This would not surprise me. I am sure Roberts will work very hard to find a unanimous decision and then Alito and Thomas will write a concurrence that also says that Trump is worthy to be our King.
Confused… Would a 9-0 vote be for or against Colorado?
Against.
Based off of the justices’ tone and attitude, it looks like Sotomayor may be the sole vote against Trump. Nobody else seems persuaded.
I mean…
THEY MADE T-SHIRTS.
Totally spontaneous. Must have been.
The case won’t resolve anything if it goes for Trump. The court must write something for future cases. For example, does the amendment cover the president? And they say yes, but only as organizer of the insurrection. Trump was just a cheer leader.
Not Monty Python but this is eerily similar to what you asked for.
I love Mr. Show.
I will say you have the same extremely tenuous grasp of the relevant facts as Trump’s lawyers. So you got that going for you.
Moderating:
You’re attacking the poster, not refuting what was asserted. This isn’t allowed, and you’ve been warned about doing it before.
This is another warning for attacking the poster and not the content of the post.
I urge you to read your posts more closely to see if they fit within our rules before hitting that ‘Reply’ button.
I do not know if the SCOTUS will take this into account but Trump apparently called Jan 6 an insurrection. But, he blamed Nancy Pelosi for it.
I thought it was caused by Nikki Haley?
Maybe off-topic, but I despise this shorthand. It’s more accurate to say “merely accused until proven guilty” (although “not guilty unlit proven guilty” would also be okay. “Not guilty” is NOT interchangeable with “innocent”). “Innocent until proven guilty” is about the sloppiest proxy for “the accused enjoys a presumption of innocence” that I can imagine.
I tend to think of it as proven vs non proven, not guilt or innocence.
It’s often been said here (and elsewhere) that “not guilty” is not the same thing as “innocent.” US Courts only find you not guilty of a given offense.
I agree completely. Some people talk about this as though guilt materializes out of nowhere upon conviction.
It is the criminal act that makes someone guilty. There is always an uncertain true underlying state of guilt or innocence, the presumption of innocence just determines the way the legal system will treat someone until a trial formally proves guilt. It doesn’t imply that the person is not actually guilty before that, and outside of a formal legal context it doesn’t rule out the application of common sense in assessing likely guilt when the facts are widely known and the legal conclusion is incontrovertible.
You are absolutely correct. Instead of an off the cuff ad hominem, I should have pointed out that Trump verbally called for the insurrection, refused to try and stop it, and the intent of almost all involved in it was to stop the orderly transfer of power. I should have quoted the Colorado Court that found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means” and "acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”
My bad, and I apologize to Terosunbear and to you.
2/3 of both Houses would be a pretty heavy lift, though, wouldn’t it?
It’s essentially a fig leaf of nominal due process used as an argument in support of not doing something more sensible that isn’t specified in the Constitution.
It would indeed. I do not believe the current make up of congress would lift the ban.