Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Beetwasher.

(3,178 posts)
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 04:16 PM Jan 2024

Just Had a Fascinating Discussion with a Retired Federal Judge About Trump and DQ

He’s retired now but was just about as senior as you can get in the Federal judiciary without being on the USSC. Reagan appointee.

Bottom line is he believes CO got it right and the USSC, if they remain apolitical should rule in favor of DQ.

He thinks Robert’s, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kavanaugh will be the majority, with maybe Gorsuch, he wasn’t sure about Barrett, Alito or Thomas.

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just Had a Fascinating Discussion with a Retired Federal Judge About Trump and DQ (Original Post) Beetwasher. Jan 2024 OP
Fingers crossed but not holding my breath. I wonder what the Vegas odds are.... TheRickles Jan 2024 #1
I'm sorry.. cilla4progress Jan 2024 #2
I wondered the same thing senseandsensibility Jan 2024 #3
Huh? Of course. What else? Dairy Queen? triron Jan 2024 #9
+1 nitpicked Jan 2024 #4
Disqualification? n/t Cairycat Jan 2024 #6
Maybe disqualification??? Nt usedtobedemgurl Jan 2024 #7
Made me think of Roseanna Dannadana. What's all this fuss about Trump doc03 Jan 2024 #12
Ha. Perfect! mountain grammy Jan 2024 #21
(Emily Litella ;) ) Gidney N Cloyd Jan 2024 #27
You are right, I thought it was Emily Latela at first. Then doc03 Jan 2024 #35
In This Case... GB_RN Jan 2024 #14
Dairy Queen vs ????? NBachers Jan 2024 #19
Dissertation. Ms. Toad Jan 2024 #32
Abbreviations save so much time. Qutzupalotl Jan 2024 #37
It's a 3-2-3 division on many issues bucolic_frolic Jan 2024 #5
But if they ruled that... kentuck Jan 2024 #8
So? triron Jan 2024 #10
So why have a jury trial? kentuck Jan 2024 #11
Where is he charged with insurrection? Hermit-The-Prog Jan 2024 #15
The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously agreed he engaged in insurrection... kentuck Jan 2024 #25
But what jury were you asking about? Hermit-The-Prog Jan 2024 #26
They didn't FBaggins Jan 2024 #31
He needs to be tried for his crimes, like any criminal. ShazzieB Jan 2024 #16
Juries are finders of facts; Judges are finders of law. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2024 #33
I think they can rule that the state's ruling was constitutional without taking a stand on whether they agree... thesquanderer Jan 2024 #20
Not really. TomSlick Jan 2024 #22
OP, many in the thread have asked what DQ is. Would you please clarify so we don't have to guess?? Scrivener7 Jan 2024 #13
Yes, please! ShazzieB Jan 2024 #17
Disqualified. nt. madinmaryland Jan 2024 #23
That doesn't make sense. Emile Jan 2024 #30
Dairy Queen? Emile Jan 2024 #34
Deceleration quotient? Scrivener7 Jan 2024 #36
I'll have a Blizzard chocolate shake please. DQ...LOL! machoneman Jan 2024 #18
I think there's a struggle in the judiciary right now Farmer-Rick Jan 2024 #24
I have started thinking EndlessWire Jan 2024 #28
Why so many abbreviations? Emile Jan 2024 #29

doc03

(39,087 posts)
12. Made me think of Roseanna Dannadana. What's all this fuss about Trump
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 05:41 PM
Jan 2024

and Dairy Queen, nevermind.

doc03

(39,087 posts)
35. You are right, I thought it was Emily Latela at first. Then
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 08:57 PM
Jan 2024

I thought no that is wrong it was Roseanna Roseanadana. Anyway, I stand corrected.
That was when SNL was funny decades ago.

Ms. Toad

(38,648 posts)
32. Dissertation.
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 07:52 PM
Jan 2024

But I agree that the post was almost unintelligible because of abbreviations.

bucolic_frolic

(55,171 posts)
5. It's a 3-2-3 division on many issues
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 04:25 PM
Jan 2024

with Roberts and Kavanaugh in the middle, Gorsuch a little on social issues but not business ones.

kentuck

(115,407 posts)
8. But if they ruled that...
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 04:48 PM
Jan 2024

...would that not mean that they believed Trump was guilty, with aid and comfort, to the insurrection? And would that not say to the jurors in his trial that the Supreme Court thinks he is guilty?

kentuck

(115,407 posts)
11. So why have a jury trial?
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 04:53 PM
Jan 2024

If the Supreme Court believes he is guilty and should be disqualified?

kentuck

(115,407 posts)
25. The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously agreed he engaged in insurrection...
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 07:07 PM
Jan 2024

...as I recall.

Would the Supreme Court be agreeing with that?

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)
31. They didn't
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 07:46 PM
Jan 2024

There was one dissent that said something like “even if we agreed that he engaged in an insurrection, the state legislature did not grant us the power to decide this question “

ShazzieB

(22,604 posts)
16. He needs to be tried for his crimes, like any criminal.
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 06:32 PM
Jan 2024

The USSC decision is only about whether he is disqualified fron running for potus. His criminal trials are where he will be tried for his crimes and (I believe) emerge as a convicted felon. At both the DC federal trial and the Georgia RICO trial, in particular, he will be tried for crimes related to trying to overthrow the 2020 election.

As much as he would HATE being taken off the ballot in CO or anywhere else, it's not the same as being convicted of multiple felonies (or even one). Personally, I think it's vitally important that he be tried before a jury of his peers for all of the crimes he's been indicted for.

thesquanderer

(13,010 posts)
20. I think they can rule that the state's ruling was constitutional without taking a stand on whether they agree...
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 06:44 PM
Jan 2024

...with the underlying premise of Trump having engaged in insurrection, if they so choose. The SC rules on the law, and not necessarily on the validity of the underlying fact-finding.

TomSlick

(13,014 posts)
22. Not really.
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 06:51 PM
Jan 2024

The Colorado trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found as a matter of fact that Trump had engaged in the insurrection. Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the factual finding. At this point, the Colorado decisions should establish the facts unless SCOTUS determines that as a matter of law nothing done by Trump could reasonably be construed as engaging in insurrection.

Not surprisingly, there is not a lot of judicial interpretation of Section 3 of Amendment XIV. Section 3 does not define "insurrection." The Insurrection Act also does not define "insurrection" but allows federal intervention as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act in the event of insurrection OR "domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" to hinder the enforcement of law. That suggests that not every "unlawful combination or conspiracy" to thwart the law is an insurrection.

The obvious motivation for Section 3 was to prevent former Confederates from holding public office. I can see the conservative SCOTUS majority holding that absent an army in the field, there is no insurrection. To my mind, that would require ignoring reasonable definitions of "insurrection." Prepare to see the amateur historians on the Court search for obscure legal references in medieval English law defining "insurrection" to suit the desired result.

Scrivener7

(59,531 posts)
13. OP, many in the thread have asked what DQ is. Would you please clarify so we don't have to guess??
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 06:21 PM
Jan 2024

Farmer-Rick

(12,668 posts)
24. I think there's a struggle in the judiciary right now
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 07:00 PM
Jan 2024

The judges put in by the oligarchs Koch Bros and their anti-floride Federalist Society...about 5 former and current Federalist Society members on the Supremes right now....are on one side.

And the Maga Stinky Nazi appointees on the other side. In some cases like Beer Bro Kavanough, the struggle is internal.

I'm Curious which side wins out. Both are awful for America.

EndlessWire

(8,103 posts)
28. I have started thinking
Mon Jan 15, 2024, 07:34 PM
Jan 2024

of the battle at the border between Texas and the Federal government as an insurrection, led by that governor. And, he has actual troops.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Just Had a Fascinating Di...