The Supreme Court has agreed to consider Colorado’s decision to deem Trump ineligible to run under the Constitution’s insurrection clause.

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

 

So, what do you think the dissenting judges meant in the 4-3 Colorado case, when they said this:

 

 

 

 

 

Because the 14th Amendment Section 3 is a disqualification all by itself, just like age and citizenship are qualifications. No need for a trial when we saw it all happen over the months leading up to election day, every day since election day, especially the armed insurrection on Jan 6 when Trump knew and encouraged armed persons in his speech prior to the march to the Capitol, and every day since Jan 6 including his present election campaign. He hasn't stopped so every effort to keep him off of ballots is justified by his past and ongoing campaign to be a dictator. 

 

Open your ****ing eyes and ears! Geez!

[JCB]

I think the judge is arguing in bad faith. For example, it’s not clear that a state by state system constitutes ad hoc deliberation. Those terms aren’t the same. More to the point, the fact that this is all happening IN COURT means that no one’s rights are deprived. Stop looking for conspiracy anywhere other than with Trump.

[Spearfeather]

54 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Open your ****ing eyes and ears! Geez!

 

So, charge these people with insurrection. Sounds like you think a conviction would be a slam-dunk.

 

Heres a list of the people so far that have been charged with insurrection:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open your eyes, Lady.

 

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

3 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

So, what do you think the dissenting judges meant in the 4-3 Colorado case, when they said this:

 

 

 

 

 

🤣

 

[Spearfeather]

33 minutes ago, JCB said:

it’s not clear that a state by state system constitutes ad hoc deliberation

 

So, without a ruling, you think every state would adhere to the exact same standard ?

 

I bet you they wouldn't. 

[Captain Wiggles]

14 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

So, charge these people with insurrection. Sounds like you think a conviction would be a slam-dunk.

 

Heres a list of the people so far that have been charged with insurrection:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open your eyes, Lady.

 

 

 

 

Steward Rhodes and four others were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. He was sentenced to eighteen years in federal prison. Can you please define what a seditious conspiracy is for us? 🤷‍♂️

Edited January 31 by Captain Wiggles

[Spearfeather]

Just now, Captain Wiggles said:

Steward Rhodes and four others were found guilty of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to eighteen years in federal prison.

 

Why weren't they charged with insurrection ?

[Captain Wiggles]

2 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Why weren't they charged with insurrection ?

 

I asked yinz first. 🤣

[Fergasun]

As a general rule, prosecutors charge the lowest hanging fruit they can.  Regarding Trump, I do question why he wasn't charged with insurrection.  Conviction immediately triggers disqualification.  A Presidential candidate with an open charge of insurrection is a Constititituonal issue. But thats not much less of a Constitutional issue than he currently poaes.

[Larry]

51 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

Heres a list of the people so far that have been charged with insurrection:

 

Note that the above list is considerably shorter than the number of people who have been previously disqualified by the 14th. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

49 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Note that the above list is considerably shorter than the number of people who have been previously disqualified by the 14th. 

 

I was just going to ask how many of the people who HAVE been disqualified have been convicted of insurrection first? 

[Spearfeather]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I was just going to ask how many of the people who HAVE been disqualified have been convicted of insurrection first? 

 

...in 1919 and 1920, it blocked Victor L. Berger, a member of the Socialist Party who had won both elections, from taking office as the Representative from Wisconsin because he had been convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917

 

Not insurrection but he was convicted of espionage.

 

 

Edited January 31 by Spearfeather

[TheGreatBuzz]

25 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

...in 1919 and 1920, it blocked Victor L. Berger, a member of the Socialist Party who had won both elections, from taking office as the Representative from Wisconsin because he had been convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917

 

Not insurrection but he was convicted of espionage.

 

 

 

So your answer is zero?

[Spearfeather]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

So your answer is zero?

 

You're implying the answer is zero ,and maybe it is, and most of those disqualification were removed a few years later via the Amnesty act.

So, former soldiers of a standing army that had actually taken up arms against the US military were once again allowed to run for office.

The point in my example was that the guy had actually been charged and convicted by the US government of espionage. Not just deemed to be by this state or that state.

 

Edited January 31 by Spearfeather

[LadySkinsFan]

About the New Mexico man booted from office by civil lawsuit after his conviction for Jan 6 participation. From the link:

 

  https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121307430/couy-griffin-otero-county-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment

 

 

A county official in New Mexico who was convicted of entering a restricted area during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol must be immediately removed from office for his involvement in an insurrection, a judge decided Tuesday.

 

District Court Judge Francis Mathew ruled that Couy Griffin, an Otero County commissioner, is now disqualified from holding public office because he violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment by participating in the Jan. 6 siege.

 

"He took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States ... [and then] engaged in that insurrection after taking his oath," Judge Mathew wrote.

[TheGreatBuzz]

44 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

You're implying the answer is zero

 

Sorry, what was your answer?

 

45 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

The point in my example was that the guy had actually been charged and convicted by the US government of espionage. Not just by this state or that state.

 

Seems like the goal posts have moved.

[Spearfeather]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Seems like the goal posts have moved.

 

Really. Where are they now ?

That guy was convicted of espionage by the US government.

I suppose you're advocating for each state to be able to interpret disqualification when and however they see fit.

Sounds like a bad idea, to me.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

13 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

Really. Where are they now ?

 

Well we went from "he should be convicted of insurrection first" to "ONE other person was charge with a mildy-at-best similar charge". 

 

But give it a minute.  I'm sure they'll move again.

[Spearfeather]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well we went from "he should be convicted of insurrection first" to "ONE other person was charge with a mildy-at-best similar charge". 

 

 So you're acknowledging that guy was charged and convicted for the crime that he was being removed from office for. Unlike what's happening now.

 

So, I'll ask again,  Should each state be able to make their own interpretation, or not ? If you think so, just say yes. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea, which is why I've been a proponent of the SC ruling on this. Which, they will. If they decide that Colorado and other states can do that. OK, but I think it's a really bad idea that just leads to more of a mess in the future. 

 

And I  never actually said this:

" he should be convicted of insurrection first "

 

Edited February 1 by Spearfeather

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Spearfeather said:

So you're acknowledging that guy was charged and convicted for the crime that he was being removed from office for. Unlike what's happening now.

 

No.

 

I will acknowledge I don't know who the **** that is and don't care to look it up. Also, I acknowledge that there have been plenty of people for whom the 14th has been applied that weren't charged, much less convicted. 

 

As for the rest of your post, I'll leave it to others to rebuff. I just wanted to point out the absurdly stupid.

[Spearfeather]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

No.

 

Well, you should. 

 

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Also, I acknowledge that there have been plenty of people for whom the 14th has been applied that weren't charged, much less convicted. 

 

 

Yes, I understand that.  And those people were firing guns and cannons at the US military.

 

So, we have examples of both people who have been charged and convicted of the crimes they are being disqualified from office for, and people who have not been charged and convicted of what they're being disqualified from office for.

[Fergasun]

10 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

Well, you should. 

 

 

Yes, I understand that.  And those people were firing guns and cannons at the US military.

 

So, we have examples of both people who have been charged and convicted of the crimes they are being disqualified from office for, and people who have not been charged and convicted of what they're being disqualified from office for.

Even the NM county commissioner? 

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

Yes, I understand that.  And those people were firing guns and cannons at the US military.

 

This sounds similar to when my neighbor told me January 6th wasn't an insurrection because "there weren't any tanks or planes involved". 🤣

[Spearfeather]

12 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

This sounds similar to when my neighbor told me January 6th wasn't an insurrection because "there weren't any tanks or planes involved". 🤣

 

That's not what I  was saying but ok.

[Captain Wiggles]

4 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

That's not what I  was saying but ok.

 

I'm still not sure what it is you've been trying to say all day but ok. 🤣