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

[Beetwasher.]

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.

[TheRickles]

1. Fingers crossed but not holding my breath. I wonder what the Vegas odds are....

[cilla4progress]

2. I'm sorry..

DQ?

[senseandsensibility]

3. I wondered the same thing

[triron]

9. Huh? Of course. What else? Dairy Queen?

[nitpicked]

4. +1

[Cairycat]

6. Disqualification? n/t

[usedtobedemgurl]

7. Maybe disqualification??? Nt

[doc03]

12. Made me think of Roseanna Dannadana. What's all this fuss about Trump

and Dairy Queen, nevermind.

[mountain grammy]

21. Ha. Perfect!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

27. (Emily Litella ;) )

[doc03]

35. You are right, I thought it was Emily Latela at first. Then

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

[GB_RN]

14. In This Case...

DQ = Disqualification.

[NBachers]

19. Dairy Queen vs ?????

[Ms. Toad]

32. Dissertation.

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

[Qutzupalotl]

37. Abbreviations save so much time.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. It's a 3-2-3 division on many issues

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

[kentuck]

8. But if they ruled that...

...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?

[triron]

10. So?

[kentuck]

11. So why have a jury trial?

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

[Hermit-The-Prog]

15. Where is he charged with insurrection?

[kentuck]

25. The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously agreed he engaged in insurrection...

...as I recall.

Would the Supreme Court be agreeing with that?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

26. But what jury were you asking about?

[FBaggins]

31. They didn't

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]

16. He needs to be tried for his crimes, like any criminal.

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.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Juries are finders of facts; Judges are finders of law. . . . . nt

[thesquanderer]

20. I think they can rule that the state's ruling was constitutional without taking a stand on whether they agree...

...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]

22. Not really.

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]

13. OP, many in the thread have asked what DQ is. Would you please clarify so we don't have to guess??

[ShazzieB]

17. Yes, please!

[madinmaryland]

23. Disqualified. nt.

[Emile]

30. That doesn't make sense.

[Emile]

34. Dairy Queen?

[Scrivener7]

36. Deceleration quotient?

[machoneman]

18. I'll have a Blizzard chocolate shake please. DQ...LOL!

[Farmer-Rick]

24. I think there's a struggle in the judiciary right now

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]

28. I have started thinking

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

[Emile]

29. Why so many abbreviations?