He could still be charged with insurrection and there are still two unnamed co-defendants.houndawg wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:58 amAgain, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:12 am
Didn't they get this one first? I agree, they need to rule on presidential immunity. I think it's clear that it'll be 9-0 on the idea of absolute immunity for everything, which is absurd, but it gets murky when you start going through what are official duties of the President and what aren't. Even with that said, I can't see how what would be the insurrection charge, which was all about working the crowd and sending them off as a mob to attack the capitol, would be covered by immunity. That one, which they haven't charged him for, would seem to be the easiest one to avoid immunity, and would be the quickest one to bar him from office. Again, it would be nice to actually charge him and try him for that.
What's a SCOTUS to do?
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59650
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
-
- Level2
- Posts: 2001
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:24 pm
- I am a fan of: DELAWARE
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
If it was a real insurrection they would of been met with lethal force, big political win for toothless Nancy is what the entire charade washoundawg wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:58 amAgain, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:12 am
Didn't they get this one first? I agree, they need to rule on presidential immunity. I think it's clear that it'll be 9-0 on the idea of absolute immunity for everything, which is absurd, but it gets murky when you start going through what are official duties of the President and what aren't. Even with that said, I can't see how what would be the insurrection charge, which was all about working the crowd and sending them off as a mob to attack the capitol, would be covered by immunity. That one, which they haven't charged him for, would seem to be the easiest one to avoid immunity, and would be the quickest one to bar him from office. Again, it would be nice to actually charge him and try him for that.
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28188
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
The voters in November.houndawg wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:58 amAgain, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:12 am
Didn't they get this one first? I agree, they need to rule on presidential immunity. I think it's clear that it'll be 9-0 on the idea of absolute immunity for everything, which is absurd, but it gets murky when you start going through what are official duties of the President and what aren't. Even with that said, I can't see how what would be the insurrection charge, which was all about working the crowd and sending them off as a mob to attack the capitol, would be covered by immunity. That one, which they haven't charged him for, would seem to be the easiest one to avoid immunity, and would be the quickest one to bar him from office. Again, it would be nice to actually charge him and try him for that.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20341
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
Or Congress or a court of law.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28188
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
Congress already decided it wasn’t.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23476
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:22 amIf it was a real insurrection they would of been met with lethal force, big political win for toothless Nancy is what the entire charade was
Nikki Haley was in charge of seurity, she had 10,000 troops at her disposal and didn't do anything. Where you been, fool?
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18120
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
That's not technically what they decided. He got impeached (charged) by the House with what basically amounted to insurrection, and the Senate voted not to convict him of it. But impeachments are criminal trials, they are political trials.
As for who gets to determine if he is guilty of insurrection, it's like most things - a prosecutor decides there is enough evidence to pursue a trial in court, and then there's a court case with a judge and jury and they decide, after hearing the case and the defense countering it, whether he's guilty of insurrection or not. It's not really complicated. But again, no one has actually charged him in a criminal case with insurrection.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20341
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
After Trump ballot ruling, critics say Supreme Court is selectively invoking conservative originalist approach
For critics, it was just another example of how the conservative justices appear to selectively apply the legal methodology known as originalism, which focuses on the original meaning of the law at the time it was written.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, was unanimous in ruling that Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment cannot be enforced by states, but critics were quick to point out the absence of originalist arguments.
...
This came as a disappointment to some self-professed originalists, who believe that Section 3 as written and understood at the time is self-executing, meaning that there is no requirement that legislation be enacted for it to be applied.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23476
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
But again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 9:36 amThat's not technically what they decided. He got impeached (charged) by the House with what basically amounted to insurrection, and the Senate voted not to convict him of it. But impeachments are criminal trials, they are political trials.
As for who gets to determine if he is guilty of insurrection, it's like most things - a prosecutor decides there is enough evidence to pursue a trial in court, and then there's a court case with a judge and jury and they decide, after hearing the case and the defense countering it, whether he's guilty of insurrection or not. It's not really complicated. But again, no one has actually charged him in a criminal case with insurrection.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59650
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
Guessing here…houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:11 amBut again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 9:36 am
That's not technically what they decided. He got impeached (charged) by the House with what basically amounted to insurrection, and the Senate voted not to convict him of it. But impeachments are criminal trials, they are political trials.
As for who gets to determine if he is guilty of insurrection, it's like most things - a prosecutor decides there is enough evidence to pursue a trial in court, and then there's a court case with a judge and jury and they decide, after hearing the case and the defense countering it, whether he's guilty of insurrection or not. It's not really complicated. But again, no one has actually charged him in a criminal case with insurrection.
1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.
2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.
3). They still can charge him with insurrection.
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23476
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
yeah, hadn't thought of thatkalm wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:38 amGuessing here…houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:11 am
But again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?
1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.
2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.
3). They still can charge him with insurrection.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18120
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
Come on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House. Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.kalm wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:38 amGuessing here…houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:11 am
But again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?
1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.
2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.
3). They still can charge him with insurrection.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59650
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
That’s certainly a theory but we do not all know it to be the case for sure. It assumes the entire DOJ, FBI, and Dem leadership are in on it.GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 1:30 pmCome on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House. Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23476
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
There's that tooGannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 1:30 pmCome on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House.Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23476
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
The FBI is who we have to thank for trump in the first place.kalm wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 3:15 pmThat’s certainly a theory but we do not all know it to be the case for sure. It assumes the entire DOJ, FBI, and Dem leadership are in on it.GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 1:30 pm
Come on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House. Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20341
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
I'm not sure hildamort would have been better.
Her getting off easy from the email fiasco is more grist for the MAQA yahoo conspiracy grinder.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23476
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: What's a SCOTUS to do?
Wouldn't have had Joe Biden in '20
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky