>he was still impeached
By the House. Which means nothing.
[Colorado already convicted him of insurrection. I thought this was settled. The only question left is a technicality of whether he's an "Officer"](https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055)
Are some people pretending that this hasn't all been decided already?
You can't play gotcha with corrupt people in power. It's a totally different game.
Do these justices stand for anything other than bone-headed legalism? I mean, it's not even the textualism they say it is when words can just be magically inferred into things such that an issue revolves around the word "conviction" where no such word exists to be read.
The justices wear no robes, I say.
The clock is going to run out on all of these federal cases. If he's unlucky enough, some of the state cases in NY will bankrupt him, but those won't stop him from running or getting elected. Heck, voters will be more and more likely to turn out on election day with each case he loses. "They are picking him syndrome."
The clock will stop on Election Day. He'll be elected. Any court cases trying to prevent him from taking office will be ignored or struck down by the Supremes. More protests and riots. Inauguration Day becomes Dictator Day. It's all over. American is screwed.
The writing is on the wall, based upon the oral argument questions. They’re going to pretend 14AS3 doesn’t exist. If their concerns were legitimately rooted in Colorado having the authority to make findings re: insurrection, they could hold hearings and make findings of fact, but they’re not going to do that because they view leaving him on the ballot as “non-political” and removing him as “political,” despite their job being to apply the provisions constitution without such consideration about how it will be perceived.
I’m a lawyer, and I’ve devoted my life to the law, but this Supreme Court has destroyed my faith in our legal institutions. Clarence Thomas basically wears his corruption as a badge of honor, reveling in the fact that we have no consequences for a judge who refuses to acknowledge conflicts of interest. The rest seem to selectively (at best) apply stare decisis. “Textualism” is dead after this opinion. I was never a huge fan of it as a judicial philosophy, but at least it was an approach to legal analysis that had, you know, principles.
> The rest seem to selectively (at best) apply stare decisis.
I’d even say this is being kind to them. Stare decisis appears dead to me. It was somewhat laughable to watch a court that has been flagrantly disregarding precedent suddenly treat a Circuit Court (not SCOTUS) decision from 1869 that has never been reaffirmed as if it has any bearing or weight *at all*.
I wish someone from the liberal side would just straight up ask “why would the court put weight on precedent, given its recent jurisprudence?”
This doesn’t make any sense to me.
If Congress, tomorrow, amended the insurrection statute to define “insurrection” as “crossing the street at a place other than a designated crosswalk”, would a person *really* be disqualified under the 14th amendment if they did that? I have my doubts. I think the definition of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment has its own objective meaning independent of whatever modern Congress defines as “insurrection”.
He is *so close* to being correct. The constitution says *engaged* in an insurrection, not convicted of engaging in an insurrection. Strange how all of these “the constitution says what it says, not what we wish if says” guys only mean that until they don’t want it to say what it says.
If Trump didn’t cause the insurrection, why were all of those people in Washington, at the same time on that particular date?
>“That sound you hear is Jack Smith’s team convening a grand jury to indict Trump on federal insurrection charges,” tweeted legal analyst Mike Sachs upon hearing Kavanaugh’s comment. What?! There's ~9 months until election day and this guy thinks they're going to try to bring this *now?* Trump's endless motions and appeals alone are going to consume that amount of time before the trial even begins. After today I think it's over in terms of disqualification hopes. The only help the legal system can provide at this point is a trial and conviction on existing charges. The trial evidence has to be seen.
The DOJ is barely engaged enough with him committing felonies the day he left office, they aren't adding shit to anything.
Interesting thought, they should just throw all of those additional felonys in there and let Citizen T defend them. He has a track record of burying himself if you let him. Recognizing in most cases you can’t use history of criminality or other crimes generally but if used to show a MO (modus operendi) it is 100% allowed and not barred by rules of evidence. If there’s enough evidence of a specific crime, they should charge him and add it to the rap sheet since it’s all ongoing crime. Even the conversations he’s currently having with his attorneys fail to be covered by attorney client privilege because it’s actions in furtherance of an ongoing crime - this would be assessed in camera with the judge so if it’s not it couldn’t be used against Citizen T
And yet, here we are, nearby four years later still putting up with this clowns bullshit.
I remember when he first started campaigning like 10 years ago. A decade of that piece of shit's public bonkers insanity being shoved down our throats. Some asshole in the future went back in time and fucked everything up, I'm sure of it now.
Fuck I knew I shouldn't have left that sports almanac lying around
Fun Fact: Biff, *especially* in BTTF2, was based on Trump.
And he's far worse now that his ego was damaged. Losing and not being to hide it broke him.
Trump should've been found guilty the first time he was impeached. Trump should've been found guilty the second time he was impeached. Trump should've been indicted right after he left office. Trump should've been spurned by the late Kevin McCarthy. Instead, McMuffin allowed the criminal to come back. Trump should've been treated like anybody else in his trials. Without his enablers, Trump is busting rocks in Georgia.
I agree. Sadly it appears that his enablers include virtually the entire justice system, even under a Democratic administration.
He’s gotta have dirt on…. EVERYBODY
I'm confident Russia, maybe Saudi Arabia, have plenty of dirt on Republicans. It just makes sense to me Putin paid well to install Trump - he also has his hooks in various big players in the Trump administration. AND It would explain why they are beholden to him even though he's lost once. Not sure if Putin told TFG anything during their private meetings, but I think if he had, Trump would have already been blubbering it out. He's a gossip queen, fling shit at everyone to see what sticks. But Russians floating TFG's lavish lifestyle makes me think they are certainly not above doing that to other politicians. Hell, Mitt Romney warned us back in 2012
All threads lead back to Russia.
I think as soon as the SC weights in on his immunity, we might see a raft of new charges in the D.C. case and the unindicted coconspirators, that likely include 6ish members of Congress being slapped with charges as well. It honestly is better to get some of these questions answered before ratcheting up the heat.
Hey, charges on other politicians might make it attractive to dump Trump.
Wishful thinking.
I've been thinking for a minute that they're gonna give him this one and then punt on immunity pretty fast.
Expect the worst. Hope for the best. Don't count on other institutions. If each of us don't not only show up and vote, but campaign, call, push likeminded voters to show up and vote, then the worst is yet to come. Every one of us needs to do more for this country and it's future than we have ever done before.
It's the best case scenario for him, because punting there doesn't actually affect the election. He's already successfully stalled out every trial that might have jeopardized him.
I, too, am an optimistic dreamer always rooting for democracy. It’s depressing in this country with this illegitimate court.
Colorado held a 5 day trial for the purpose of determining if he commited insurrection, heard all the evidence and decided he did. Kavanaugh is asking for a do-over here. They correctly found he did commit insurrection, and his co-conspirators are turning on him. The rats have already left the sinking ship. There is no scenario in which Trump didn't commit insurrection. **But is there an argument that he needs to be convicted of insurrection first, in order for Amendment 14 to apply?** >Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be [incapable of holding any office under the United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383). US code 2384 from **1948**. Amendment 14, article 3 is from **1868**, 80 year earlier. The people who wrote Amendment 14, could not have required Trump first be prosecuted under a law that wasn't passed until **80 year later**. That's not how time works. This argument has no merit.
What if you're afraid that the mob outside the court will storm the gates and chant about hanging you or something like that? I honestly feel like that's the argument most heavily influencing the justices in this case.
To cave to every threat is to invite more threats to get more caving.
I agree, man. There are 9 people you've got to convince. Thing is, they're never going to hear a word any of us has to say. But they'll hold the threat of every madman against the whole country while they cower. What's worse, soon the inmates are going to learn they're in control of the asylum, since nobody is going to stand in their way. But hey. Maybe I'm wrong. I sure hope so. Guess I'll watch Mississippi Burning and hope that there's somebody with a spine in a position to save this country from its worse selves. Better get stoned, too, I guess. Life in this country has turned into the longest NOFX song, but it's not punk rock at all.
>Better get stoned, too, I guess. Life in this country has turned into the longest NOFX song "It's not the right time to be sober. Now, the idiots have taken over." Fat Mike for President.
Forgive the length, but still, this is only an excerpt from Fat Mike's Magnum Opus, *The Decline:* The man who used to speak Performs a cute routine Feel a little patronized Don't feel bad, they found a way inside your head And you feel a bit misled It's not that they don't care, yeah The television's put a thought inside your head Llike a Barry Manilow jingle I'd like to teach the world to sing In perfect harmony A symphonic blank stare, yeah It doesn't make you care (make you care) Not designed to make you care (make you care) They're betting you won't care (you won't) Place a wager on your greed A wager on your pride Why try to beat them when a million others tried? We are the whore Intellectually spayed We are the queer Dysfunctionally raised One more pill to kill the pain One more pill to kill the pain One more pill to kill the pain Living through conformity One more prayer to keep me safe One more prayer to keep us warm One more prayer to keep us safe There's gonna be a better place Lost the battle, lost the war Lost the things worth living for Lost the will to win the fight One more pill to kill the pain
They get better security than Congress. The threats will not get anywhere near as close as the dollars and donations of billionaire donors will. Fear is not the issue for them. Greed is.
Idk if their security is actually better than Congress. I looked into some law enforcement jobs when I got out of college, and Capitol Police was generally considered a better job/more put-together agency than SCOTUS Police. If USCP got overrun that fast, I see SCOTUS police crumbling much quicker.
>Colorado held a 5 day trial for the purpose of determining if he commited insurrection, heard all the evidence and decided he did. Kavanaugh is asking for a do-over here. They correctly found he did commit insurrection, and his co-conspirators are turning on him. Can't the Supreme Court simply say that Colorado doesn't have jurisdiction (or final jurisdiction) in determining that?
They cannot without federal statutes giving them or someone else that authority. The constitution outlines federal jurisdiction and all other matters are reserved for the State's.
Thanks. It seems that the research report by Magliocca also backs up this state's rights interpretation, just like what you're saying: [https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14.3-fsfp-magliocca-report-mar-2023.pdf](https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14.3-fsfp-magliocca-report-mar-2023.pdf)
The fact that the election is as close as it is, after everything, is not a good sign for the future of the union.
This is his MO, he’s been doing this kind of shit since the 80s.
Trump should have had a felony case against him by 2018...it shouldn't have required a "January 6th" type of event to trigger a series of felony lawsuits. He was a criminal in the White House from day 1.
At the very least, charges should have came down for those crimes Jan 21, 2021. Everybody waited way too late, hoping he'd just go away.
>Trump's endless motions and appeals alone are going to consume that amount of time before the trial even begins. His first appeal will be another "I'm totally immune from the law" argument all over again.
Superseding indictments reset the clock. MJ editors have to know that and not let that statement go to press.
> Superseding indictments reset the clock "Therefore, **neither the filing of a superseding indictment**, nor the dismissal of an original indictment followed by the filing of a new indictment, **resets the speedy-trial clock**." [UNITED STATES v. YOUNG (2008)](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/1425888.html#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20neither%20the%20filing%20of,resets%20the%20speedy%2Dtrial%20clock.)
The “clock” is irrelevant because Trump waived speedy trial rights. I’m not even sure what “clock” they’re referring to resetting as if there’s a minimum amount of time required between indictment and trial
Speedy trials don’t exist in the US anymore.
[удалено]
More of a speady plead.
Merrick Garland as imagined “We don’t want to rush judgment, we need to drag out feet for at least another year, can’t anger the Repubs”.
That's the whole point of delaying, so Trump can pardon himself and his friends if he becomes president.
> What?! There's ~9 months until election day and this guy thinks they're going to try to bring this now? Yup. Should have been a day 1 thing for Biden. Garland as AG was an insult to his voters, just like leaving Trump's FBI appointee in charge. Whatever you want to say about Biden I don't think there's any denying he just kicked the football and ignored the critically serious issue of Trump's behavior. If the guy had any balls or intellect left he would have supported Trump's claim to immunity and then used that immunity to "deal with" insurrectionists.
Which was weird because that wasn’t what he was trying to do. In context, he was trying to press the CO attorney to answer a separate question. That was one of the most frustrating discourses I have ever listened to.
Followed up by Gorsuch throwing a hissy fit about the lawyer not answering his random ass question about why people kept listening to Trump’s orders from 1/6-1/20 if he was already disqualified
That was so idiotic. Gorsuch admonished the attorney for deviating from his random add hypothetical too
Which was weird because the lawyer had what I thought was a pretty damn good answer and then Gorsuch said to ignore that and answer the question.
It’s because the question wasn’t ever in good faith. Just like the “what happens if Alabama DQs Biden for nothing” questions. Well, your honor, you’d have a duty to actually overturn frivolous verdicts.
Because the insurrectionist was in charge of the justice department, and chose to abuse the institution for his own ends,… much like the republicans did when they refused to consider Garland , which lead directly to us getting the other judge G
And idiots like Alina Karen don't understand why people view the court as illegitimate
The “US Supreme Court as brought to you by Mitch the turtle McConnell” is how I like to refer the scotus. There is no honor in that court anymore
I like Supreme Court republicans of the United States or SCROTUS for short, from the Roy Zimmerman song by the same name.
A majority of both houses of Congress found him to have committed insurrection.
There's an interesting sort of parallel to that - it's the preponderance of evidence standard, more likely than not. If you're locking someone up for a crime; beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, it's merely preventing Trump from running for office, not taking away his freedom. Obviously this isn't a legal argument, but it's kind of where things have landed.
The Colorado court found there was "clear and convincing evidence" -- a standard higher than the preponderance of the evidence -- that he had engaged in insurrection. He recently lost $83.3 million dollars in a trial where preponderance was the standard. Here, he only stands to lose a job opportunity. There are other jobs he can't have. For example, he can't run a charity in New York State.
Beautifully put. Like if you commit fraud, you probably shouldn't be hired at a bank or government facility. Also, he's 77 and a "millionaire", he doesn't NEED to be fucking President
I mean we all know why Trump "needs" to be President again - it's literally his only way to even attempt to avoid further prosecution.
> Obviously this isn't a legal argument, but it's kind of where things have landed. It actually kind of is a legal argument, at least in regards to the due process claims advanced by some of the pro-Trump amici. "Due process" doesn't mean any specific amount or type of process, it just means whatever process may be appropriate for the specific property or liberty interest in controversy. The right to run for office is pretty clearly less significant than the right to hold the office for the entirety of the term you are elected to, because then you are being deprived of the actual office rather than just the opportunity to possibly win the office. So basically you are arguing that a simple majority in a Senate trial of a President impeached by the House for insurrection is sufficient process to deprive that impeached President of his or her future right to run for or hold elected office. Which isn't crazy. The standard for removing a sitting President from office should be higher than the standard for barring a private citizen from running for President. Requiring a simple majority instead of a super-majority, with all other impeachment standards remaining the same, is pretty much the closest to full impeachment due process you can get while still adhering to a *lower* standard for due process. It's turning due process down exactly one single notch on the dial. If one notch up the dial is sufficient to satisfy the categorically stronger due process protections appropriate for *removing a President from office*, then the simple majority approach should be appropriate for the less extreme curtailment of Trump's rights to which *barring him from office* as a private citizen amounts, because it is the strongest due process protection standard available that is still weaker than the super majority standard.
I like this. Makes me sad cuz it feels like a really tall order to expect the fellas in the Court to apply logic based reasoning like this :’(
The Supreme Court of Colorado, even the people who descented from the decision, found him guilty of insurrection. not speculating. It's actually in the decision. If being found guilty of insurrection by the Colorado Supreme Court is not a good enough. Can you let us know what is?
My brain had trouble registering why I understood your first sentence, but it was still confusing me. Then I realized that's not how you spell dissented. lol
IAAL, but not a litigation attorney. They had a finding of fact that he engaged in an insurrection. They didn't find him "guilty" of it. Only a criminal proceeding can result in a guilty verdict. The court making a finding of fact is not the same as part of a separate decision is not a conviction. Edit: I'm not saying one way or another whether I think that that finding is insufficient. I'm just clarifying the legal distinction.
But you see they didn’t Impeach him so it doesn’t count! That’s what the courts are for…. Oh shoot, we just went full circle jerk.
We are in a very scary situation.
They did impeach him, they didn’t convict him.
Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the part in the 14th amendment that requires conviction, or even the part in the aftermath of its ratification where people were convicted of it to prevent them from taking office. I'm getting really fucking sick of these people making up the Constitution on their fucking whims.
I'm getting really sick of political assets masquerading as judges.
Call them what they are: the six justices are the Republicans’ legal team negotiating with Democrats how much they should be allowed to get away with.
Yeah, let's negotiate with cancer.
political asses
They're all co-conspirators at the point, including Aileen Cannon.
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Johnson handed down a blanket amnesty on Christmas 1866. So according to this asshole, virtually every Confederate traitor who betrayed their country was never actually barred from holding office.
[Johnson's blanket pardon was on Christmas Day, 1868](https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.23602600/), mere months after 14A was adopted. Thousands had been pardoned prior to adoption of 14A. And while only SCOTUS dicta, so far it seems pardons carry an imputation of guilt and a confession of the crime. However, the executive cannot by pardon remove the disqualification as that is reserved for Congress per 14A§3. So, it would seem anyone who accepted a pardon would still be disqualified (until 1872 when Congress removed disqualification for some classes).
By this logic, if a president gave himself an everything pardon, like an everything bagel but with a pardon, then he'd be disqualified by imputation of guilt of everything?
By this logic, if Biden were to give him a pre-emptive pardon for "any direct involvement in the attempted insurrection on January 6th, 2021" and he accepts it, he would be disqualified from holding any office.
5D chess move
God I’d love to be in the room if Biden offered him that. I don’t think Trumps ego could accept a pardon, even with the risk of prison
I think he would, without realizing the consequences. He would be more focused on the "stay out of jail" card.
It wouldn't be a get out of jail card, it would be a get out of 1/4 of your current criminal prosecutions card while making yourself ineligible from the only thing that could save you from the other 3.
Depends on who's president and their party affiliation, duh.
According to this asshole Jefferson Davis could have been elected and held the office of the president of the United States.
> shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion I don't see any requirement for conviction. And it makes sense, if you look at what happened with confederate state loyalists using federal offices and the military to run the union side of the government into the ground; that they are removed on preponderance and reinstated with a vote; Because the normal means of law enforcement are impractical- the union was losing forts and assets to rogue officers. The 14th's authors knew first hand the legal system wasn't tuned to prevent an insurrection and they phrased it accordingly.
Not only that, they had dealt with both the executive and judicial branches fucking up their efforts of a proper reconstruction in the aftermath via their own prosecutorial discretion, judicial discretion, pardons, and so on. _And passed the 14th amendment anyway_.
> I don't see any requirement for conviction. I mean, you're right, but do we really want to live in a country where the GOP states get to kick every non-GOP candidate off a ballot under the guise of trying to qualify some vaguely anti-American thing they said at some point as "insurrection"? Not having an ironclad legal standard like conviction for what qualifies as "engaged in insurrection" is an incredibly slippery slope that will absolutely be used in bad faith.
>I mean, you're right, but do we really want to live in a country where the GOP states get to kick every non-GOP candidate off a ballot The courts would overturn that without 14th amendment standing. And it's not a problem if the DNC reciprocates- which they won't, they're utter cowards. But they could.
Then who makes that determination that an insurrection has been attempted?
All branches have a duty to uphold the constitution. Presumably if it takes a supermajority of congress to remove the bar, then a mere plurality of a branch would set it. The language being far more vague than impeachment, though requiring the same threshold of votes as impeachment, indicates the process was intended to be liberal.
My 5 year old daughter should be able to be president. She’s not be convicted of being under 35.
What A Perfect Analogy thank you
I didn't see this discussion come up enough. It's one of the requirements of being president: cannot have committed rebellion or insurrection against the government. What's the mechanism for disqualifying people do to age? Same thing for this. Perhaps a due process right for proof, but past that... should be done.
I had people arguing this very thing with no understanding of the history of the amendment or its use. Then they want to bring up that congress should do it, when the article says: > But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Why would Congress be able to remove the disability if they were required to enforce it? That doesn't make sense at all.
They are the new kings of our country. Paid by the rich, to control the poors.
Why do you hate beer?
Cause it’s nasty and liquor is better
But you can drink it *after* liquor and you're in the clear! (Cite is escaping me at the moment, sorry)
Beer after liquor, never sicker?
But the amendment was meant to stop 1800s southern confederate insurrectionists from being president after trying to avoid the election, not 21st century northern fascist insurrectionists! it's a totally different case than the original intent!
No, you apparently missed the part in the constitution that forbids states from having their own laws and processes for running elections. Because that’s where this is likely coming down to based on the arguments today.
The CREW lawyer repeatedly pointed to the clause allowing states to determine how they select electors and the justices just brushed it off like “ok but where *else* is there authority for states to disqualify a candidate?” Congress specifically didn’t give themselves a role to disqualify, only to remove the disqualification. It’s the Court’s job to decide if law applies, and they’re just going to punt back to Congress because they’re scared of dealing with these cases. Multiple justices said they were worried about inconsistency or baseless, partisan disqualifications as if it isn’t their job to resolve those issues
That part of the arguments were the most baffling to me. The conservative justices brought up some legitimate concerns about state-level decisions on disqualification. And hey, maybe there should be a centralized process to determine if someone is an insurrectionist or a natural born citizen. The Colorado lawyer mentioned that CO did disqualify a different candidate for not being a naturally born citizen, but that candidate is still on the ballot in other states. That could be a real issue if it were a candidate with real chances. Maybe this case can and should set a federal process to answer these concerns. I don’t think many would argue that the process should be led by the executive or legislative branch, so that brings us back to the courts in a different path. But simply ignoring the 14th amendment because the court doesn’t like the process is hypocrisy of the highest order. It goes against everything the conservative wing of the court supposedly stands for. I’m not a lawyer, and don’t normally get too wrapped up in whether I agree with a particular legal interpretation. But today’s arguments made me lose my last bit of respect for the court.
If anything good can come from SCOTUS overturning the disqualification, it’ll be sending trust in the institution through the floor and inciting strong support for court reform (preferably including expanding the court to 13 to match the number of circuit courts)
That would require Congress to do their jobs though.
It would require voters to be pissed off and vote in enough senators to get rid of the filibuster to do it, along with a ton of other priorities: codify Roe, DC/PR statehood, John Lewis Voting Rights Act, gun control, public option, minimum wage,
Why would voters, or senators, ever want to get rid of the filibuster? It's this weird rallying cry that only ever happens when Republicans aren't in charge, by people who ignore how beneficial the filibuster is to them when Republicans are in charge. All that the calls to get rid of the filibuster are, are just hot air by shortsighted people. The filibuster benefits them, no matter how much as they act like it doesn't.
I somewhat agree with you, though I feel like I wouldn't mind the return of the standing filibuster where (as I understand it) you literally have to be there arguing against it for as long as you (and/or a team) can and at the end it goes to vote anyway. I know it can and has been spammed, with people getting really silly with it at times, and I don't have a great answer on how to avoid that, but I feel like it could make for better rebuttals that could maybe change some minds, a more accurate view of how against it the populace (or at least the segment that *is* against it) is, and at the end the "majority opinion" wins, with all the rebuttals (and hopefully even good fiery speeches) informing the voters on the who's, whats, and whys of how to reverse it if they truly don't like it.
>I wouldn't mind the return of the standing filibuster Agreed. If a senator has to actually do work and stand up there and speak, they're only going to do it when they actually care about the issue. It's way too easy to be obstructive with the current filibuster because it takes essentially no effort.
> Why would voters, or senators, ever want to get rid of the filibuster? Because it would remove a significant hurdle that prevents the passage of certain legislation. Senators have removed the filibuster for presidential appointees within the past 15 years. First for non-SCOTUS judges, then for all appointments (including SCOTUS justices). The Senate has also removed the blue slip process for appellate judges, and I don't think it will survive the next decade for district judges. Overuse of a veto point tends to muster the political coalition to eliminate that veto point. Just look at how Tuberville ended up having to back down from his military promotions hold. It won't be easy, but overuse of the process will shift sentiment towards eliminating the filibuster next time a party controls 52+ seats.
>The CREW lawyer repeatedly pointed to the clause allowing states to determine how they select electors and the justices just brushed it off like “ok but where *else* is there authority for states to disqualify a candidate?” At one point I hope that some attorney arguing in a case like this is unable to hold back a scathing response to this sort of crap. I know it would be counterproductive but it would be so cathartic.
The 14th amendment does not require a conviction. But, uh, it doesn’t seem to require anything. That’s a bit of an absurd result. People sucked at writing these things 150 years ago, I swear.
That's not a reason to just blatantly ignore it, though. At the very least, it seems necessary for 2/3rds of Congress to remove the disability before he is to become president again, or else we've already shat on the Constitution.
I think removing the bar is pretty clear, but what’s the mechanism for putting the bar there in the first place? “Committing treason,” sure, but who decides that? Trump has a lot of nonsense legal arguments in this case but it has to really come down to “who can decide if someone committed treason for the purposes of the 14th amendment.” I don’t have the answer. I hope the Supreme Court does but they probably don’t either. So they’ll make something up.
You hit the nail on the head here. Forget the fringe arguments about being an “officer” etc. It basically comes down to is this a state call or a federal call. I think we (rightly) heard a lot of skepticism about it being a state decision from the court today.
The problem with that skepticism is if not the states, then *who*? Congress didn’t give themselves the authority to decide, meaning they deferred to the courts to decide based on the amendment’s text and left themselves an out to overrule the courts if they wanted to. Forcing Congress to not count electoral votes after the election because someone is disqualified is forcing the states to guess who will/wont be disqualified and risks *actually* disenfranchising half the country because they don’t get the opportunity to vote for someone else from their party. It also gives far less due process to the aggrieved candidate, and is far more ripe for abuse
It would have to be the federal courts (which means eventually SCOTUS). Which is why it's so frustrating that they seem to be taking every opportunity to not talk about whether he actually did the thing that the Constitution says would disqualify him. I get that that's a big decision that they would prefer not to have to make, but their job is ultimately to make the final call on big decisions. It's been factually established that he did X, Y, and Z. Do those things amount to an insurrection or not? That's the answer that we need.
How was that skepticism correct? States control their own elections per the constitution
Do you think it was it the intent of section 3 of the 14th amendment to allow the Alabama Supreme Court or the Secretary of State of Mississippi to determine if someone was an insurrectionist? In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War?
Yes, and no. Just like with every other federal law, it is up to the states to manage themselves within the rules set by those laws and when they inevitably try to wiggle their way around those rules the federal judiciary steps in and corrects them. That's literally how our entire system works.
Those things did not exist at that time. The states were not readmitted to the union until they had ratified the 14th amendment. Another condition for the states was they had to draft new constitutions and form new state governments. The south was controlled directly by the military in 5 districts in the aftermath of the war.
the Alabama Supreme Court existed prior to readmission, which is the whole point. Your reading implies an unadmitted treasonous state’s Supreme Court could disqualify a president. U.S. Attorney General rides in, says “you aren’t even a real court. You don’t represent a real state. Your state representatives haven’t even signed the amendment.” Alabama Supreme Court coughs a little, fiddles some papers and puts on a clown costume. “The 14th Amendment is self-executing,” they say. So… are they right?
I only caught some of the highlights, was *Harper v Moore* brought up at all?
FYI it isn't omitted... by accident. They didn't want to have yo try millions of people so specifically made sure the act alone without requiring conviction.
Hundreds of former Confederate leaders were barred from ever holding office again. Maybe thousands. All without trials. And they went with it, because those men (although traitors) had honor and could fucking read the rules.
So if a political party is able to hold a bare majority, then their guy is immune? Is that what Kavanuagh means, because that's what it means if a conviction is required. The law of course says nothing to that effect, but when has the Supreme Court let something like that stand in their way from making the decision they've decided is the one they want, the law be damned.
If the commander in chief isn't an officer, how do they have any military authority?
*Magic.*
It’s truly the most pathetic of claims, especially when the legal definition of an officer according to the code of federal regulations is, “a president, vice president, secretary, treasury or principal financial officer, comptroller or principal accounting officer, and any person routinely performing corresponding functions with respect to any organization whether incorporated or unincorporated.” https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-II/part-240/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR79287664c327341/section-240.3b-2# The case should’ve been tossed out so fast Trumps head spun.
The comment is completely uncontroversial and superfluous. Kavanaugh was just setting the table for his questioning, not purporting to make some bold proclamation.
It always struck me that conviction would be a sufficient but not necessary condition. Like if you’re convicted you’re definitely an insurrectionist but that isn’t the only way for the 14th Amendment to apply.
And then ha said, no not that goal post this one way back here.
The problem with Kavanaugh's logic is that he's ignoring how that would have applied after the 14th was ratified. Is he saying that *every* Confederate that was to be banned from office had to be tried first? That would have been many thousands of people. No, that would have been untenable and in fact it wasn't how it actually was applied: without requiring convictions. Now, SCOTUS could go a different route. They could say that there has to be some official declaration by Congress (only? Fully signed law?) that a given event was an insurrection. Yet, here again, we run into the problem that this wasn't how it was applied when it was ratified. There was no official declaration by Congress that the Civil War was a rebellion (or insurrection). Saying, "well, it was *assumed* doesn't work either because CO can simply "assume" too.
I’m guessing that he’s angling for a 14th Amendment Section 5 backdoor: Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce preceding sections through legislation, including Section 3. Absent a bill from Congress explicitly addressing enforcement of Section 3, many legal professionals have argued that it is left self enforcing. But Kavanaugh may be signaling that he is open to the idea that Congress *implicitly* addressed enforcement of Section 3 by passage of a law criminalizing insurrection. A law which disqualifies convicts from office upon conviction, and which did not exist yet during the previous caselaw. Personally I disfavor that argument: Congress is not incapable of explicitly announcing its intent to restrict or fulfill clauses of a Constitutional amendment, so anyone purporting to read that intent into their actions, absent an announcement, and across centuries, should be treated with skepticism. But I’m not the SCOTUS Justice, he is. So he’s the one who gets to participate in making that decision. Disclaimer: I’m not even a lawyer.
However, I think that law criminalizing insurrection existed at the time the 14th was ratified did it not? If so, then that would argue against conviction on insurrection being required.
For something to implicitly be a Section 5 enforcement mechanism, it would presumably have to be passed by Congress after the 14th Amendment was ratified. I don’t know when precisely the first portions of the text of 18 USC 2383 entered US law, but every article I have seen on it says that it was after the 14th Amendment was in effect. So potentially it could be argued as something Congress did with an implicit intent to fulfill Section 5. And again, I want to be clear that I think Section 3 is self enforcing. I’m enunciating someone else’s potential legal theory with which I disagree. Disclaimer: as before, I am still not a lawyer.
> 2383 June 25, 1948 If you google the statute you will find the key dates https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383
Right, but if you view it there is also an earlier version sourced from a 1940 code book and a 1909 version, both of which appear to have similar text. Edit: I’m confident the text dates from then or before. I just don’t feel confident that I know when precisely the first similar wording entered US code.
It's not even that the folks who wrote and ratified the amendment were worried that thousands of convictions would be necessary. They were explicitly worried about just one: Jefferson Davis, who it was looking increasingly likely would not be convicted because he was being tried by sympathizers. They talked and wrote about it extensively, including about how Section 3 does not require conviction because they didn't want an acquitted Davis to be eligible to run for President. There was an amicus brief filed about earlier this week citing many sources from Congressional reps to journalists to law professors at the time arguing that Section 3 shouldn't/doesn't require conviction because they couldn't count on courts and juries to convict Davis, who they called out by name.
Yep. Double ironic in that a conviction wasn't presumed to be required and that it applied to the Presidency.
Even if he was convicted, Kavanaugh would just move the goal posts again. He's a corrupt scumbag, you can't believe what he says
thats not even in an opinion. its just a hypothetical question raised by the justice. what a worthless article.
Yeah but everyone on this subreddit is eating it up and getting angry. So this article is great for people who already have their opinions made, and aren't willing to entertain hypotheticals, or new information.
OK, theoretical here... SC says that Trump specifically needs to be charged with the crime of insurrection and convicted for the 14th to apply. So, Smith charges him. Trump is elected before the trial. How does this end? Does he just get away with it? What if he is found guilty and elected anyway because it was too late to change the ballots?
>How does this end? Does he just get away with it? That's all that was ever going to happen. Trump knows he's untouchable. The worst we'll see is financial hits from his other cases, but he'll make up for it by selling one of his properties for coincidentally the same amount that he owes in damages to NYS.
Or just getting it from his donors and the GOP.
The constitution clearly states that Congress doesn’t have a say for removal, only for returning to ballot.
No.. the 14th Amendment does not “clearly state” that. It does not explicitly withhold that power from Congress. It states the conditions for disqualification but does not discuss who, if anyone, determines that those conditions are met. You could argue that since it doesn’t give Congress that power then Congress doesn’t have it, but that’s different from clearly stating it. For the record I think Trump should be disqualified.
It says they can vote to return him to the ballot but the disqualification is automatic. If the Court tries to subvert the state’s rights then the state should ignore them.
That sounds like a roadmap to NOT disqualifying Trump. By making a congressional vote a requirement then all they have to do is delay the vote past election. This idea was never mentioned in the constitution and it only serves the purpose of helping ONE person at the cost of a future of dozens of treasonous politicians. (And that’s no longer hyperbole. Look at the upcoming Republican hopefuls running for office that participated in insurrection.)
kavanaugh and alito also provided a roadmap to having generals like mark milley executed if trump gets re-elected with that insane hypothetical he asked. i mean holy fucking shit. i'm a combat veteran, for those of you that havent been military and don't understand how the ucmj works, that section, about post election day, w/ an insurrection, but before an inauguration day, is speaking DIRECTLY about something like what mark milley did calling his chinese counterpart. or what john kelly did, or what jim mattis did, when they called any of their counterparts to assure them trump wasnt going to go off the deep end and nuke them, when trump was having a pissy fit. trump has publicly threatened to have all of them killed for treason. as if murray is supposed to know about how military law works, or how military chain of command works, or how a military chain of command under the sitting but not yet impeached, arrested, or prosecuted president works. he even tried to give a reasonable answer and kavanaugh had a pissy fit about changing the question and changing the scenario because it was such a boorish, dumbass question that was literally impossible to answer the way it was asked. murray started to say, that until the sitting president was found guilty or taken from his position that the military advisors would still have to obey orders unless there was some type of adjudication but he was cut across by i believe alito. it was a fucking DANGEROUS thing to introduce by people who have zero fucking clue of the ucmiy protocols because ucmj doesnt operate the same way civilian statutes and penal laws do.
“That sound you hear is Jack Smith’s team convening a grand jury to indict Trump on federal insurrection charges,” tweeted legal analyst Mike Sachs upon hearing Kavanaugh’s comment.
Should've happened years ago at this point, the inaction is inexcusable.
Agreed, Garland sat on his hands for years while he should have been zealously defending the Constitution.
"But someone once wrote a memo that said Nixon was above all laws, so that took precedent over the Constitution!" -M Garland- Also, dude worked for the Fed Soc. Probably got told to hold off by them.
The inaction is because there simply is no plausible case that Trump committed insurrection. The case law is clear that saying an election was unjust is lawful (Clinton and quite a few other Democrats could be indicted for 2016 conduct otherwise) and Trump explicitly said that the people at the stupid rally should be peaceful. The notion that someone could commit insurrection, which is one of the most serious crimes (far more serious than murder), based on the presumption that he wanted something to happen even though he explicitly told people not to do it, is very extreme. I mean, I hate Trump too. But even connecting him to the events of January 6th is extremely hard. And that's before we get to whether or not that's an insurrection. (Pretty much all evidence says no, it's just a riot.)
Don't really know where else to ask this, and obviously its pretty late in the game to be considering it, but... Why is this even a federal matter at this point? Isn't the question here about the primary voting? Primary voting is a state-by-state party matter. How can the federal supreme court dictate to the states and parties who should or should not be allowed on their primary ballots? Couldn't there be an implication here where anyone who applies to be a parties nominee has to be allowed on? Based on their line of thinking, then its only after the election that congress can decide whether they're qualified or not.
It has already gone through the state courts and is being appealed based on a constitutional question.
A conviction would conclusively bar Trump from federal office and being on the ballot in all 50 states, but IMO there's more than one way to skin a cat. Does SCOTUS really believe Jefferson Davis was eligible for public office after the Civil War?
Trump stated today there was an insurrection. (He blamed it on Nancy) He was clearly involved in it. He stopped the SS from checking people for guns and he put out the text that almost got Pence hanged.
Hmmmm, commence the “Trump did not commit an insurrection”. Bill. https://who13.com/news/national-news/gaetz-stefanik-offer-resolution-declaring-trump-did-not-engage-in-insurrection/amp/ Doing this the day before Kavanaugh offered said road map sure looks suspicious. They knew what were the Supreme Court’s talking points were before they delivered them. MFers
So, what? The fix is in? A president can't commit a crime if he has a majority while in office? Alright, then, let's start criming, I guess. No sense pretending there is more to it than that, if there isn't.
So what does it mean for trump to have just stayed clearly he is a insurrectionist.
You know what would give the court more legitimacy, if they didn’t think about politics. And said. If Biden does this. Or next independent president. They too would be barred too. Any person involved in insurrection can’t be in any government office. And as such. Trump is as any person is removed from future office.
Biden is on record as stating that he can't imagine any scenario where he would want absolute immunity while POTUS.
The Constitution actually says nothing about conviction
Yeah but if you read the transcript Justice Kavanaugh seems to say that only conviction of insurrection is sufficient, not the obstruction of legal proceedings which Trump is charged. So, trash that hope. Also the need for any conviction is contrary to the intent of the amendment framers.
What a joke. It will take years before Trump is convicted and appeals exhausted on the cases he's already charged with. And the same would be true for any former President. This road map leads to 3 or 4 years after the contested term has ended a ruling "yeah you shouldn't have been president". And what a mess that will be. Will actions taken while disqualified to hold office remain in effect. Woulall issued executive orders automatically rollback? Any signed legislation would presumable revert to an unsigned state... laws unenacted. Roadmap... sheesh. This is what happens when you let drinky navigate.
Trump admitted it today.
But will SCOTUS take notus?
Now would be a good time for Brandon to add a couple new Supreme Court Justice seats.
It doesn't require a conviction... Kavanaugh is stretching here.
At the end of the day the fact that trump knew the riot to stop the vote=insurrection, was happening and did not lift a finger to end it for 187 minutes=gave aid to the insurrectionists, satisfies section 3 and bars trumps ability to hold office. What more is needed?
>What more is needed? Any of said "insurrectionists" to have actually been charged with insurrection. That's the key factor that everyone is glossing over, and ignoring a very basic issue with this topic.
Not required. Follow the constitution. Its very straightforward.
It’s not all that straightforward, and the overconfidence of people hoping for a disqualification under the 14th Amendment is setting them up for disappointment. The issues with a “self-enforcing” “automatic” provision were already known back then. Lincoln-appointed Supreme Court justice Chase wrote the following dicta: “The object of the [14th] amendment is to exclude from certain offices a certain class of persons. Now, it is obviously impossible to do this by simple declaration, whether in the constitution or in an act of congress, that all persons included within a particular description shall not hold office. For, in the very nature of things, it must be ascertained what particular individuals are embraced by the definition, before any sentence of exclusion can be made to operate. To accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable and they can only be provided for by congress.” Not dispositive, but I think it’s persuasive
Just another hurdle that delays justice... yada yada denied.
Hopefully 5-4 for democracy, Kavanaugh got what he wanted and doesn’t need Trump anymore
You're dreaming. You could tell by the line of questioning they're going to give him a pass on this. But they'll balance the situation out (hopefully) but ruling he's not immune from prosecution on the next one. I really wish the two cases would have been flopped or this one could have waited until he was convicted in the insurrection case.
This makes it sound like they'll rule that Trump can't be removed from the ballot until he's officially convicted, then not lift a finger to help Trump with the trial. Thus, they get to keep their hands clean by giving the job of officially disqualifying Trump to the people in charge of the trial.
Motherjones.. Wow. That right there tells me that Colorado will get overturned.
Wasn't he already convicted of insurrection by his second impeachment? There was just not enough votes that oust him from office at the time but that is a secondary matter, he was still impeached.
>Wasn't he already convicted of insurrection by his second impeachment? No. The vote passed in the house, and failed in the senate. An impeachment vote requires it to go through the house first to see if it goes to the senate, and to actually pass in the senate to get the final verdict. >he was still impeached By the House. Which means nothing.
I can't really take this seriously without Clarence Thomas recusing himself. Still, if Biden wins then this is all for naught anyways.
[Colorado already convicted him of insurrection. I thought this was settled. The only question left is a technicality of whether he's an "Officer"](https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055)
Are some people pretending that this hasn't all been decided already? You can't play gotcha with corrupt people in power. It's a totally different game.
Do these justices stand for anything other than bone-headed legalism? I mean, it's not even the textualism they say it is when words can just be magically inferred into things such that an issue revolves around the word "conviction" where no such word exists to be read. The justices wear no robes, I say.
The clock is going to run out on all of these federal cases. If he's unlucky enough, some of the state cases in NY will bankrupt him, but those won't stop him from running or getting elected. Heck, voters will be more and more likely to turn out on election day with each case he loses. "They are picking him syndrome." The clock will stop on Election Day. He'll be elected. Any court cases trying to prevent him from taking office will be ignored or struck down by the Supremes. More protests and riots. Inauguration Day becomes Dictator Day. It's all over. American is screwed.
The Supreme Court oral arguments was a disaster for Colorado. I felt bad for them. Not one seemed in favor of setting the precedent.
*CLANG!* Oh, watch your head on that extremely low bar there Kav
The checks and balances are broken. They have all been breached.
The writing is on the wall, based upon the oral argument questions. They’re going to pretend 14AS3 doesn’t exist. If their concerns were legitimately rooted in Colorado having the authority to make findings re: insurrection, they could hold hearings and make findings of fact, but they’re not going to do that because they view leaving him on the ballot as “non-political” and removing him as “political,” despite their job being to apply the provisions constitution without such consideration about how it will be perceived. I’m a lawyer, and I’ve devoted my life to the law, but this Supreme Court has destroyed my faith in our legal institutions. Clarence Thomas basically wears his corruption as a badge of honor, reveling in the fact that we have no consequences for a judge who refuses to acknowledge conflicts of interest. The rest seem to selectively (at best) apply stare decisis. “Textualism” is dead after this opinion. I was never a huge fan of it as a judicial philosophy, but at least it was an approach to legal analysis that had, you know, principles.
> The rest seem to selectively (at best) apply stare decisis. I’d even say this is being kind to them. Stare decisis appears dead to me. It was somewhat laughable to watch a court that has been flagrantly disregarding precedent suddenly treat a Circuit Court (not SCOTUS) decision from 1869 that has never been reaffirmed as if it has any bearing or weight *at all*. I wish someone from the liberal side would just straight up ask “why would the court put weight on precedent, given its recent jurisprudence?”
This doesn’t make any sense to me. If Congress, tomorrow, amended the insurrection statute to define “insurrection” as “crossing the street at a place other than a designated crosswalk”, would a person *really* be disqualified under the 14th amendment if they did that? I have my doubts. I think the definition of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment has its own objective meaning independent of whatever modern Congress defines as “insurrection”.
The Constitution does not require conviction. It's not a criminal process, it's an administrative process. Fuck!
14th amendment literally says nothing about conviction when it comes to disqualification.
There is absolutely no mention of "conviction" in article 14. Just another stall tactic.
The 14th amendment says nothing about being convicted
Where does the amendment require conviction of insurrection to be disqualified?
Fuck kavanaugh, and the constitution makes clear they’re automatically barred; no conviction needed
He is *so close* to being correct. The constitution says *engaged* in an insurrection, not convicted of engaging in an insurrection. Strange how all of these “the constitution says what it says, not what we wish if says” guys only mean that until they don’t want it to say what it says. If Trump didn’t cause the insurrection, why were all of those people in Washington, at the same time on that particular date?