The Supreme Court did not say!!

"The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment

Due process was denied Trump and the Supreme Court spanked the Colorado court's butt.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish, you haven't read the decision then and are just mouthing words because you like the sound of them, the Colorado Court declared, without Due Process or him ever been charged, that he was "ineligible" because they declared that he took part in insurrection. The SCOTUS told them the ruling was rubbish and that they had no power to just declare ineligibility based on their feels and that even Trump gets Due Process.

They also ruled it had to be a law passed by Congress, that the states don't get to play in this playground. Kagan, someone you should listen to and probably even look up to though I think she often uses feels rather than law, realized that his Due Process rights were abused... and feared that the same could be done to candidates from the left. She showed an understanding of law that you fail to present yourself.
Click to expand...

It had NOTHING to do with a CRIME. You are seriously misunderstanding this. He had a form of Due Process, evidence was taken and cross examination was allowed. He did not get CRIMINAL Due Process, because they were not finding him guilty of a crime. If they had found him guilty of a crime, there would have been a required mandatory minimum sentence, he would have been adjudicated, and he would be a felon.

The court MAY not have given him what the S.Ct. would say was proper Due Process, but that's because there has never been a standard set for such a proceeding. Trump absolutely was not given proper CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS, nobody would argue that, but then again this had nothing to do with trump having been accused of committing a crime, even if there is a crime with the same name.

The Supreme Court, INCLUDING KAGAN was RIGHT. I AGREE WITH THE DECISION. You are simply misunderstanding what happened here.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
legally you cannot be labeled a 'whatever' without a criminal conviction. It's one of the main reasons why we had a revolutionary war in the late 1700s
Click to expand...

Wow, that is absolutely UNTRUE.

Civil Courts find people 'liable' for different types of negligence ALL THE TIME.

People are found to being SPEEDERS, or RECKLESS DRIVERS, OR EVEN RAPISTS, by civil Courts across the nation EVERY FUCKING DAY.
 
BartenderElite said:
Do you know why he waited for 3 hours on 1/6 before calling off his supporters?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he had a long bowel movement. He was not charged with insurrection or convicted of insurrection.

It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court said, as Damocles explained, that Trump is guaranteed due process.

Colorado denied him of his due process in a case that was not in its purview.
 
Jarod said:
Wow, that is absolutely UNTRUE.

Civil Courts find people 'liable' for different types of negligence ALL THE TIME.

People are found to being SPEEDERS, or RECKLESS DRIVERS, OR EVEN RAPISTS, by civil Courts across the nation EVERY FUCKING DAY.
Click to expand...

nobody treats civil convictions like they mean anything though.

it's a money grab and nothing more
 
Jarod said:
It had NOTHING to do with a CRIME. You are seriously misunderstanding this. He had a form of Due Process, evidence was taken and cross examination was allowed. He did not get CRIMINAL Due Process, because they were not finding him guilty of a crime. If they had found him guilty of a crime, there would have been a required mandatory minimum sentence, he would have been adjudicated, and he would be a felon.

The court MAY not have given him what the S.Ct. would say was proper Due Process, but that's because there has never been a standard set for such a proceeding. Trump absolutely was not given proper CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS, nobody would argue that, but then again this had nothing to do with trump having been accused of committing a crime, even if there is a crime with the same name.

The Supreme Court, INCLUDING KAGAN was RIGHT. I AGREE WITH THE DECISION. You are simply misunderstanding what happened here.
Click to expand...

I've seen horse mierda but this is one load of it.
 
Earl said:
Perhaps he had a long bowel movement. He was not charged with insurrection or convicted of insurrection.

It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court said, as Damocles explained, that Trump is guaranteed due process.

Colorado denied him of his due process in a case that was not in its purview.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure people on his inner circle said he was watching everything unfold on TV most of the time.

Pretty hard to comprehend - you know, how a "leader" could sit and watch the Capitol under attack, getting vandalized, people crashing through barriers, threatening the VP, beating on cops - knowing he could have stopped it any minute, but letting it go on & on & on.
 
Jarod said:
It had NOTHING to do with a CRIME. You are seriously misunderstanding this. He had a form of Due Process, evidence was taken and cross examination was allowed. He did not get CRIMINAL Due Process, because they were not finding him guilty of a crime. If they had found him guilty of a crime, there would have been a required mandatory minimum sentence, he would have been adjudicated, and he would be a felon.

The court MAY not have given him what the S.Ct. would say was proper Due Process, but that's because there has never been a standard set for such a proceeding. Trump absolutely was not given proper CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS, nobody would argue that, but then again this had nothing to do with trump having been accused of committing a crime, even if there is a crime with the same name.

The Supreme Court, INCLUDING KAGAN was RIGHT. I AGREE WITH THE DECISION. You are simply misunderstanding what happened here.
Click to expand...

Yet, Kagan and I disagree with you. I would, though again too often I think she goes to feels rather than law on her rulings, always listen to her before you on any matter of law on any day of the week that ends in "y".

The reality. Had they charged him with insurrection under the USC Section 2383 and he was convicted I think you might have had a unanimous decision in the opposite direction. You might even understand what Due Process in criminal law actually means (I'll give you a hint, it is why civil trials haven't landed him in prison... due process has not been followed to allow that).
 
BartenderElite said:
Pretty sure people on his inner circle said he was watching everything unfold on TV most of the time.

Pretty hard to comprehend - you know, how a "leader" could sit and watch the Capitol under attack, getting vandalized, people crashing through barriers, threatening the VP, beating on cops - knowing he could have stopped it any minute, but letting it go on & on & on.
Click to expand...

he could stop it any minute?

cuckoo. cuckoo.
 
Damocles said:
Colorado removed him from all ballots as "not qualified" due to them just saying he was part of an insurrection. Had the SCOTUS ruled he could be removed from the primary ballot it would mean they were also able to remove him from the general ballot. The only reason his name was still listed on our ballot was because they had to print them before Trump's appeal could be heard.

The reality: They tried to be judge, jury and executioner and use lawfare to make tRump ineligible. I told y'all that it wouldn't work because of section 1 of the same Amendment they were trying to remove him from the ballot with where it said no State had a right to deprive anyone of rights without due process and that he had a right to due process before losing his rights. I also told y'all then that to remove him from a ballot you would need to convict him in federal court on insurrection, which would then actually make him ineligible and would avoid the "state depriving" part. It would also be a law that passed Congress, which would fit the 5th section of the Amendment (14th) which specifically gave Congress the power to enforce the Amendment....

Anyway, your post was absurd. If he could be removed from one he could be removed from both due to the same "ineligibility".

I, like the SCOTUS, am not "ruling" or saying anyone is "not guilty" but one thing I do know is not being charged makes the presumption of innocence pretty resounding. Until you charge and then convict Trump of insurrection he will continue to be eligible to run for President, even if you (and possibly I) really really hate him a lot...
Click to expand...

They did not 'Just Say It' they determined it after taking evidence and made a legal finding after giving him DUE PROCESS. (What do you think DUE PROCESS is if not a Court hearing?)

The Colorado Court did not use what the S. Ct. later determined was the proper procedure. This happens all the time with issues never decided by the Courts, you dont know the procedure until you try.

One does not get a presumption of innocence in a NON CRIMINAL HEARING. Are you really this ignorant, yet still spouting our of your ass?
 
BartenderElite said:
Pretty sure people on his inner circle said he was watching everything unfold on TV most of the time.

Pretty hard to comprehend - you know, how a "leader" could sit and watch the Capitol under attack, getting vandalized, people crashing through barriers, threatening the VP, beating on cops - knowing he could have stopped it any minute, but letting it go on & on & on.
Click to expand...

Try to read slowly, n o i n s u r r e c t i o n charges and no conviction.

No d u e p r o c e s s.
 
Damocles said:
Yet, Kagan and I disagree with you. I would, though again too often I think she goes to feels rather than law on her rulings, always listen to her before you on any matter of law on any day of the week that ends in "y".

The reality. Had they charged him with insurrection under the USC Section 2383 and he was convicted I think you might have had a unanimous decision in the opposite direction. You might even understand what Due Process in criminal law actually means (I'll give you a hint, it is why civil trials haven't landed him in prison... due process has not been followed to allow that).
Click to expand...

What do you and Kagan disagree with me about?
The S.Ct. did not say a CRIMINAL CONVICTION was required, they said only Congress can disqualify someone under the 14th Amendment.

How can a Criminal Conviction be required under the intent of the 14th when it was not a crime when the 14th was written?
 
BartenderElite said:
There is actually proof of that one.

Because guess what? As soon as he decided to stop it and told his supporters to go home, they did.

Pretty cuckoo, eh?
Click to expand...

that is not in any way, shape, or form proof that he could of prevented this

it's also a bullshit timeline to claim his tweet stopped things.
 
zymurgy said:
that is not in any way, shape, or form proof that he could of prevented this

it's also a bullshit timeline to claim his tweet stopped things.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing he could have prevented it, though he probably could have.

But he definitely could have stopped it. He DID - after 3 hours, though. There is video of the crowd listening w/ rapt attention to his video message, and disbursing right after it (and encouraging each other to heed Trump's message).

Sorry 'bout that. And hey - what was all of that stuff on the other thread about how you don't "ignore bad behavior," regardless of party affiliation? I mean, that didn't take too long to disprove!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top