@no1marauder saidTruly…..is that you Marauder? If this were Biden, you would, without a doubt, claim that there is no way the court can do this, without a finding based upon some trial court , finding that he is guilty of that which the court says he is. You realize, of course, that he might not be guilty? Then what would happen, would the entire court be asked to be resigned for making such a foolish decision.?
"The district court concluded that President Trump exhibited the requisite
intent here. It found that, before the January 6 rally, “[President] Trump knew that
his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to ‘stop the steal’
including physically preventing Vice President Pence from certifying the
election,” Anderson, ¶ 128, and that President Trump’s res ...[text shortened]... uding “threats to storm the U.S. Capitol and kill elected officials,” id. at ¶¶ 123–24.
at P. 129
My first sentence is a FACT. My second sentence is a question. We would all like your answer to the question. It actually has even Sonhouse scratching his head.
@averagejoe1 saidThat is a finding by a court after a trial.
Truly…..is that you Marauder? If this were Biden, you would, without a doubt, claim that there is no way the court can do this, without a finding based upon some trial court , finding that he is guilty of that which the court says he is. You realize, of course, that he might not be guilty? Then what would happen, would the entire court be asked to be resigned for making s ...[text shortened]... We would all like your answer to the question. It actually has even Sonhouse scratching his head.
@no1marauder saidSo how is there a finding here of insurrection? You are as usual in a corner.
You're ignoring my point for obvious reasons.
The Section doesn't require a conviction for insurrection and that is what matters.
@sh76 saidI agree except for the part where you said the points were interesting on both sides. The only thing that is interesting is that the constitution did not specifically say "convicted" or found guilty. What was that word again? no1 said convicted is obviously not what they meant by that word, but it is only obvious to democrats. He knows what the framers were thinking at the time. I guess there is no need for a supreme court. no1 will tell us all what the framers meant by that word. LOL!
Unless this happens in actual possible tipping point states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or a state to the right of tipping point states, this, unfortunately, is excellent for the Trump candidacy.
First, it makes the popular vote unmeasurable. If SCOTUS allows this several blue states are likely to follow suit and the popular vote become irrelevant since Trump won't be on ...[text shortened]... n this a few months ago in case anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qZymn-kJiU
It would be foolish for the SCOTUS to not overturn the decision though. It would allow other states to do that and it would make an absurd mockery of our state elections. It would set a horrible precedent allowing continued abuse of guilt by opinion.
@no1marauder said‘What’ is a finding? Can you not answer straight out???
That is a finding by a court after a trial.
Someone told those judges in someway or another, that he was guilty of insurrection. So they take that as the gospel and make this ruling based upon that information.
Get your paintbrush out and start drawing a different picture
@averagejoe1 saidYep no1 is so biased against Trump he wants to fool himself and others that reversing the justice system is logical. He knows what the framers thought too. Not only can he read minds, but he reads dead people's minds too.
So how is there a finding here of insurrection? You are as usual in a corner.
SCOTUS will have to take the case and they will overturn it. Colorado SC did not present any evidence of guilt. They presented opinions just like all Trump haters do.
@metal-brain saidMarauder the Bot will not respond in kind to our points made in these last several posts
Yep no1 is so biased against Trump he wants to fool himself and others that reversing the justice system is logical. He knows what the framers thought too. Not only can he read minds, but he reads dead people's minds too.
SCOTUS will have to take the case and they will overturn it. Colorado SC did not present any evidence of guilt. They presented opinions just like all Trump haters do.
@averagejoe1 saidWhat I quoted and you replied to.
‘What’ is a finding? Can you not answer straight out???
Someone told those judges in someway or another, that he was guilty of insurrection. So they take that as the gospel and make this ruling based upon that information.
Get your paintbrush out and start drawing a different picture
@metal-brain saidYou don't think judges know how to apply the law. That's why they're judges and you're not.
Yep no1 is so biased against Trump he wants to fool himself and others that reversing the justice system is logical. He knows what the framers thought too. Not only can he read minds, but he reads dead people's minds too.
SCOTUS will have to take the case and they will overturn it. Colorado SC did not present any evidence of guilt. They presented opinions just like all Trump haters do.
@metal-brain saidObviously you didn't read the decision.
Yep no1 is so biased against Trump he wants to fool himself and others that reversing the justice system is logical. He knows what the framers thought too. Not only can he read minds, but he reads dead people's minds too.
SCOTUS will have to take the case and they will overturn it. Colorado SC did not present any evidence of guilt. They presented opinions just like all Trump haters do.
Ascertaining the intent of the Framers is pretty much a requirement of Constitutional adjudication.
@no1marauder saidWhat was the word that was used again?
Obviously you didn't read the decision.
Ascertaining the intent of the Framers is pretty much a requirement of Constitutional adjudication.
"Ascertaining the intent of the Framers is pretty much a requirement of Constitutional adjudication"
LOL! Is that why they (insert heavy sarcasm) always agree on the intent of the framers? Is that why SCOTUS decisions never get overturned? Are you a defender of corporate personhood because they knew what the framers meant?
@no1marauder saidLet us start footing by agreeing that neither you, nor I normal brain know if there was an insurrection or not. We do not know that. We know opinions of that, but we do not know if there was an insurrection. So we agree on that.
Obviously you didn't read the decision.
Ascertaining the intent of the Framers is pretty much a requirement of Constitutional adjudication.
But you might say I am stupid. Well, here is a link for you, which, good bad or a indifferent, is proof that everyone has different opinions about whether there was an insurrection or not. Everyone is looking at the same evidence, don’t you understand. So, even though the judges have ruled on someone else’s information and opinions, does not mean that they were correct. SCOTUS will reverse them in a heartbeat. Hope the practical unemotional SOTUS judges stay alive for the next year. Ruling in law, not politics. It all makes me sick.
You need not answer more, chat amongst yourselves in emotion w Sonhouse. Here is the link.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/[WORD TOO LONG]
@AverageJoe1
Was there an “organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”?
This will help you shed your emotional penchants!
@averagejoe1 saidErr yes Joe yes there was
@AverageJoe1
Was there an “organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”?
This will help you shed your emotional penchants!