490
Luttig said it would be “impossible” for the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th Amendment any differently than the Colorado court.
thats some solid optimism against a supreme court proven to be corrupt
Luxury fishing trips and anonymously repaid debts enter the chat
Same SCOTUS that already refused to hear Trump's earlier election case (not this week's story)?
Same SCOTUS who refused to hear Alabama's redistricting case, allowing a lower court's judgement to stand?
Y'all need to learn the difference between "conservative" and "partisan".
I tend to agree with your point, but they also dragged out legal precedent from ≈1850 to justify striking down abortion. They could just as easily go back to the pre-amendment version and say that the Framers never intended the 14th amendment to be a part of the Constitution; their conservatism isn't exactly grounded in anything reasonable
1850 would have been considered the space age to the guy Alito used as justification
Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. The reactionary judges are happy to work with the reactionary party to accomplish their goals. How can political actors be nonpartisan when their political philosophy is one and the same as that of a major political party?
It's a distinction with context. Partisan could be for any side. In this case it's by conservatives who are define morality through the execution of toxic capitalism and profit without room for nuance.
Taking two completely fake cases designed to set conservative legal precident isn't partisan enough for you? They're pretending to have some level of actual impartiality currently because of the scrutiny over roe, Clarence Thomas, etc. Plus those rulings they didn't touch were legally sound enough that overturning them would cause riots outside their homes.
So do most "conservatives".
What? They aren't corrupt, they unanimously agreed they weren't /s
For those people in denial, a judge had a Finding of Fact in an American Court case, that Trump engaged in Insurrection.
Yep! Brilliant move. Now any higher court has to treat that as a fact. No take backsies.
In either case, this was getting appealed, but now Trump is factually an insurrectionist. I am here for it.
So you can’t appeal a finding of fact? I was under the assumption everything was up for challenging
Trump won that case, nothing to appeal.
I'm still afraid of Bush vs Gore 2.0 but all it takes is 5/9 to do the right thing
I don't understand how important a finding of fact is, could you explain why this is valuable beyond Colorado? I want to be excited about it as well.
Luttig said it would be “impossible” for the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th Amendment any differently than the Colorado court.
The Supremely Corrupt Court: Hold my beer.
"Well, actually, an 'Officer' in this context is an unelected representative. And since there's no direct line for the President, they must've meant to exempt that office implicitly (even though that would really need an explicit exemption) so we're going to side with Trump"
But doing so would mean presidents are above US law. It would also mean we could just call the '24 election for Biden now and because he'd be above the law, you couldn't make him leave. Really a lose/lose for Trump on this one.
I love the optimism. I can muster it sometimes. But it really does feel like they're not playing by the rules anymore. They'd just make it not work for anyone outside their team. Anyone can logic their way to any conclusion, honestly, if they're clever enough. And that's, like, a job requirement. I think, we've already seen it a few times now.
The Colorado Supreme Court determined that Trump was responsible for the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and should be disqualified from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.
Not "should be" - "is." They determined that Trump is disqualified from the ballot via the 14th Amendment.
Does the Supreme Court of the US believe that?
Until they make a ruling, or decline to take the case, the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling stands. (Yes, I know they have stayed judgment until Jan 4.)
They believe what they are paid to believe.
Depends on who's paying them.
A ruling that the President of the United States, that has been found to have engaged in insurrection against the United States, doesn't fall under the 14th amendment would basically mean that Presidents are above US law. This would mean Biden could just call the '24 election now, or do a Putin, and just disqualify Trump now and Biden could just stay until he leaves on his own or death. It's a lose/lose for Trump on this.
Edit typo
federal law and the constitution went out the window years ago
everything is a state by state issue now from voting, to insurance laws both medical auto etcetera, abortion and bodily autonomy, what health care you are allowed to receive, you name it and yes this includes who will be on the ballot all decided based on what geographic lottery you win
federal law is toothless only state laws matter now
source: the lawyer we pay and even his entire office does not know how to proceed with certain cases now that federal law is being dismantled entirely
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
490 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19280 readers
2528 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS