The Great Defenders of Democracy.... (Page 2): They are law and order and defend the constitution people until they get caught crosswise to them.

Triple G

DaveO wrote:

Hmmm, so the SCROTUM is criticizing SCOTUS!

They are law and order and defend the constitution people until they get caught crosswise to them.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Triple G wrote:

They are law and order and defend the constitution people until they get caught crosswise to them.

You may wish to address this to the dissidents who support the traitors of J6.

pendennis

Kraken wrote:

Colorado seems to think there is proof of an insurrection.

Out of seven judges, three of them are pretty stupid.

Makes no difference what the Colorado Supreme Court thinks. A person must be afforded due process as stated in the 5th and other parts of the 14th Amendments. One can't violate the rights of a person using some arcane interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

pendennis wrote:

That ruling will be undone by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment, Article III, requires some sort of adjudication and proof that someone engaged in insurrection (The January 6, 2021 action was a riot, nothing more, and there's no proof that the former President incited anything. The idiotic Colorado court will look like morons, which is what they really are.

Where does the 14th require an adjudication. ?

But if so that makes the federal trial of United States v. Trump even more important to happen and conclude before Jan 2025.

Going even further if:
Trump were elected and sworn in and a jury found him guilty , he would instantly need to be removed wouldn’t he ?

I guess that makes trumps choice for VP even more important than ever dosent it?

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

pendennis wrote:

Makes no difference what the Colorado Supreme Court thinks. A person must be afforded due process as stated in the 5th and other parts of the 14th Amendments. One can't violate the rights of a person using some arcane interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Does that apply to the 2nd Amendment too?

If so, everyone would still be using ball and shot.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

I'm not telling anyone anything. It's the constitution! SCOTUS will decide.

To equate the riot of J6 to an insurrection is a hard stretch. The democrats as they often do are using law fare to manipulate the electoral process, granted we have never had a candidate as hated by much of the country as Trump is hated by many, but to distort the justice system to keep him from the ballot sets a terrible precedent which will only further erode confidence in our government in years to come as it will not go away, political ambitions will continue its use. Already we see politicians and news agencies distort public opinion regarding events and our societal framework in ways that create great tension among the public all for political gain and power at the cost of tranquility within our society....

Things will only get worse if this is allowed to stand. Personally I predict that SCOTUS will overturn with a vote of either 9-0 or 8-1 which will highlight the political nature of this Colorado ruling.

pendennis

DennyT wrote:

Where does the 14th require an adjudication. ?

But if so that makes the federal trial of United States v. Trump even more important to happen and conclude before Jan 2025.

Going even further if:
Trump were elected and sworn in and a jury found him guilty , he would instantly need to be removed wouldn’t he ?

I guess that makes trumps choice for VP even more important than ever dosent (sic) it?

Would depend on how he was convicted. If a Federal jury convicted him, he could pardon himself. If under a state's judicial system, he would likely be at the mercy of that state's governor. However, execution of a sentence might be abated based on the President's immunity while in office. You clearly stated that his conviction would be post-inauguration.

The Constitution requires due process, starting with Amendment V, and continuing with Amendment XIV. As I mentioned, one's Constitutional rights can't be abridged by trying to leverage one part against the other.

Speculation on VP choice is not in the mix right now.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Blurryeyed wrote:

To equate the riot of J6 to an insurrection is a h... (show quote)

I watched all live on TV, there absolutely NO hard stretch.

pendennis

Kraken wrote:

Does that apply to the 2nd Amendment too?

If so, everyone would still be using ball and shot.

No. Based upon the "militia" definition, everyone would be armed with M-16's, M-248's etc.

And the history of the 2nd Amendment long precedes the U.S. Constitution.

PS - Keep on task. We're not discussing the 2nd Amendment.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

pendennis wrote:

Would depend on how he was convicted. If a Federa... (show quote)

A pardon does not erase the verdict but only the punishment and in my thinking can not overrule the Constitution.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Kraken wrote:

I watched all live on TV, there absolutely NO hard stretch.

You got to be kidding me, you actually think that was an attempt to over throw the US government? Besides, you only saw what the media wanted you to see, there was plenty of footage of people walking peaceably with police escorts through the capital as if on a tour.

Libs.... It seems that J6 is all you folks have and you will pound it for everything you can get out of it.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Blurryeyed wrote:

You got to be kidding me, you actually think that was an attempt to over throw the US government? Besides, you only saw what the media wanted you to see, there was plenty of footage of people walking peaceably with police escorts through the capital as if on a tour.

Libs.... It seems that J6 is all you folks have and you will pound it for everything you can get out of it.

It was LIVE, the media could not cherry-pick.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Blurryeyed wrote:

To equate the riot of J6 to an insurrection is a h... (show quote)

Yes, it’s a great idea to give him another opportunity to take over our gov’t.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

DaveO wrote:

Yes, it’s a great idea to give him another opportunity to take over our gov’t.

rwoodvira

Kraken wrote:

That was done in 2017.

I will preface my remarks that I have made it clear in this forum that I'm not a fan of Trump; I'm not enamored of Biden either.

The basis for this decision was a paper that came out from two conservative legal scholars here's the title and detail:

The Sweep and Force of Section Three
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024)
William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen

https://www.studocu.com/es-ar/document/universidad-catolica-de-salta/derecho-constitucional-del-poder/the-sweep-and-force-of-section-three/71560197

The authors give really good arguments as to why and how the section of the Constitution should bar Trump from running.

A number of Trump's actions appear to be enough to invoke this provision - apparently Trump's request to Pence, and continuing to say the vote was stolen when all evidence is to the contrary. My review indicates that contrary to opinions here, Trump doesn't have to have been convicted; so that argument seems to be meaningless.

With that being said, I'm not a lawyer (I don't lie well enough), likewise not a politician, but it will be interesting to see how a very Conservative Supreme Court will rule on a strict interpretation of this section of the Constitution. I'm sure that Clarence (so what if I got free vacations from a billionaire) Thomas will side with Trump. I have been surprised of late that once on the bench some of the justices are not voting totally the way people thought they would.

Lastly, if the SC rules in favor of the Colorado decision, how will this effect other states?

I've said before, if the Republicans would wise up, dump Trump, and nominate someone new, I think they'd win the election in a walk.