• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
oldbadger said:
So it is a civil case.....not criminal.

I still don't think that Mr Trump has been arrested, charged nor convicted of any criminal offence which is concerned with either insurrection nor attempted insurrection.

Even the pro Democratic Supreme Judges may well have to join with the other six about all this.
Click to expand...
No, once again he has been arrested. He was arrested and charged in court in DC. This article goes over the charges. They are the elements of an insurrection that does not charge him for his crimes that could hit free speech objections. For example he is not charged for his speech where he urged people to "fight like hell" and other phrases that led to the attack on Congress:

 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, once again he has been arrested. He was arrested and charged in court in DC. This article goes over the charges. They are the elements of an insurrection that does not charge him for his crimes that could hit free speech objections. For example he is not charged for his speech where he urged people to "fight like hell" and other phrases that led to the attack on Congress:

Click to expand...
So he isn't charged with insurrection then.

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Even the liberal justices are not going to let Colorado keep Trump off the ballot.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Firenze said:
No. I’m not a Trumper, and therefore have the integrity not to whine about an unwanted result. I might however, take issue with a ruling not supported by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
But the SCOTUS includes a black woman who couldn't even define what a woman is. Would you say that such a court doesn't know what is and what is not supported by the Constitution?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
So he isn't charged with insurrection then.

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Even the liberal justices are not going to let Colorado keep Trump off the ballot.
Click to expand...
For all practical purposes he was. And the whole "he was not charged" argument is a red herring and you should know that. If you do not then you have not been paying attention to the argument.

And yes and no to the reactions of the liberal people on the court. I do not know if the source in the OP is very right wing or not. That one state would want to keep him off of the ballot is also a false claim. No state that did this thought that they would be the last word in this debate. They knew that it was not a state issue. It is an issue for the Supreme Court to decide. I have my doubt about the OP as a source when they focus on that. The idea was to force the USSC to look at the 14th Amendment and see it if apples. We will see what they base their decision on. I might complain a bit but I am not going to suggest rebellion if they do not agree with me. I have seen Trumpistas that do not feel the same.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Firenze said:
Right. His followers are happy to know that at this point he is merely a convicted sex offender....
Click to expand...
If people want support such as him, and there seem to be so many millions, then that is a catastrophe for the USA and world.

But you know and I both know that he has not been nicked, charged nor convicted of attempted insurrection, or the complete crime.
 
Firenze

Firenze

Active Member
Premium Member
oldbadger said:
If people want support such as him, and there seem to be so many millions, then that is a catastrophe for the USA and world.

But you know and I both know that he has not been nicked, charged nor convicted of attempted insurrection, or the complete crime.
Click to expand...
Never said he was.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
oldbadger said:
If people want support such as him, and there seem to be so many millions, then that is a catastrophe for the USA and world.

But you know and I both know that he has not been nicked, charged nor convicted of attempted insurrection, or the complete crime.
Click to expand...
He has been indicted and arrested for conspiracy to overturn an election. Insurrection is a broad crime itself, and the DOJ and Geogia charged him with more specific charges that are consistent with insurrection. In court it is easier to convict on more well defined acts and violations.

For example, if a prosecutor charges a person for 2nd degree murder as it is defined to the jury, but the jury finds that the evidence only applies to manslaughter, the killer would not be convicted. This is why we see killers charged with both 2nd degree murdrr and manslaughter, as the jury might acquit on 2nd degree murder but convict on manslaughter. The charges have to be well defined and winable to a jury. More broad crimes can be confusing and require more work to convict. The OJ trial showed that prosecutors need to not make indictments too complex.

When the charges were filed I doubt there was clarvoyance enough to realize insurrection as a crime would be important later on.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
F1fan said:
He has been indicted and arrested for conspiracy to overturn an election. Insurrection is a broad crime itself, and the DOJ and Geogia charged him with more specific charges that are consistent with insurrection. In court it is easier to convict on more well defined acts and violations.

For example, if a prosecutor charges a person for 2nd degree murder as it is defined to the jury, but the jury finds that the evidence only applies to manslaughter, the killer would not be convicted. This is why we see killers charged with both 2nd degree murdrr and manslaughter, as the jury might acquit on 2nd degree murder but convict on manslaughter. The charges have to be well defined and winable to a jury. More broad crimes can be confusing and require more work to convict. The OJ trial showed that prosecutors need to not make indictments too complex.

When the charges were filed I doubt there was clarvoyance enough to realize insurrection as a crime would be important later on.
Click to expand...
Question:. Who arrested him and where? Where was he taken after arrest? Which court/judge convicted him? What was the sentence?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
oldbadger said:
Question:. Who arrested him and where? Where was he taken after arrest? Which court/judge convicted him? What was the sentence?
Click to expand...
An arrest is only the first step in a criminal procedure. Some areas may only file an indictment but it appears that Trump has been formerly arrested at least three times. In two of those cases he was processed at the courthouse, but in Georgia he had to go to the Fulton county jail for fingerprinting and a mugshot:

www.usatoday.com

Why was Donald Trump arrested? What to know about his 4 indictments

Do you need a refresher on former President Donald Trump’s four indictments in 2023? Here’s what you need to know.
www.usatoday.com

I believe that he has also been formerly arrested, but only appeared in the courthouse for the New York Stormy Daniels case and the DC case. He has four separate criminal charges that he is facing right now. The rape charge was civil because the statute of limitations had run out on criminal charges for that act.

The New York state business fraud suit, which is likely to ruin his empire was held late last year. Both sides asked for an early verdict before the trial even began. The judge had access to all of the undisputed evidence that both sides agreed to and on that alone he saw that there was enough evidence to convict Trump. The trial was about how much money would be taken back from him as a result. The prosecutor still presented all of his evidence since he wanted it on record. He was fairly sure that there is a good chance that Trump would try to appeal the case. That trial was a bench trial. Meaning that it was decided by only the judge. It appears that is what both sides wanted. Either side could have requested a jury trial if they wanted one. You may hear Trump complaining about not having a jury trial, but that is just another one of his many lies. Up to a reasonable date before the trial starts his lawyers could have requested a jury. They never did that. So they are either incredibly incompetent, and after watching Haga that is a clear possibility, or Trump did not want the additional publicity and the fact that all of the evidence would have been presented out in the open for everyone to hear about. As it was only those following this story closely seem to be aware of the ins and outs of the trial.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Laniakea said:
But the SCOTUS includes a black woman who couldn't even define what a woman is. Would you say that such a court doesn't know what is and what is not supported by the Constitution?
Click to expand...
For those of us with some science & legal background,
& not using simplistic Bible based pronouncements,
it's not simple. It would require much consideration
to craft a definition that would work with wide &
useful application.
I can judge who is or isn't a woman in many cases, but
some intersex conditions make their determination
far above my pay grade. You might believe that you
can absolutely define "woman", but this would be a
case of Dunning Kruger syndrome.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I expect SCOTUS to give no state the power to
judge a Prez to have committed insurrection
because it's a lot of power for 1 or a few states
to wield. And it opens the door for partisan
mischief.
But what better alternative is there? I see
some, but all are fraught with the same problems.
I suspect the goal of SCOTUS will be to let Trump
run again for 2 reasons...
1) Most justices want him as President.
2) Few would want to be responsible for such
a decision.
Ultimately, it will be decided by the party with
the most power in Congress, ie, whether they
like or dislike the particular insurrectionist.
The 14th Amendment will be irrelevant.
So I predict.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Revoltingest said:
I expect SCOTUS to give no state the power to
judge a Prez to have committed insurrection
because it's a lot of power for 1 or a few states
to wield. And it opens the door for partisan
mischief.
But what better alternative is there?
Click to expand...
I am hoping that they set a precedent that charges of 14th Amendment disqualifications of Presidential candidates at the state level will proceed to the Supreme Court where it will be decided for the country. After all who better to judge this than the Supreme Court? Ideally (though right now we know that is not the case) it will get rid of partisan politics. Does anyone seriously think that either Colorado or Maine thought that they were the last word in this? They knew from the start that this was a Supreme Court case. They should be arguing that way. They may be arguing that way.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
I am hoping that they set a precedent that charges of 14th Amendment disqualifications of Presidential candidates at the state level will proceed to the Supreme Court where it will be decided for the country. After all who better to judge this than the Supreme Court? Ideally (though right now we know that is not the case) it will get rid of partisan politics. Does anyone seriously think that either Colorado or Maine thought that they were the last word in this? They knew from the start that this was a Supreme Court case. They should be arguing that way. They may be arguing that way.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer that the states individually judge.
This avoids the risk of undue concentration
of power in a partisan packed SCOTUS.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Revoltingest said:
I'd prefer that the states individually judge.
This avoids the risk of undue concentration
of power in a partisan packed SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Please note that I am only limiting this to the USSC. What the judges do not seem to like is that they seem to think that one state can affect the ballots of others. I do not see how that is the case. Unfortunately the present USSC will be a black mark on the history of jurisprudence in the US for some years to come. I do not have a lot of hope in this matter. If I was a praying man I might try that, but talking to myself is in reality not helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top