The court heard arguments about whether the former president’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election disqualify him from again holding office. Justices across the ideological spectrum questioned several aspects of a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.
  • agent_flounder@lemmy.worldEnglish
    20·
    11 months ago

    No. It isn’t. If you read the summaries I saw from today, it says the Justices didn’t even discuss whether he participated in insurrection. (Ed. nor anything about conviction. What have you been reading??)

    Also if you look at the original Colorado ruling, it lays out in pretty great detail, based on the evidence presented, that Trump did, in fact, participate in insurrection.

    • beardown@lemm.ee
      1·
      11 months ago

      It doesn’t matter if Colorado lays out that Trump is an insurrectionist.

      It doesn’t matter if Trump in reality is an insurrectionist

      It matters if he has been found guilty of insurrection, or an insurrection-like offense, through a final judgment on the merits

      • neuracnuEnglish
        4·
        11 months ago

        It doesn’t matter if Trump in reality is an insurrectionist

        That’s incorrect. It absolutely does matter if the candidate is an insurrectionist. It’s literally the only thing that matters.

        Read Section 3 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Disqualification_from_office_for_insurrection_or_rebellion ):

        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        The language is deliberately vague here. It doesn’t say a person needs to be convicted of anything, only that they committed the act. Colorado put forth an excellent case that the actions Trump engaged in count as insurrection.

        During oral arguments in the court today, the justices hand-waved this aside and changed the subject, asking “what if” questions about them allowing Trump’s removal, speculating that any state could easily gin-up boloney insurrection arguments against any candidate and have them yanked off the ballot. “What would we do then?” they kept asking.

        From home, I’m yelling “You do your fucking job.” Let the speculative bullshit charges be made, appealed, heard and rejected for the bullshit that they are, shaming the shit-slinging politicians for wasting the peoples’ time.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        It’s hilarious that you got this exactly wrong. Nowhere does it say he needs to be convicted. Prior uses of this amendment haven’t required convictions.

        • beardown@lemm.ee
          1·
          11 months ago

          Prior uses of this amendment haven’t required convictions.

          So what? Even if true, why would SCOTUS care about that?

          Trump is a former president of the United States who allegedly engaged in insurrection while actively serving as president, and was never convicted of any crime relating to that alleged insurrection.

          Given those facts, you seriously think Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts are incapable of finding that those facts are so unique as to materially distinguish him from any prior application of the 14th amendment? Even after Dobbs? And Heller? And Citizen’s United?

          You’re acting like you believe that SCOTUS must apply the law according to its plain text and in conformity with legal precedent. That is a delusion and a fairy tale.