By unanimous agreement The Supreme Court corrected the errors of lower courts

[essentialsaltes]

Reality in this case is that President Trump is innocent because there have never even been charges and that is legal precedent in the US

Well, he's not guilty of any crimes relating to Jan 6, let's say

yet

- we live by laws and precedent and that is what the Supreme Court unanimously upheld.

That doesn't really have anything to do with the decision in this case, which (as I understand it) was primarily about whether the states can determine the 'rules' for federal ballots. Apparently they cannot (alone).

 

[essentialsaltes]

Also, out of curiousity, is this factual?

I mean... the facts are factual, but I'm not sure some of the inferences are important/valid.

SCOTUS didn't have to touch the issue of the insurrection in order to find that Colorado doesn't have the power to do what it tried to do.

Certainly I would not expect a Roberts court to affirm that Trump engaged in insurrection. That might be seen as a Bat signal to Congress, "Hey, why don't you knuckleheads pass a law to put some meat on this apparently impotent clause in the Constitution?"

I don't know if there's anything to be read from the fact that they just didn't touch it at all. They have a lot on their plate at the moment.

 

[rambot]

Yes I read the decision.

The Court decided 1.) Congress must pass legislation before Sec.3 can be enforced 2.) No legislation having been passed by Congress therefore C) Colorado and the States lack authority to enforce Sec 3 against D.) candidates for federal office and those occupying federal office but E) States have the authority to enforce Sec 3 against State office positions.

4 concurrence opinion by Barrett, Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan 1.) They agree only with the judgment but 2) The majority, rightly, went further than necessary to decide the case by Holding 3) Congress must pass legislation before Sec 3 can be enforced since, after all 4.) Sec 3 plain text does not mandate Congressional action for enforcement and 5.) Forecloses some other mechanism by federal power to enforce Sec 3.

Thank you.

 

[rambot]

Or perhaps there wasn’t any insurrection or attempted insurrection as no one Jan 6., acted to overthrow the government or to overthrow the authority of the government.

I'd suggest if you're trying to change the results of an election by creating new electoral colleges, seems like an insurrection to me.

BUT, I am certainly not a court of law. I imagine that law is more in place for an "insurrection" that is a lot more successful than a bunch of yokels cosplaying as patriots waiting to ziptie law makers while they all are "fighting like hell" to win back the government....that they lost.

Which perhaps explains why Smith never charged Trump with insurrection but with attempting/conspiring to obstruct an “official proceeding.”

The facts fit attempting/conspiracy to obstruct official proceeding more strongly than insurrection.

When it fails that magnificently, of COURSE it would.


Had Trump's plan been successful though; then what? The election would have been falsified? Would it be fair then to call that an insurrection or is violence necessary for an insurrection?

 

[Arcangl86]

I disagree with the majority opinion because it means that the clause is a dead letter without Congressional action, and I'm not aware of any other clause in the Constitution that is seen to be that way. It also doesn't take into account that it has been enforced without laws in the past. It's a bad opinion, at least the parts that address more than the question actually asked.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I realized that, without convictions on charges, it is not reasonable to keep him off the ballot.

I think that, with convictions, Presidents should stay off the ballot, but without them, yeah,it could lead to childish behaviours.

That was my sticking point with all of this...

I'm not a Trump fan and don't want to see him get another term, but the angle some were going for was cutting corners that could've established a flimsy precedent for tit-for-tat behaviors in future elections.

If it all it takes is a well-connected lawyer to find a "friendly" county or state level judge to agree with them (and the ramifications of such events impact national elections), that's not good for anyone.

I don't want a progressive Cook County Illinois judge having sole discretion on "what counts as insurrection" for the same reason I don't want a staunch conservative judge in Maricopa county to have sole discretion on topics of marijuana laws or gay marriage (with regards to national-level implications)


I touched on it in another thread, but if the "insurrection means you can't run, and he committed insurrection" was the angle they were going for, they would've done themselves a service by at least charging him with it first. Even if they still shopped around for a "friendly district" to try the case in, at least with an official charge/conviction (even if it's in a lower court), they would've had a leg to stand on when it undoubtedly got appealed.

Seems like they were employing the "bet big to win big" mentality, while ignoring the fact that a big gamble means you can lose big as well.

By them taking the shortcut, the SCOTUS ended up deliberating "Do states have the right to kick federal level candidates off the ballot?", instead of "Was this lower judicial ruling finding him guilty of insurrection well-founded?" Not saying it would've gone the other way in the latter (it's still a 6-3 court), but at least it would've gotten out of the chute.

 

[Vambram]

Legal experts rally around Supreme Court ruling keeping Trump on ballot: 'Stern warning' to 'radicals'

Legal scholars weighed in Monday after the Supreme Court unanimously sided with former President Trump against an effort in Colorado to remove him from the ballot.

www.foxnews.com

 

[hislegacy]

As I mentioned, without conviction, I can't help but agree.


I think, therefore, the BEST course of action, then, is for Biden (while still President) to put a hit out on Trump the day before the election. There is NO WAY that he'll be able to be prosecuted in time and apparently, there is no reason for Biden to be kept off the ballot in such a case.

/s

I’m sure Hillary could help him with that.

 

[hislegacy]

The decision did not involve his character--or deficiencies.

It had to do with whether the states were allowed constitutionally to make the wise and ethical decisions they did.

Unfortunately, they were not authorized to stop the wolf at their gate.

It's up to us voters to do so!

The us Supreme Court disagrees.

 

[NotreDame]

BUT, I am certainly not a court of law. I imagine that law is more in place for an "insurrection" that is a lot more successful than a bunch of yokels cosplaying as patriots waiting to ziptie law makers while they all are "fighting like hell" to win back the government....that they lost.



When it fails that magnificently, of COURSE it would.


Had Trump's plan been successful though; then what? The election would have been falsified? Would it be fair then to call that an insurrection or is violence necessary for an insurrection?

I'd suggest if you're trying to change the results of an election by creating new electoral colleges, seems like an insurrection to me.

Do you agree insurrection means to “overthrow” the government or exiting governmental authority?

There’s already a historical. factual context to understand “insurrection” in the Constitution and federal code.

The historical, factual context is secession and the actions taken to implement secession and effectuate secession.

The context also includes the “Confiscation Act of 1862” which criminalized insurrection and barred from office those convicted. “SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.”

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.”

So, given the context, a Civil War, allows one to deduce exactly what “insurrection” meant in the statute. After all, they were fighting an insurrection. The Senate expelled members from Southern States that had seceded, S.C. assaulted a federal fort, the people created a new form of government within the existing jurisdictional/geographical boundaries of the U.S. and the U.S. government effectively ceased to exist within this the geographical/jurisdictional area, printing its own currency, raising its own army/navy, etc.

From this perspective, we can deduce an insurrection is an overthrow of the government, an overthrow of its laws and institutions implementing and enforcing its laws.

What you described is attempt to commit a fraud. The fraud is encapsulated in Count 4 “Conspiracy Against Rights.”

 

[NotreDame]

That was my sticking point with all of this...

I'm not a Trump fan and don't want to see him get another term, but the angle some were going for was cutting corners that could've established a flimsy precedent for tit-for-tat behaviors in future elections.

If it all it takes is a well-connected lawyer to find a "friendly" county or state level judge to agree with them (and the ramifications of such events impact national elections), that's not good for anyone.

I don't want a progressive Cook County Illinois judge having sole discretion on "what counts as insurrection" for the same reason I don't want a staunch conservative judge in Maricopa county to have sole discretion on topics of marijuana laws or gay marriage (with regards to national-level implications)


I touched on it in another thread, but if the "insurrection means you can't run, and he committed insurrection" was the angle they were going for, they would've done themselves a service by at least charging him with it first. Even if they still shopped around for a "friendly district" to try the case in, at least with an official charge/conviction (even if it's in a lower court), they would've had a leg to stand on when it undoubtedly got appealed.

Seems like they were employing the "bet big to win big" mentality, while ignoring the fact that a big gamble means you can lose big as well.

By them taking the shortcut, the SCOTUS ended up deliberating "Do states have the right to kick federal level candidates off the ballot?", instead of "Was this lower judicial ruling finding him guilty of insurrection well-founded?" Not saying it would've gone the other way in the latter (it's still a 6-3 court), but at least it would've gotten out of the chute.

Not really because the SCOTUS decision is not based upon whether Trump did engage in insurrection or is an insurrectionist.

The opinion unequivocally means Trump can confess he engaged in insurrection, he can be convicted of insurrection in all 50 states, including Puerto Rico, and no state would have the authority to exclude him under Section 3 according to the opinion. Congress must pass legislation enforcing Section 3 before any state may use Section 3 to preclude any person as a candidate for federal office/President or seek to remove from federal office/Presidency.

Hence, a guilty verdict of insurrection does not “would've gotten out of the chute” according to the opinion.

 

[NotreDame]

I disagree with the majority opinion because it means that the clause is a dead letter without Congressional action, and I'm not aware of any other clause in the Constitution that is seen to be that way. It also doesn't take into account that it has been enforced without laws in the past. It's a bad opinion, at least the parts that address more than the question actually asked.

Logically the clause cannot constitute as a “dead letter” if enforcement attaches to Congrssional action.

This isn’t the only clause that is dormant absent congressional legislation. The power to raise an army is dormant until Congress passes legislation authorizing the creation of an army and appropriating funds to raising the army. Much of Article 1, Section 8 is dormant unless and until Congress passes legislation.

However, I agree with the point made by the concurrence opinions, the opinion didn’t need to also decide as necessary Congressional action to enforce Sec 3, thereby foreclosing other kinds of federal enforcement.

 

[rambot]

Do you agree insurrection means to “overthrow” the government or exiting governmental authority?

There’s already a historical. factual context to understand “insurrection” in the Constitution and federal code.

The historical, factual context is secession and the actions taken to implement secession and effectuate secession.

The context also includes the “Confiscation Act of 1862” which criminalized insurrection and barred from office those convicted. “SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.”

I understand what you're saying about "context". But in this little passage, I see the word "any" a disconcerting and what seems to be, a clarifying amount of times.
Any person
Any rebellion or insurrection
Giving support to "Any rebellion. Or insurrection"

I can understand a " no true scotman" problem with that literal "any" but I don t see how that passage can logically be read as such a narrow definition as that. Certainly if you manipulate the machinations of democracy to turn an election in your favor your are overthrowing rhe will of the people.

Is "the will of the people ", the government?

 

[Fantine]

The us Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court did not elaborate on his crimes and misdemeanors, tax fraud $350 million judgments, sex offense and defamation judgments of $83 million...so far.

Just a matter of states' rights, and no rights to keep malefactors off the ballot.

The decision doesn’t rest upon whether Trump is charged or found guilty.

Are indictments not "charges?" 91 to be accurate?

Do you think the Grand Juries were just pelting him with popcorn?

(Oops, I missed the word "whether" when I was looking on my phone.) Apology below.

 

[rambot]

I’m sure Hillary could help him with that.

Why is that?

 

[A2SG]

Well, he's not guilty of any crimes relating to Jan 6, let's say

yet


That doesn't really have anything to do with the decision in this case, which (as I understand it) was primarily about whether the states can determine the 'rules' for federal ballots. Apparently they cannot (alone).

Well, it is a victory for those who oppose the idea of states rights, I suppose.

-- A2SG, can't have states making all their own decisions now, can we?

 

[stevil]

I mean, it's silly to argue he wasn't involved in the insurrection; and it's very clear there were folks willing to do ANYHTING to keep him in power.

We also know that they feel they were doing Trump's bidding, and we know that they stopped and went home as soon as Trump got the message out. So Trump easily had the power to stop it. But choose to watch for over 3 hours before telling them to stop.

He should have told them to stop as soon as he got word that they had stormed through the barriers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, given the context, a Civil War, allows one to deduce exactly what “insurrection” meant in the statute. After all, they were fighting an insurrection. The Senate expelled members from Southern States that had seceded, S.C. assaulted a federal fort, the people created a new form of government within the existing jurisdictional/geographical boundaries of the U.S. and the U.S. government effectively ceased to exist within this the geographical/jurisdictional area, printing its own currency, raising its own army/navy, etc.

The current insurrection statute originates during the Civil War and before the amendment, so if you want to infer the definition of insurrection implied by the statute, that would be the one.

 

[NotreDame]

Are indictments not "charges?" 91 to be accurate?

Do you think the Grand Juries were just pelting him with popcorn?

Your retort is “pelting with popcorn” the part of my post you addressed.

 

[NotreDame]

The current insurrection statute originates during the Civil War and before the amendment, so if you want to infer the definition of insurrection implied by the statute, that would be the one.

I already said that. I wrote,”The context also includes the “Confiscation Act of 1862” which criminalized insurrection and barred from office those convicted. “SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.”