The Supreme Court did not say!!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Very interesting to me that the Supreme Court did not say Trumps actions were not an insurrection, they simply said States do not have the power to remove him after such a finding.


They could have said, Trump was innocent, they refused to do so.
 
I don’t think that was part of the case, rather just if States could keep a candidate for Federal office off their ballot
 
Jarod said:
Very interesting to me that the Supreme Court did not say Trumps actions were not an insurrection, they simply said States do not have the power to remove him after such a finding.


They could have said, Trump was innocent, they refused to do so.
Click to expand...
They didn't need to say it moron. He has never even been indicted of insurrection.
 
Jarod said:
Very interesting to me that the Supreme Court did not say Trumps actions were not an insurrection, they simply said States do not have the power to remove him after such a finding.


They could have said, Trump was innocent, they refused to do so.
Click to expand...

All that matters is he can't be removed. The rest is just you looking up your ass for a bright spot.
 
Yakuda said:
But can't be removed from the ballot. Excellent
Click to expand...

Would it have mattered? They banned him from the Republican primary ballot. If he won the nomination at the national convention he would still be the Republican nominee on the Colorado general election ballot..
 
Flash said:
Would it have mattered? They banned him from the Republican primary ballot. If he won the nomination at the national convention he would still be the Republican nominee on the Colorado general election ballot..
Click to expand...

No it was all just a waste of time.
 
Jarod said:
Very interesting to me that the Supreme Court did not say Trumps actions were not an insurrection, they simply said States do not have the power to remove him after such a finding.

They could have said, Trump was innocent, they refused to do so.
Click to expand...

They said individual states cannot decide to ban a candidate from the ballot. In Dobbs they said individual states can decide about abortion policy in each state.
 
Jarod said:
Very interesting to me that the Supreme Court did not say Trumps actions were not an insurrection, they simply said States do not have the power to remove him after such a finding.


They could have said, Trump was innocent, they refused to do so.
Click to expand...


archives said:
I don’t think that was part of the case, rather just if States could keep a candidate for Federal office off their ballot
Click to expand...


ExpressLane said:
They didn't need to say it moron. He has never even been indicted of insurrection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Colorado lower and State SC BOTH found Trump engaged in Insurrection. Those findings stand.

When you appeal to the SC,a s Trump did, and they refuse to take on those issues that is the SC allowing the rulings to stand.

The only aspect the SC was willing to consider to UNDUE was the one they rules on.


But Trump is now and forever an adjudged Insurrections both ruled by a lower court and affirmed by a State SC and looked at by the Supreme Court who decided to allow the rulings to stand.
 
QP! said:
But Trump is now and forever an adjudged Insurrections both ruled by a lower court and affirmed by a State SC and looked at by the Supreme Court who decided to allow the rulings to stand.
Click to expand...

In Colorado.

Can he be adjudged a convicted person although no charges were brought, no trial was held, and no jury issued a verdict? What Colorado law was broken?
 
Jarod said:
Very interesting to me that the Supreme Court did not say Trumps actions were not an insurrection, they simply said States do not have the power to remove him after such a finding.

They could have said, Trump was innocent, they refused to do so.
Click to expand...

it's more likely that they didn't even have to confront it. There was no criminal case conviction or trial, so the question of insurrection didn't need to addressed.
 
Flash said:
In Colorado.

Can he be adjudged a convicted person although no charges were brought, no trial was held, and no jury issued a verdict? What Colorado law was broken?
Click to expand...

The issue you have is NOTHING you say there is accurate or true.

Colorado judge rules Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ — but can still run for president
The ruling came in a case brought by progressive activists who sued the state, arguing that Trump was barred from returning to the office.


...The case in Colorado was brought by the liberal government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW argued that Trump is ineligible to run because of a clause in the 14th Amendment, which reads that those who took an oath to defend the Constitution and then have “engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” are ineligible to serve....
Click to expand...


Colorado Supreme Court declares Donald Trump is ineligible for the White House

A divided Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause and removed him from the state’s presidential primary ballot,...
Click to expand...
 
No American should ever lose sight of the fact that Trump sat and watched HIS supporters attack our Capitol, for 3 straight hours. Beating cops, vandalizing, threatening the VP and other elected officials, storming into the Senate chamber - and he could have stopped it at any time.
 
Jarod said:
Very interesting to me that the Supreme Court did not say Trumps actions were not an insurrection, they simply said States do not have the power to remove him after such a finding.


They could have said, Trump was innocent, they refused to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't think they would have had any shot at a unanimous decision if they had tried to clear him of that. And they needed unanimity. There was still some disagreement amount the court regarding the ruling, but no dissent.
 
BartenderElite said:
No American should ever lose sight of the fact that Trump sat and watched HIS supporters attack our Capitol, for 3 straight hours. Beating cops, vandalizing, threatening the VP and other elected officials, storming into the Senate chamber - and he could have stopped it at any time.
Click to expand...

They haven't lost sight of it. They embrace it. Next time they will do far worse, so we need to be prepared.
 
QP! said:
The issue you have is NOTHING you say there is accurate or true.
Click to expand...

Which part is untrue? Was Trump convicted of any insurrection related crime? Can a state supreme court declare a person guilty of some act without executive branch prosecution and judicial trial involving a federal crime?

The court didn't bother to rule ln these issues (because they were not presented) and stuck with whether each state can determine ballot issues. Certainly each state cannot determine if a person was a part of an insurrection without some legal process--that decision would be made based on the partisan balance in each state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top