General Discussion

BootinUp

(51,325 posts)

3. They will go back to the 17th century

Reply to NoRethugFriends (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 20, 2023, 12:36 AM

Dec 2023

If necessary. Lol.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Delphinus

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