Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Election 2024 & Presidential Cage Match: Dark Brandon 46 vs Felonious Farty 45


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

 

That would be the criminal known as Ken Paxton.

 

Yeh, couldn't remember the chud's name which happens with me sometimes when someone is as stupid and vile as kenny.

 

Abbot is such a rancid douchebag, too.

 

Too much of Texas is like Florida's inbred cousin.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was browsing legal corners the Internet and I came across an article that said the criminal trials of Trump should be pushed forward and completed before the trial because he has the power to stop them.

 

via Patterico

Quote

If there is a reason a defendant might not be triable after a certain date, for any reason, it is good (and non-political) for the justice system to try that defendant before that certain date. It’s just like when a statute of limitations is coming up. It’s good to file the charge before the statute of limitations runs. And no matter how many partisans line up to tell you that there is no rule of law justification for doing so, there is. So you can ignore the partisan yammering as so much background noise.

 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheGreatBuzz

@Spearfeather

 

There's the facts and then the law.  Courts intepret the law and apply. The facts to the law.  

 

I think the Colorado decision is solid and appropriate.  The Trump voters will see it as the biggest affront to Democracy ever. 

 

I don't see how the SCOTUS could overturn without upending the Fourteenth Amendment itself, which they might do.  Due process only protects against life, liberty, etc.  The right to be on a ballot is not really a core Constitutional guarantee.  The Constitution itself says that states run their elections and the 14th Amendment says insurrectionists can be disqualified.  I think a State Court is very much an appropriate place to challenge a qualification to be on the ballot under the Constitution.  Does a state need a defined process?  So a state would deprive a voter of a process to enforce the 14th Amendment?  

 

The State Supreme court upheld the judge finding of facts.  If they overturn this by saying "people can vote for whom they want' than the age and natural born qualificiations can also be thrown out.  

 

So, I think it is a tricky case to get to the result most of SCOTUS may want.  Even though due process seems decent path... it's not clear to me it is.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Who's been charged and/or found guilty of insurrection  ?

 

Where does it say in section 3 of the 14th Amendment that someone has to be charged and found guilty? That is what makes it a mess for not being clearer. Also, there hasn't been what happened on J6 in the United States since when? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Who's been charged and/or found guilty of insurrection  ?

It simply says "shall have engaged in insurrection."  There's nothing in the text that says "convicted of insurrectionist crimes".   In fact just being in the Confederate legislature got someone disqualified in the 1860s.  And people are trying to read things into the actual Constitutional text. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...