Judge Luttig (on MSNBC now) believes that SCOTUS will AFFIRM the Colorado SC's decision nt

[spooky3]

[moondust]

1. "Unassailable"

Last edited Wed Dec 20, 2023, 04:15 AM - Edit history (2)

is how he described today's CO ruling.

ETA: Saw Judge Luttig later on CNN and he said he discussed the ruling earlier with Prof. Laurence Tribe. They are in agreement.

[NoRethugFriends]

2. Nothing is unassailable with this SC

[BootinUp]

3. They will go back to the 17th century

If necessary. Lol.

[stopdiggin]

4. I feel the opportunity to make some easy money here ...

Shall we open a book ?

[rubbersole]

29. I'll bet $100 tfg has a freshly soiled diaper.

[UTUSN]

5. We can dream. Again.

[LonePirate]

6. He hasn't been convicted of any crime but he is being punished for one. SCOTUS could toss it for that alone.

Sure, he may be on trial; but he, like all other defendants, is innocent until proven guilty. CO got ahead of itself with its decision.

[PortTack]

8. Since it was determined what happened on j/6 was an insurrection, and the constitution says anyone taking

part is disqualified, not convicted of it seems that language is correct.

Now, having said that, I don’t have a lot of faith that SCOTUS will side against orange stinkamus

[Polybius]

9. Who gets to decide what is or isn't an insurrection though?

[spooky3]

10. The January 6 committee, judges who reviewed the facts in this case. Nt

[Polybius]

12. I'd like a conviction for sedition first n/t

[spooky3]

14. We all would, but the Constitution doesn't require it,

And we have to weigh the consequences of requiring that (especially given that Trump has done everything he can to delay trials) versus the benefits.

[Polybius]

18. It doesn't specifically say it does

But I'd like the SC to set the standards on who gets to decide what is or isn't insurrection. I hope they decide that a conviction decides it.

Wouldn't it be something if this is all moot, and Trump gets a conviction for it by late Summer?

[ITAL]

20. Unfortunately

He's not being prosecuted for "insurrection," so any conviction isn't gonna do anything.

[spooky3]

44. On Bloomberg radio today, Professor Laurence Tribe said

Conviction has nothing to do with it. TFG is not being charged with a crime, where he might go to jail, or civil violation, where he would pay damages . What’s at stake here is whether he is disqualified from serving in office.

The first judge in this case reviewed lots of evidence and found he was involved in insurrection. The Colorado SC didn’t take issue with that finding, according to Tribe. So that is the process Tribe says is followed and should be followed.

[getagrip_already]

53. On that point, that he engaged in insurrection

There was no dissent. Even among the 4 justices who voted to not dq him, they did not object to the finding that he engaged in insurrection.

So the sc was unanimous on that point.

[NYC Liberal]

19. Also, a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress voted that he incited the insurrection.

232-197 in the House, 57-43 in the Senate.

[PortTack]

11. Not sure, but I do know Jack Smith has referred to j/6 as an insurrection on more than one occasion

[Polybius]

13. Then I hope he gets a conviction for sedition

If he does, then it's pretty clear cut, unless they rule it doesn't apply to Presidents.

[PortTack]

15. One can hope!

[spooky3]

16. It's pretty clear that the only reason he hadn't been convicted yet

Is the slow machinery of our judicial system, which is exacerbated by its bending over backwards to accommodate Trump.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. A jury, that's who. Nt

[TwilightZone]

24. Nope.

Neither a trial nor a conviction are required.

"Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary."

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Historically, for over 100 years, a relevant conviction preceded all disqualifications. Nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

36. Perhaps you should read at least the first 60 pages of the ruling.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[dpibel]

52. "Relevant conviction" "Over a hundred years"

As you know, every single disqualification case in the last 100-and-small-change years totals this number: 2

Now you can surely argue that "all" can mean "all 2," but there is another English word that gets used when you are talking about two. It is "both."

So when you say "all" in a context where "both" is the appropriate word, you are quite overstating the depth of your authority.

Then you go with "relevant conviction," whatever that might mean.

Because in case number 2 of 2, Couy Griffin, from 2022, the sole conviction was for misdemeanor trespass.

How, in your mind, is misdemeanor trespass relevant to insurrection?

You are claiming, in effect, that an insurrection conviction is required for 14th Amendment DQ. And then you are saying, "But also, like, misdemeanor trespass in certain situations." (Yes, I know that you add that Griffin's trespass conviction was associated with a bunch of insurrectionish evidence. But that is not at all what he was convicted of.)

I would respectfully suggest that your usage is a tiny bit loose.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. Re: the Griffin case

While the case was nominally about misdemeanour trespass, at trial, much evidence was introduced, including texts, emails and social media posts that revealed Griffin’s intentions to overthrow the government.

That evidence, submitted using the rules of evidence and subject to due process, including objections from Griffin, was used by the judge to determine Griffin’s disqualification.

It was a formal process, regulated under the rule of law, that established a legal finding of fact, rather than just a judge’s gut opinion.

I never claimed an insurrection conviction was required for disqualification, I stated that a relevant conviction , creating a legal finding of fact, has been the precedent for over a hundred years.

In one of those two cases, back in 1921, the conviction was overturned, and thus, so was the disqualification. The individual went on to be elected to Congress multiple times.

Without a formal process establishing a legal finding of fact (typically a jury trial), the nation would be at risk of electoral chaos, with campaigns working to convince friendly judges to disqualify their opponents.

That is why SCOTUS will almost certainly overturn the Colorado ruling, to avoid 50 different interpretations of the 14th amendment. (They could expand the ruling to a nationwide disqualification, but I think that’s highly unlikely).

Once Trump is convicted of his J6 crimes however, I think disqualification becomes much more likely.

[dpibel]

56. "A judge's gut opinion"?

You do remember, I hope, that there was an evidentiary hearing in the CO district court.

Now, you may feel that much more process was due. But that does not mean there was no due process.

Remember the arguments about the difference between procedural and substantive due process?

This is a case about qualifying for a job. Those cases are frequently handled by Administrative Law Judges with pretty perfunctory process--certainly not full-blown discovery, motions procedure, and such.

Why is everyone so convinced that being barred from running for president is equivalent to being put in prison?

Also: "Without a formal process establishing a legal finding of fact (typically a jury trial)"? As you know, judges make findings of fact all day long without a jury trial. In fact, as I'm sure you also know, a jury trial is anything but typical--it's the least likely disposition to a case of any kind. The rest of that argument is pure slippery slope, and bears as much weight as any other slippery slope argument.

I am as skeptical as you that this opinion will hold up. But I do object to your use of authoritative statements that are not, best I can determine, supported by anything other than your say-so or your tenuous arguments.

[Polybius]

38. That's what I want

But people are saying no and disagreeing with us here.

[claudette]

30. The lower court

In Colorado did in its decision’s fact findings.

[Polybius]

39. For a federal office, I'd like a jury to decide

Or the SC. Their decision will be struct down.

[claudette]

41. How could a jury decide?

The Republicans in Colorado brought the case to a civil court. It's not a criminal case.

It is true that voters should select the president. But, it is MORE true that there are requirements by LAW to be able to GET on the ballot that are made by the government. If Dump were age 34 he would not qualify to be on the ballot - period.

Seems gopers didn't mind when, instead of the voters, the Supremes chose Baby Bush as president and notGore - even though he received more votes.

[Polybius]

60. The original case had judges overstep their boundries imo

It wasn't their place to decide what is or isn't insurrection. Again, imo. Let's wait and see if the SC takes the case.

[onenote]

31. I agree -- I have serious doubts SCOTUS will decide that 50 states can each adopt their own interpretation of what

constitutes "insurrection" for purposes of the 14th Amendment.

[uponit7771]

33. Can't SCOTUS define it then?tia

[onenote]

34. They can and should. And if they do, its likely they'll adopt a test that would be applied uniformly --

meaning one that requires a conviction.

[spooky3]

35. Rep. Raskin, a Constitutional law expert, doesn't think so. Nt

[spooky3]

45. Prof. Laurence Tribe says conviction has nothing to do with it. See my post above for more detail as to why. Nt

[EndlessWire]

47. Wouldn't that require

a Constitutional amendment? Because the 14A doesn't require one.

[onenote]

48. Not necessarily. The Due Process clause arguably could be construed to require a conviction.

[triron]

49. What qualifications can you cite (for yourself)

That would indicate you are more qualified than Judge Luttig, Laurence tribe, and the Colorado Supreme Court?

[onenote]

50. Not claiming to be more "qualified' than Luttig, Tribe or anyone else.

But the "qualifications" of Luttig, Tribe, and the Colorado Supreme Court majority are meaningless -- it is up to the Supreme Court. They have the only relevant "qualification." For everyone else, its just an opinion.

[dpibel]

57. But you are arguing with them

You said, "The Due Process clause arguably could be construed to require a conviction."

In context, there's no way to read that except that you believe all those other dudes have overlooked this possibility, but you have figgered it out.

That's kind of a definitional claim of "more qualified."

[onenote]

58. Not claiming to be more qualified. Just offering my own opinion.

And for what it's worth, I don't put Luttig on a pedestal. His "qualifications" as a constitutional scholar are based on his having essentially the same constitutional law approach as Justice Scalia (for whom Luttig served as a clerk). It's not surprising that 33 of Luttig's law clerks went on to serve as clerks for Scalia or Thomas -- but that doesn't merit giving him a position on a pedestal imho.

[Deminpenn]

40. I do as well, but,

you know, "states rights" and all that the conservatives say all the time.

[claudette]

42. The Supremes

are deciding on the meaning of the wording of the Federal Constitution - Amendment 14 - not the laws of each state.

[uponit7771]

32. +1, Not just taking part but providing aide and comfort

[TwilightZone]

17. Section 3 doesn't require a conviction

"Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary."

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

He isn't being punished for a crime because this isn't a criminal trial.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. And yet, for over 100 years, every disqualification has had a prior relevant conviction. Nt

[TwilightZone]

25. No idea what you're talking about. There have only been two cases in the past 104 years.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Those two had convictions, but one was tossed by the Supreme Court. The other was last year.

Prior to those two, NONE of the cases ever had prior convictions.

You think one cherry-picked case proves your point? That's hilarious.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. In the 1921 case where the conviction was overturned

So was the disqualification.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. No. Disqualification is NOT a punishment. Office is not property. Running is not a right. . . nt

[ZonkerHarris]

7. SCOTUS will protect Trump and the GOP at ALL costs. They will reverse this.

[Johonny]

46. These two things aren't the same thing

As even the Koch brothers have finally figured out.

[ZonkerHarris]

59. I stand by my statement.

[RussBLib]

21. So do I

...it's clear cut.

Just how corrupt IS the SCOTUS?

[Dave says]

61. Pretty damn corrupt.

Kangaroo court corrupt.

As the Confucian curse goes, “May you live in interesting times.” Most of us would prefer serene, stable, prosperous times filled with social justice and equality for all. That would be a good start. “The Creator has a master plan, peace and happiness for every man”.

[madamesilverspurs]

27. Hope he's right.

But the Alito court has demonstrated a willingness to be appallingly reprehensible. So, we wait.

.

[malaise]

37. I agree

Rec 🎄. 🎄 🎄

[republianmushroom]

43. Hopefully Judge Luttig is correct.

[area51]

51. I want whatever Luttig is smoking.

Yes, I'm cynical.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

54. What this one legal analyst believes

And what will happen are two very different things.

I'm treating this matter like I do anything else: Hope for the best, expect the worst.