quote:
Yes. In other words he was acquitted of Muh Insurrection, and has not otherwise been charged with it. In my mind this is the biggest reason that 14th amendment sham doesn’t work.

So your position is Trump did not "engage in insurrection"? That's a fair position, but as far as I could tell it didn't even come up in oral arguments today.

However the Court decides to put an end to this, I think Thomas will write a concurrence trying to reverse the CO court finding of an insurrection.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by NC_Tigah

Carolinas

Member since Sep 2003

124712 posts

Posted on 2/8/24 at 1:50 pm to Dday63

quote:
So your position is Trump did not "engage in insurrection"? That's a fair position, but as far as I could tell it didn't even come up in oral arguments today.

Kavanaugh questioned why Trump should be removed from the ballot when he has not been convicted of inciting an insurrection. Kav cited the federal statute for insurrection as a means to that end, and noted Trump had not been charged IAW it.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by dafif

Member since Jan 2019

5700 posts

Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:01 pm to Dday63

quote:
So your position is Trump did not "engage in insurrection"? That's a fair position, but as far as I could tell it didn't even come up in oral arguments today. However the Court decides to put an end to this, I think Thomas will write a concurrence trying to reverse the CO court finding of an insurrection.

Here is the problem- just because it was not argued does not mean it is not important

And... for any of this to even get from A to B there had to be a finding of insurrection

So, how did they get that? Under what authority, etc

I think the court tries to write the shortest simplest opinion that puts this to rest maybe even saying something as simple as it is a federal question

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board