• Light/Dark

Trump on Trial - Episode 6 |OT| The One with the One Weird Trick (UP: only Congress can enforce 14th amendment v federal officers)

Reader mode
Casa

Casa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,746
Yep, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this is going to be a 9-0. The radical right wingers on the court are extremely clearly making the case that they're shocked that this isn't even worth listening to judging by their tone. Their minds have long been made up. And then Kagan sounded very skeptical in her brief comments too.

As expected, this is getting shot down. What is extremely maddening is all these conservative justices disputing that what happened was an insurrection. They've all seemed to say it wasn't. They're buying the whole "it was just a political even that got out of hand" bullshit.
 
Bakercat

Bakercat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,157
'merica
That was a great argument against waiting for congress to do something and we should decide now ahead of causing a crisis after the election of people not certifying votes. The SC didn't have any argument against it and there was a big silence from them after it.
 
APOEERA

APOEERA

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,114
Thanks to this Supreme Court (Thomas and Alito with the other Trump appointed judges falling in line), we'll have a second (and a third, maybe more) term of Trump.

Good job conservative idiots. Hope all that money from conservative donors were worth it to have the US be a fascist country.
 
Jedi2016

Jedi2016

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,081
APOEERA said:
Thanks to this Supreme Court (Thomas and Alito with the other Trump appointed judges falling in line), we'll have a second (and a third, maybe more) term of Trump.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Constitution only says he can't be elected more than twice. All they need to do is come up with an excuse to have him remain in office indefinitely without another election.

Something-something-emergency-powers, thanks Jar-Jar.
 
Lightning Count

Lightning Count

Member
Jan 27, 2019
16,087
Fuck off
Casa said:
Yep, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this is going to be a 9-0. The radical right wingers on the court are extremely clearly making the case that they're shocked that this isn't even worth listening to judging by their tone. Their minds have long been made up. And then Kagan sounded very skeptical in her brief comments too.

As expected, this is getting shot down. What is extremely maddening is all these conservative justices disputing that what happened was an insurrection. They've all seemed to say it wasn't. They're buying the whole "it was just a political even that got out of hand" bullshit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This has been their play all along to reframe the insurrection as genuine political discourse, republicans have been saying it for long enoug.
 
Metroidvania

Metroidvania

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,900
Casa said:
Yep, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this is going to be a 9-0. The radical right wingers on the court are extremely clearly making the case that they're shocked that this isn't even worth listening to judging by their tone. Their minds have long been made up. And then Kagan sounded very skeptical in her brief comments too.

As expected, this is getting shot down. What is extremely maddening is all these conservative justices disputing that what happened was an insurrection. They've all seemed to say it wasn't. They're buying the whole "it was just a political even that got out of hand" bullshit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

IDK about Sotomayor - she seemed less hesitant than KJB or Kagan.

But 8-1 is still way better optics than 6-3 or 5-4, so I don't know how hard Roberts pushes.

Murray's also not necessarily making the strongest arguments, to be fair.
 
ZeroMaverick

ZeroMaverick

Member
Mar 5, 2018
4,478
I think it's maybe a bit of an overreaction to think this case will somehow guarantee Trump is elected this November.
 
tidewatersouthern

tidewatersouthern

Member
Nov 27, 2020
4,333
Ultimately we're seeing that Spider-Man pointing meme play out in real life. During the first impeachment, the argument was "this should be decided by the election". After the election decided it, it was "this should be settled by the courts". Now that it's in the courts it's "this should be settled by congress". And we all know that the Republicans in the Congress will say "this should be decided by the election".

It's insane that our system can allow someone like Trump to skate through because an entire political party has bent the knee to him and/or is afraid of his base…a base that's a significant, but still a minority of this country.
 
Zyrokai

Zyrokai

Member
Nov 1, 2017
4,313
Columbus, Ohio
APOEERA said:
Thanks to this Supreme Court (Thomas and Alito with the other Trump appointed judges falling in line), we'll have a second (and a third, maybe more) term of Trump.

Good job conservative idiots. Hope all that money from conservative donors were worth it to have the US be a fascist country.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They're the fascists though so they don't care and it's what they want.
 
Sanctuary

Sanctuary

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,286
ZeroMaverick said:
I think it's maybe a bit of an overreaction to think this case will somehow guarantee Trump is elected this November.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It will heavily indicate whether or not we can expect any kind of conviction before November. Since all of his major cases will end up back with these injustices.
If he fails to win the election by votes, fully expect Insurrection 2.
I mean "political discourse getting out of hand".
 
NihonTiger

NihonTiger

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,560
I would expect they'll probably, at this point, give him immunity as well when that argument comes up before them.

Not all presidents, just one.
 

Gpsych

Member
May 20, 2019
2,921
Saucycarpdog said:
I'm gonna take a guess and say Clarence Thomas has yet to ask a question, like almost every case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He actually did - but it was really really stupid. It was basically, "What examples do you have from history that this has happened?" Murray gave one sort of tangential example and then Clarence was all, "Well, it didn't happen before so therefore none of this matters because if something hasn't happened before, then it can't happen again."
 
FrostweaveBandage

FrostweaveBandage

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Sep 27, 2019
6,979
Sanctuary said:
It will heavily indicate whether or not we can expect any kind of conviction before November. Since all of his major cases will end up back with these injustices.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not necessarily true.

Appeals to anyone, including SCOTUS, have to be appealed on grounds that something in the trial was off. Appeals are not second opinions on the merits of a case. They would have to bring some proof of errors by the trial court or prosecution.
 
CrunchyFrog

CrunchyFrog

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,476
Yeah, I think SCOTUS punts this. TBF, this was always a longshot and kind of murky case to begin with.
 
haziq

haziq

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,695
Man, the founding fathers were a bunch of fucking idiots, weren't they?

They clearly never imagined the president would be an insurrectionist, so they didn't put the clear distinction of the presidency within the terms of Section 3. But at the same time, why not make that clear, if that's what you meant? Why are we required to fucking read the stars & draw tarot cards to figure out what the founding fathers intended?
 
Bakercat

Bakercat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,157
'merica
CO lawyer nailed the "office" argument. The only reason other stuff is listed is because someone would argue against them being disqualified for reasons. The president is so obviously an office and did not need to be stated like others in the amendment.
 

Gpsych

Member
May 20, 2019
2,921
Bakercat said:
CO lawyer nailed the "office" argument. The only reason other stuff is listed is because someone would argue against them being disqualified for reasons. The president is obviously an office and did not need to be stated like others in the amendment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, Murray rocked it at the end. He had some trouble with the other parts though - especially the state running elections piece under Articles 1 and 2.
 
Metroidvania

Metroidvania

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,900
haziq said:
so they didn't put the clear distinction of the presidency within the terms of Section 3
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What's funny is that in the notes surrounding the construction of the 14th, someone ASKS THE QUESTION of whether or not the President is explicitly included, and someone replies 'we don't need to explicitly include them, the President is an officer'

Latvian Hitman said:
Best TLDR I can give is:

Coming into today, most experts figured it was a longshot that SCOTUS would uphold the Colorado ruling. The way this morning has gone thus far, I'd say the odds are next to zero.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

IANAL, but yeah, seems like it'll be somewhere between 7-2, or more likely 8-1 sotomayor dissenting, or (unlikely, but possible) 9-0.

(Would love to be wrong, but....seems not super likely)
 
tidewatersouthern

tidewatersouthern

Member
Nov 27, 2020
4,333
haziq said:
Man, the founding fathers were a bunch of fucking idiots, weren't they?

They clearly never imagined the president would be an insurrectionist, so they didn't put the clear distinction of the presidency within the terms of Section 3. But at the same time, why not make that clear, if that's what you meant? Why are we required to fucking read the stars & draw tarot cards to figure out what the founding fathers intended?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't say that they were idiots…I think that they were naive that feckless politicians wouldn't use every loophole possible to hold on to power, and I really don't think that they would assume that 250 years later you'd have an entire group of jurists who believe that the constitution is some sort of holy scripture, never to be changed. They put the mechanisms to change it in there for that exact purpose…it just needed to be made easier.
 
Greg NYC3

Greg NYC3

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,636
Miami
haziq said:
Man, the founding fathers were a bunch of fucking idiots, weren't they?

They clearly never imagined the president would be an insurrectionist, so they didn't put the clear distinction of the presidency within the terms of Section 3. But at the same time, why not make that clear, if that's what you meant? Why are we required to fucking read the stars & draw tarot cards to figure out what the founding fathers intended?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It wasn't the founding fathers, the amendment was written after the Civil War. And the congressional records from that session make it clear that the president is an officer covered by the amendment. The conservative justices are selectively picking and choosing what aspects of the constitution to uphold as usual.
 
Iron_Maw

Iron_Maw

Banned
Nov 4, 2021
2,378
I'm not surprised if the results is that we get a narrow ruling that just punts the question down the road given the court makeup. As long as doesn't affect the immunity case, I consider a minor setback at best.
 
FrostweaveBandage

FrostweaveBandage

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Sep 27, 2019
6,979
A lot of what is being argued here is that basically the writers of section 3 - just like the founders with 2A - didn't envision certain scenarios like the president fomenting insurrection against Congress. And that lack of textual interpretation is making this very difficult for even the liberal justices to accept.

I believe they are trying to avoid the claim of "legislating from the bench" by not adding interpretation to the amendment that wasn't there explicitly simply because the spirit of the law was meant to discourage people actively wanting to overthrow the government from ever taking office within that government.

So while we all see the spirit of the amendment a certain way - that logically we don't want anyone with the power to do so to be able to simply order a mob to overrun government - the law does not have the teeth to actually stop them from being on a ballot without a conviction or enforcement from Congress because it was too narrowly written to say they cannot hold office.
 
haziq

haziq

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,695
FrostweaveBandage said:
A lot of what is being argued here is that basically the writers of section 3 - just like the founders with 2A - didn't envision certain scenarios like the president fomenting insurrection against Congress. And that lack of textual interpretation is making this very difficult for even the liberal justices to accept.

I believe they are trying to avoid the claim of "legislating from the bench" by not adding interpretation to the amendment that wasn't there explicitly simply because the spirit of the law was meant to discourage people actively wanting to overthrow the government from ever taking office within that government.

So while we all see the spirit of the amendment a certain way - that logically we don't want anyone with the power to do so to be able to simply order a mob to overrun government - the law does not have the teeth to actually stop them from being on a ballot without a conviction or enforcement from Congress because it was too narrowly written to say they cannot hold office.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In that case, the flaw with this current SCOTUS in the context of this case would be the lack of their own imagination, rather than any inherent ideological biases.
 
WarMacheen

WarMacheen

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,580
BLEEN said:
There were tho lol
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just, damn, people should push back, real time, in his face against this fucking bullshit.

I know they don't because they won't ever get called on for questions again, or get hassled by their network, but damn, fucking ridiculous to let this idiot lie over and over live on TV with no push back.
 
Netherscourge

Netherscourge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,082
Allowing Trump to stay on ballots will green light future insurrection attempts, including if Trump loses again and he launches another insurrection against Congress.

Either uphold the fucking Amendment or remove it entirely so America knows what to brace for.
 
APOEERA

APOEERA

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,114
Netherscourge said:
Allowing Trump to stay on ballots will green light future insurrection attempts, including if Trump loses again and he launches another insurrection against Congress.

Either uphold the fucking Amendment or remove it entirely so America knows what to brace for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Or given the conservative makeup of SC, they'll decide to uphold the amendment if a Democrat engages in an insurrection attempt.
 
Silverhand

Silverhand

Member
Oct 26, 2023
1,007
haziq said:
Man, the founding fathers were a bunch of fucking idiots, weren't they?

They clearly never imagined the president would be an insurrectionist, so they didn't put the clear distinction of the presidency within the terms of Section 3. But at the same time, why not make that clear, if that's what you meant? Why are we required to fucking read the stars & draw tarot cards to figure out what the founding fathers intended?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


"Surely the majority of people won't be dumb enough to vote for some evil moron. Why even put down laws for it? A handshake and common sense will do."
 
Pocky4Th3Win

Pocky4Th3Win

Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,187
Minnesota
I dislike that they keep equating that Colorado removing him from the ballot means he's instantly removed from the entire US. Other states can keep him on as they might not hold the same standards.
 
Euphoria

Euphoria

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,644
Earth
Gpsych said:
He actually did - but it was really really stupid. It was basically, "What examples do you have from history that this has happened?" Murray gave one sort of tangential example and then Clarence was all, "Well, it didn't happen before so therefore none of this matters because if something hasn't happened before, then it can't happen again."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Can't they toss that same argument right back at them when it comes to Trump's claim for why he needs immunity and what he says will happen going forward?

What he claims hasn't happened.
 
Metroidvania

Metroidvania

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,900
Pocky4Th3Win said:
I dislike that they keep equating that Colorado removing him from the ballot means he's instantly removed from the entire US. Other states can keep him on as they might not hold the same standards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I believe the underlying argument they're making is that states having different stances on what entails 'insurrection' or not quickly devolves into all the D states just DQ'ing the R candidate, and vice-versa.

It's essentially a race to the bottom at that point, especially when 'insurrection' isn't super-well defined (in the parameters of what qualifies for the 14th) - Texas has already threatened to accuse Biden of insurrection via the border, despite how illogical that is.
 
Hollywood Duo

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
42,808
Pocky4Th3Win said:
I dislike that they keep equating that Colorado removing him from the ballot means he's instantly removed from the entire US. Other states can keep him on as they might not hold the same standards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well I think they are rightfully concerned that if they allow Colorado to do it then shit head states like Texas will remove Biden on some fake insurrection at the border and they'll have to hear another case about this which is a pain in their ass.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.