- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:17 pm to flownthecoop
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:17 pm to flownthecoop
quote:
I believe SCOTUS's ruling today with clear indication that it is up to Congress to make a 14th Amendment Section 3 determination regarding a candidate for federal office
That is not what the Opinion says. They said it was up to Congress to enforce Section 3. Under the Enforcement Act if 1870, Congress gave Enforcement power to federal prosecutors. That portion of the 1870 Act was not carried forward into Title 18, so now it is up to Congress to decide how to enforce the Act.
This obviously won't happen with a Republican House
1
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:21 pm to Dday63
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:22 pm to flownthecoop
quote:
I believe SCOTUS's ruling today with clear indication that it is up to Congress to make a 14th Amendment Section 3 determination regarding a candidate for federal office
That is not what the Opinion says. They said it was up to Congress to enforce Section 3. Under the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress gave Enforcement power to federal prosecutors. That portion of the 1870 Act was not carried forward into Title 18, so now it is up to Congress to decide how to enforce the Act.
This obviously won't happen with a Republican House, but in theory Congress could pass an Act before election day granting power to another body to reject elected officials who engaged in insurrection.
Seriously, I think this issue will return after Trump wins. SCOTUS did not address whether Trump was an insurrectionist, nor whether Section 3 can apply to POTUS. Only 5 Justices said that Congress is the only body in charge of Enforcement, and that might not hold up should the question return.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:24 pm to Dirk Dawgler
quote:
the eunuch SloProFro
frick him.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:37 pm to Dday63
quote:
That is not what the Opinion says. They said it was up to Congress to enforce Section 3. Under the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress gave Enforcement power to federal prosecutors. That portion of the 1870 Act was not carried forward into Title 18, so now it is up to Congress to decide how to enforce the Act.
This obviously won't happen with a Republican House, but in theory Congress could pass an Act before election day granting power to another body to reject elected officials who engaged in insurrection.
Seriously, I think this issue will return after Trump wins. SCOTUS did not address whether Trump was an insurrectionist, nor whether Section 3 can apply to POTUS. Only 5 Justices said that Congress is the only body in charge of Enforcement, and that might not hold up should the question return.
Trying to follow what you are saying. You indicate that is not what the Opinion says then for right back and say that is what it says?
The question regarding whether or not Trump was an insurrectionists was not put before the court. If it were, that is an easy question to punt back to Biden's DOJ and Jack Smith who declined to charge Trump with insurrection.
They know better than to try that route as Trump has multiple defenses against the ludacris idea he started, participated, observed in any "insurrection".
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:37 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
SLOW CUCK RINO IS MELTING
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:47 pm to flownthecoop
quote:
I clearly indicated I am making a supposition of how they will rule on the pending immunity case based on how they ruled today on the Colorado nonsense.
The ruling today completely rejected the impeachment argument, though
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:48 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:
SLOW CUCK RINO IS MELTING
Why? I said this would be reversed.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:51 pm to flownthecoop
quote:
The question regarding whether or not Trump was an insurrectionists was not put before the court.
That's not entirely accurate. Had the court engaged in a different analysis, they could have been forced to make this determination (as only the CO Supreme Court had previously, IIRC).
quote:
If it were, that is an easy question to punt back to Biden's DOJ and Jack Smith who declined to charge Trump with insurrection.
The DOJ declining to charge Trump has literally nothing to do with anything related to this case.
That was a talking point created by pro-MAGA content creators, and was killed by today's ruling.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 2:56 pm to LSU5508
What did the Supreme Court rule about rigged voting machines ?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 3:07 pm to Magyarok92
Bruh even Wise Latina and Not A Biologist ruled in orange man's favor.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 3:13 pm to flownthecoop
quote:
Trying to follow what you are saying. You indicate that is not what the Opinion says then for right back and say that is what it says?
I'll try to type slower for you.
You said that it was up to Congress to make the section 3 "determination", and went further to say that impeachment should be the only process.
What the Court said is that Congress is in charge of passing enforcement legislation for Section 3. Congress can pass the "determination" aspect of Section 3 to another governmental body, such as the Courts via federal prosecutors like it did in the past.
quote:
The question regarding whether or not Trump was an insurrectionists was not put before the court. If it were, that is an easy question to punt back to Biden's DOJ and Jack Smith who declined to charge Trump with insurrection
The Colorado district Court held that Trump engaged in insurrection, and The Colorado Supreme Court upheld that determination.
If SCOTUS were to rule in Colorado's favor, it would have had to agree Trump engaged in insurrection, or at least agree that Colorado courts were free to make that determination.
So, the issue was before the Court, but it did not need to be addressed for their decision. Thus, it is still an open question.
I agree Trump has defenses to such a determination. The negative inference from a lack of charges is a weak one, however.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 3:29 pm to Dday63
You are trying to talk around yourself.
ANy reference I made to impeachment applies to questions of immunity, which were not the subject of this case.
SCOTUS said to Congress "do your job, its up to you to establish how the 14 is enforced."
The question SCOTUS answered was not whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. There is some discussion they could have addressed this. The only question they answered was that it was not up to a state (in this instance Colorado) to disqualify a candidate for federal office under Section 3 of the 14th.
It was a crafty limited answer in order for Roberts to get the 9-0 decision he desired in order to hopefully put an end to the 14th nonsense going on in various states.
ANy reference I made to impeachment applies to questions of immunity, which were not the subject of this case.
SCOTUS said to Congress "do your job, its up to you to establish how the 14 is enforced."
The question SCOTUS answered was not whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. There is some discussion they could have addressed this. The only question they answered was that it was not up to a state (in this instance Colorado) to disqualify a candidate for federal office under Section 3 of the 14th.
It was a crafty limited answer in order for Roberts to get the 9-0 decision he desired in order to hopefully put an end to the 14th nonsense going on in various states.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 3:37 pm to LSU5508
Reading through the tedious gibberish written by the members of the court who can’t shut up (the women), it sounds like while they agree the states can’t decide they are mad that the men got together and implied that they can’t either(the courts), only congress. That tells me what they wish would happen.
Perhaps the court did go farther than it needed to, but they needed a way to stop the litany of other states bringing other challenges to get trump off the ballot by broadly saying states have no power to.
Perhaps the court did go farther than it needed to, but they needed a way to stop the litany of other states bringing other challenges to get trump off the ballot by broadly saying states have no power to.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 3/4/24 at 3:48 pm to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
9-0!
I didn’t think this was possible.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 3:51 pm to LSU5508
The elites decided after 2016 that they’re picking the president from here on in
Posted on 3/4/24 at 3:57 pm to Magyarok92
They decided that years ago.
Hillary fricked things up by not getting enough actual support to win with the level of fraud they had prepared.
Hillary fricked things up by not getting enough actual support to win with the level of fraud they had prepared.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 4:20 pm to UAinSOUTHAL
DID NOT see that coming!
Wow!!!
Wow!!!
Posted on 3/4/24 at 4:33 pm to flownthecoop
I think the majority went further and said Congress were the only ones who can do this. The concurrence wanted to limit the holding to simply say that states, and thus Colorado, cannot.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 4:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
Mate iyeo is Trump in the clear for 2024 general election in all 50 states or can there still be shenanigans from the left?
Page 13 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News