General Discussion

moondust

(21,286 posts)

1. "Unassailable"

Wed Dec 20, 2023, 12:31 AM

Dec 2023

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

4 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

MorbidButterflyTat SallyHemmings Delphinus iluvtennis

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge Luttig (on MSNBC now) believes that SCOTUS will AFFIRM the Colorado SC's decision nt [View all] spooky3 Dec 2023 OP

"Unassailable" moondust Dec 2023 #1

Nothing is unassailable with this SC NoRethugFriends Dec 2023 #2

They will go back to the 17th century BootinUp Dec 2023 #3

I feel the opportunity to make some easy money here ... stopdiggin Dec 2023 #4

I'll bet $100 tfg has a freshly soiled diaper. rubbersole Dec 2023 #29

We can dream. Again. UTUSN Dec 2023 #5

He hasn't been convicted of any crime but he is being punished for one. SCOTUS could toss it for that alone. LonePirate Dec 2023 #6

Since it was determined what happened on j/6 was an insurrection, and the constitution says anyone taking PortTack Dec 2023 #8

Who gets to decide what is or isn't an insurrection though? Polybius Dec 2023 #9

The January 6 committee, judges who reviewed the facts in this case. Nt spooky3 Dec 2023 #10

I'd like a conviction for sedition first n/t Polybius Dec 2023 #12

We all would, but the Constitution doesn't require it, spooky3 Dec 2023 #14

It doesn't specifically say it does Polybius Dec 2023 #18

Unfortunately ITAL Dec 2023 #20

On Bloomberg radio today, Professor Laurence Tribe said spooky3 Dec 2023 #44

On that point, that he engaged in insurrection getagrip_already Dec 2023 #53

Also, a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress voted that he incited the insurrection. NYC Liberal Dec 2023 #19

Not sure, but I do know Jack Smith has referred to j/6 as an insurrection on more than one occasion PortTack Dec 2023 #11

Then I hope he gets a conviction for sedition Polybius Dec 2023 #13

One can hope! PortTack Dec 2023 #15

It's pretty clear that the only reason he hadn't been convicted yet spooky3 Dec 2023 #16

A jury, that's who. Nt Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #22

Nope. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #24

Historically, for over 100 years, a relevant conviction preceded all disqualifications. Nt Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #26

Perhaps you should read at least the first 60 pages of the ruling. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #36

"Relevant conviction" "Over a hundred years" dpibel Dec 2023 #52

Re: the Griffin case Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #55

"A judge's gut opinion"? dpibel Dec 2023 #56

That's what I want Polybius Dec 2023 #38

The lower court claudette Dec 2023 #30

For a federal office, I'd like a jury to decide Polybius Dec 2023 #39

How could a jury decide? claudette Dec 2023 #41

The original case had judges overstep their boundries imo Polybius Dec 2023 #60

I agree -- I have serious doubts SCOTUS will decide that 50 states can each adopt their own interpretation of what onenote Dec 2023 #31

Can't SCOTUS define it then?tia uponit7771 Dec 2023 #33

They can and should. And if they do, its likely they'll adopt a test that would be applied uniformly -- onenote Dec 2023 #34

Rep. Raskin, a Constitutional law expert, doesn't think so. Nt spooky3 Dec 2023 #35

Prof. Laurence Tribe says conviction has nothing to do with it. See my post above for more detail as to why. Nt spooky3 Dec 2023 #45

Wouldn't that require EndlessWire Dec 2023 #47

Not necessarily. The Due Process clause arguably could be construed to require a conviction. onenote Dec 2023 #48

What qualifications can you cite (for yourself) triron Dec 2023 #49

Not claiming to be more "qualified' than Luttig, Tribe or anyone else. onenote Dec 2023 #50

But you are arguing with them dpibel Dec 2023 #57

Not claiming to be more qualified. Just offering my own opinion. onenote Dec 2023 #58

I do as well, but, Deminpenn Dec 2023 #40

The Supremes claudette Dec 2023 #42

+1, Not just taking part but providing aide and comfort uponit7771 Dec 2023 #32

Section 3 doesn't require a conviction TwilightZone Dec 2023 #17

And yet, for over 100 years, every disqualification has had a prior relevant conviction. Nt Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #23

No idea what you're talking about. There have only been two cases in the past 104 years. TwilightZone Dec 2023 #25

In the 1921 case where the conviction was overturned Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #28

No. Disqualification is NOT a punishment. Office is not property. Running is not a right. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #62

SCOTUS will protect Trump and the GOP at ALL costs. They will reverse this. ZonkerHarris Dec 2023 #7

These two things aren't the same thing Johonny Dec 2023 #46

I stand by my statement. ZonkerHarris Dec 2023 #59

So do I RussBLib Dec 2023 #21

Pretty damn corrupt. Dave says Dec 2023 #61

Hope he's right. madamesilverspurs Dec 2023 #27

I agree malaise Dec 2023 #37

Hopefully Judge Luttig is correct. republianmushroom Dec 2023 #43

I want whatever Luttig is smoking. area51 Dec 2023 #51

What this one legal analyst believes ExWhoDoesntCare Dec 2023 #54