houndawg wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:56 am
GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2024 7:26 am
Angstrom-wide?? Come on, the main thrust of that court case was whether states could unilaterally, using whatever method they want, to remove candidates from federal elections. That's not a small thing no matter how you try to frame it. And in that regard, the court was a resounding 9-0 unanimous decision. It doesn't get any more resounding than that - every single judge said absolutely not.
As for the other part, I'm still waiting to hear how the idea that Congress has to make the mechanism to declare someone an insurrectionist, and then the majority point to the very clear US code that Congress already approved and is on the books (seriously, if you haven't read 18 US Code 2383 then I don't know what you're even doing commenting on this - it's almost lifted, verbatim, from Sec 3 of the 14th), that we've somehow stopped future challenges to people holding federal office. Again, 18 US Code 2383 exists, the majority highlight it in the opinion, and basically say "if you want to ban someone from federal office for being an insurrectionist, then go ahead and charge them and convict them with 18 US Code 2383 and you're good to go". Again,
answer how the majority said that and how that's somehow incorrect. I'm waiting.
I was speaking of the minority's dissent and how its interesting that the 5-4 split was along gender lines - all four women came to that conclusion, I'm just commenting on
their comment.
It seems to a layman like a very strong comment to direct at one's workmates, saying they
attempt; isn't that a straight-up accusation? They didn't say
gives the appearance of or
could be mistaken for or any kind of qualifier....is that just normal workplace chatter for lawyers?
Well, technically, there were no dissents, just two different concurring opinions to the total court judgement that was 9-0. The 9-0 judgement was real, pretending it was something different than 9-0 is twisting what was actually written. Coney-Barretts' concurring opinion was that nothing needed to be said except for the Court's unanimous opinion - she even punctuated that at the end with the sentiment that that's what everyone should take from the ruling. The other three judges, while agreeing with the rest of the Court, felt that the reasoning used by others could be construed to prevent any challenges for insurrection. However, they didn't really elaborate much in their opinion, and nowhere in their opinion did they address the elephant in the room that is 18 USC 2383. Since you seem not to read any of these opinions or US codes or anything else we're talking about and debating, I'll include 18 USC 2383 here:
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.
That's a statute that was approved by Congress. It's on the books. It exists today. The majority of the consensus highlighted it in their opinion. The minority concurring opinion makes no reference to this. It's almost a verbatim repeat of Sec 3. The way forward is clear. Charge someone with a crime under 18 USC 2383. Get a conviction. Boom, can't hold office. It's all right there. And yet, we refuse to do that with Trump. Crazy times.
You mean a bunch of radical leftists who were having difficulty calling it either way
The case bypassed the full DC apellate. Then SCOTUS agreed to take it up this seassion. This case is moving at lightning speed compared to most cases that end up before SCOTUS. Most cases that appear before SCOTUS have been in the courts for YEARS..