@sonhouse saidI think the judge was splitting hairs on “support” or “defend” the Constitution. The meaning is pretty clearly the same.
@JJ-Adams
The judge clearly did not want to the one to change history so used the excuse to not bar him by saying POTUS oath of office did not use the same language as other officials, that oath does not say SUPPORT the constitution, but DEFEND the constitution, which sounds like a cop out, not much difference between those two words but that was the logic she used to pass ...[text shortened]... fat position on the new dictator work force, maybe do what you want to do all along, kill liberals.
@moonbus
Which is my point, she used that as excuse to pass it uphill not wanting to be the one to actually be the person who changed political history in the US. My wife thinks she also had in mind she would be the target of Trump's henchmen which is a distinct possibility and may be in any event for venturing the legal opinion he IS and insurrectionist and anyone with half a brain can see that clearly but the magites don't care about insurrection since they WANT the US to fail.
1 edit
@sonhouse
Still, it is a significant result, in that a) the defense “freedom of speech means I can say anything I want” was denied validity,
and b) Trump is held to have incited people to violence, which would have been a felony conviction if this had been a criminal case and not a civil case.
As I said, this ain’t over yet. American justice moves slowly and cautiously where the Constitution is at stake, and rightly so. Unlike the SCOTUS decision to unravel Roe vs. Wade, which was precipitously stupid.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@moonbus said1. That has never been considered a valid claim of a person's 1st Amendment rights.
@sonhouse
Still, it is a significant result, in that a) the defense “freedom of speech means I can say anything I want” was denied validity,
and b) Trump is held to have incited people to violence, which would have been a felony conviction if this had been a criminal case and not a civil case.
As I said, this ain’t over yet. American justice moves slowly and cautious ...[text shortened]... and rightly so. Unlike the SCOTUS decision to unravel Roe vs. Wade, which was precipitously stupid.
2. When did Trump tell people to go to the capitol building and incite them to violence?
7 edits
@no1marauder saidThe Judge's decision that says the Amendment bans an insurrectionist from being a local postmaster but not from being President of the United States is a bizarre one.
As already discussed, numerous Confederate officials were barred from office without the necessity of a criminal conviction:
"Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the crimi ...[text shortened]... t from being a local post master but not from being President of the United States is a bizarre one.
All well and good, but in addition to your accurate interpretation of the statutes you might wish to include the fact that this man has been treated like an untouchable GOD by our legal system. You know that if some common grunt like me had committed the crimes he's been indicted for at the same time we'd have been sitting behind bars for 2 years now - with many more to go! "Equal justice under the law" is just a punchline lawyers like to throw around. The way things are going the judges will kiss his feet and volunteer to serve this jail time. 😕
@mchill saidTrump has led a charmed life. So much so that he thinks it’s an entitlement. And he’s a master at shirking responsibility for his actions and their consequences. Blame the accountants. “I don’t recall signing the cheques.”
The Judge's decision that says the Amendment bans an insurrectionist from being a local postmaster but not from being President of the United States is a bizarre one.
This man has been treated like an untouchable GOD by our legal system. You know that if some common grunt like me had committed the crimes he's been indicted for at the same time we'd have been sitting behin ...[text shortened]... der the law" is just item #4 is something they put in the experimental section of an LSAT test. 😕
Hard to believe, but his lawyers did actually argue in state court that he has a right to tell lies in front of an armed and angry mob, regardless of consequences. The consequences are starting to catch up with him, but there’s still a long road ahead to hold him accountable.
@moonbus saidIt will be when it gets to trumps Supreme Court, the US is getting more bizarre by the day
The state court of CO has rendered a verdict:
a) Trump engaged in an insurrection, but
b) The 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists from holding office does not apply to presidents, and
c) Trump's name may appear on the ballot in the state of CO.
A truly bizarre verdict, sure to be appealed. This ain't over yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html
You’d think calling 80 million Americans and the party that represents them ‘Vermin’ and promising vengeance upon his political opponents would bar him from the White House but apparently not.
@no1marauder saida state judge 😂
That was a trial; a civil one to be sure, but Trump was represented by counsel who could and did call witnesses, present evidence and make closing arguments. https://apnews.com/article/trump-2024-14th-amendment-insurrection-colorado-280bc28e57a965a8d6e4d3329dc6aa07
Did it ever occur to you that a state judge doesnt have jurisdiction over federal matters?
you are a sad joke 😂
@moonbus saidThankyou Jesus. imagine Biden negotiating for our country. 68 Of our military installations have been attacked in the war. What has he done, nothing... I guess right now he would just be waking up to take a shower.
The state court of CO has rendered a verdict:
a) Trump engaged in an insurrection, but
b) The 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists from holding office does not apply to presidents, and
c) Trump's name may appear on the ballot in the state of CO.
A truly bizarre verdict, sure to be appealed. This ain't over yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html
Trump would be all over it, with glee.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidJurisdiction was not disputed.
a state judge 😂
Did it ever occur to you that a state judge doesnt have jurisdiction over federal matters?
you are a sad joke 😂
State judges make decisions applying Federal Constitutional provisions every day.
@wajoma saidGO TO THE CAPITOL AND FIGHT LIKE HELL
Nothing wrong with the phrase 'fight like hell', it can mean many things and we've seen dimocrats use the same phrase.
Context is everything it’s a clear unambiguous call to insurrection and a blatant coup attempt.
You can pretend to not know what he meant but only because you love authoritarian government, your only problem is with democratic government and democracy itself