by oldedude on March 4, 2024 8:28 pm
The Supreme Court didn't entertain those arguments anywhere in their decision. So we can read their decision to be, yes, Trump is an insurrectionist and yes, he is an officer of the U.S...but we fear recognizing those facts by him keeping off the ballot would result in election chaos.
I know that US law is an extreme short suit for you. SCOTUS only has the ability to look at the information given to them in the case they take. I know it's kind of a PITA, but that's the way it is. They don't have the ability to take conjecture or "whatabouts." They take the information given to them by both sides and look at that from a constitutional perspective. And the issue of "congressional only" was written by some of the justices. Comey-Barrett had a more liberal view that congress was "one" entity that could be used for the insurrection decision. She allowed the court system to also be involved in the decision, which seems more attached to modern decisions, unless we go to an actual civil war again. If that happens, you're off the hook as congress could assign groups of people as insurrectionists. In this case though, there were huge "groups" that were guilty. AND in this case, they are picking on a single person. So there's lots of issues with that.
by Indy! on March 5, 2024 8:28 am
Does no one else find it ironic that a wingnut works for MSNBC and is pretending like Trump is a bad thing while giving him non-stop free exposure the same way they did in 2016?
In January Trump's lawyers argued before the SCOTUS that Trump was not an "officer of the U.S." as president; that he did not "engage in" anything close to "insurrection;" that the amendment is not enforceable without further action by Congress; and, that the amendment is only a prohibition against persons "holding office" not appearing on a ballot for office.
View Video