Supreme Court is urged to rule Trump is ineligible to be president again because of the Jan. 6 riot

[JacksinPA]

Supreme Court is urged to rule Trump is ineligible to be president again because of the Jan. 6 riot

Lawyers seeking to keep Donald Trump off the ballot are urging the Supreme Court to declare he's ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the U.S.

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court should declare that Donald Trump is ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn his 2020 election loss, lawyers leading the fight to keep him off the ballot told the justices on Friday.

In a filing filled with vivid descriptions of the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the Capitol, the lawyers urged the justices not to flinch from doing their constitutional duty and to uphold a first-of-its-kind Colorado court decision to kick the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner off the state’s primary ballot.

“Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law,” the lawyers wrote.

The court will hear arguments in less than two weeks in a historic case that has the potential to disrupt the 2024 presidential election.
================================================
Go get him, a NYC mob boss.

 

[mrjurrs]

Supreme Court is urged to rule Trump is ineligible to be president again because of the Jan. 6 riot

Lawyers seeking to keep Donald Trump off the ballot are urging the Supreme Court to declare he's ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the U.S.

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court should declare that Donald Trump is ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn his 2020 election loss, lawyers leading the fight to keep him off the ballot told the justices on Friday.

In a filing filled with vivid descriptions of the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the Capitol, the lawyers urged the justices not to flinch from doing their constitutional duty and to uphold a first-of-its-kind Colorado court decision to kick the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner off the state’s primary ballot.

“Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law,” the lawyers wrote.

The court will hear arguments in less than two weeks in a historic case that has the potential to disrupt the 2024 presidential election.
================================================
Go get him, a NYC mob boss.

It also has the potential to disrupt the future of the republic.

 

[Peter]

I fully expect the Supreme Court to rule that Trump can't run again and Trump will instantly go on a sympathy tour of the country about how he's the most persecuted man in history.

Move over Jesus, your suffering was nothing compared to Trump.

 

[Exquisitor]

It also has the potential to disrupt the future of the republic.

No, the Truth is more important, let the Republic fall, better than in the specter of a liar.

Test for the Republic? Pass the test now and we get a better grade.

All that greed and fighting, sacrificed, just like being fired.

 

[Exquisitor]

I fully expect the Supreme Court to rule that Trump can't run again and Trump will instantly go on a sympathy tour of the country about how he's the most persecuted man in history.

Move over Jesus, your suffering was nothing compared to Trump.

He's the one that signed that tax cut.

 

[Helix]

They needed to issue a decision before the folksy Iowa barn dance and the NH primary. Now it will be much more difficult to uphold the fourteenth amendment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Supreme Court is urged to rule Trump is ineligible to be president again because of the Jan. 6 riot

Lawyers seeking to keep Donald Trump off the ballot are urging the Supreme Court to declare he's ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the U.S.

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court should declare that Donald Trump is ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn his 2020 election loss, lawyers leading the fight to keep him off the ballot told the justices on Friday.

In a filing filled with vivid descriptions of the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the Capitol, the lawyers urged the justices not to flinch from doing their constitutional duty and to uphold a first-of-its-kind Colorado court decision to kick the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner off the state’s primary ballot.

“Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law,” the lawyers wrote.

The court will hear arguments in less than two weeks in a historic case that has the potential to disrupt the 2024 presidential election.
================================================
Go get him, a NYC mob boss.

Trump hasn’t even been charged with insurrection or rebellion (much less convicted of that crime), yet that little detail is being ignored by you.

 

[Ishm]

I fully expect the Supreme Court to rule that Trump can't run again and Trump will instantly go on a sympathy tour of the country about how he's the most persecuted man in history.

Move over Jesus, your suffering was nothing compared to Trump.

If it would really help Trumpy, I could offer to jam a crown of thorns over his head and drive in some nails. I could even build him a super reinforced cross (must not exceed 400lbs load weight though. He might need to diet first). Probably need to chainsaw off the hairdo first so I can fit the crown though.

 

[trouble13]

It's too late. The primary has begun and their is no fix for removing him from the ballot.

 

[Fletch]

Supreme Court is urged to rule Trump is ineligible to be president again because of the Jan. 6 riot

Lawyers seeking to keep Donald Trump off the ballot are urging the Supreme Court to declare he's ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the U.S.

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court should declare that Donald Trump is ineligible to be president again because he spearheaded the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn his 2020 election loss, lawyers leading the fight to keep him off the ballot told the justices on Friday.

In a filing filled with vivid descriptions of the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the Capitol, the lawyers urged the justices not to flinch from doing their constitutional duty and to uphold a first-of-its-kind Colorado court decision to kick the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner off the state’s primary ballot.

“Nobody, not even a former President, is above the law,” the lawyers wrote.

The court will hear arguments in less than two weeks in a historic case that has the potential to disrupt the 2024 presidential election.
================================================
Go get him, a NYC mob boss.

From your link"

"They called for a decision that makes clear that what happened on Jan. 6 was an insurrection, for which Trump bears responsibility."

The SC cant make that decision though, Trump has not been charged let alone found guilty of insurrection. Yet you and the supposed lawyers who authored your link want a court to determine guilt in the absence of a trial. Is that how you want courts to work now? Do you want judges to determine your guilt without a trial and without giving you the opportunity to put on a defense? Amazing how you libs are willing to cast aside a couple thousand years of legal thought just to soothe your bottomless pit of hatred for Trump. Talk about deplorable

 

[mrjurrs]

No, the Truth is more important, let the Republic fall, better than in the specter of a liar.

Test for the Republic? Pass the test now and we get a better grade.

All that greed and fighting, sacrificed, just like being fired.

And what truth is that?

 

[Mycroft]

From your link"

"They called for a decision that makes clear that what happened on Jan. 6 was an insurrection, for which Trump bears responsibility."

The SC cant make that decision though, Trump has not been charged let alone found guilty of insurrection. Yet you and the supposed lawyers who authored your link want a court to determine guilt in the absence of a trial. Is that how you want courts to work now? Do you want judges to determine your guilt without a trial and without giving you the opportunity to put on a defense? Amazing how you libs are willing to cast aside a couple thousand years of legal thought just to soothe your bottomless pit of hatred for Trump. Talk about deplorable

That's exactly what the Trump haters want.

They've already convicted him in the court of public opinion. Now, they want the Supremes to convict him, too.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Trump hasn’t even been charged with insurrection or rebellion (much less convicted of that crime), yet that little detail is being ignored by you.

Under the 14th Amendment, section 3, no conviction is required for Trump to be disqualified.

 

[Fletch]

Under the 14th Amendment, section 3, no conviction is required for Trump to be disqualified.

Sorry, no. The 14th does not invalidate the 5th and 6th Amendments.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Sorry, no. The 14th does not invalidate the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Nobody said that it did.

Trump was not accused of a crime. He was disqualified from holding office because of his own behavior.

He participated in an insurrection. He told Pence to stop the certification vote, this alone is an act of sedition that disqualifies him from office.

 

[multivita-man]

Trump hasn’t even been charged with insurrection or rebellion (much less convicted of that crime), yet that little detail is being ignored by you.

I obviously can't read minds, but I think this ^ is actually going to be the objection that at least 5 of the justices will raise.

 

[multivita-man]

Under the 14th Amendment, section 3, no conviction is required for Trump to be disqualified.

Disagree, either a conviction in the US Senate on the charge of insurrection or conviction in a federal courtroom. State courts, secretaries of state, or other officials can certainly determine that someone is ineligible under the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, but they can't do so in a manner that deviates from the rest of the Amendment. Congress has the primary power to enforce the 14th Amendment, not States.

 

[multivita-man]

Nobody said that it did.

Trump was not accused of a crime. He was disqualified from holding office because of his own behavior.

He participated in an insurrection.

That's certainly the opinion of many people, including myself, and there does seem to be evidence of crimes committed, but he was acquitted by the Senate and he hasn't even been charged in federal court.

 

[Roadvirus]

Man oh man. We are really charting some new legal waters. Let's hope the boat doesn't hit an iceberg.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Disagree, either a conviction in the US Senate on the charge of insurrection or conviction in a federal courtroom. State courts, secretaries of state, or other officials can certainly determine that someone is ineligible under the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause, but they can't do so in a manner that deviates from the rest of the Amendment. Congress has the primary power to enforce the 14th Amendment, not States.

The states have the right to rule on eligibility, but I do see your point.

I firmly believe Trump's actions disqualified him from office.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Under the 14th Amendment, section 3, no conviction is required for Trump to be disqualified.

Why does Section 5 of the 14A exist?

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Peter]

Trump hasn’t even been charged with insurrection or rebellion (much less convicted of that crime), yet that little detail is being ignored by you.

As has been pointed out roughly a million times already, a conviction for insurection is not required here.

The Supreme Court will make a rulling and I have a feeling they know the law slightly better than anyone on here does.

 

[multivita-man]

Why does Section 5 of the 14A exist?

That's pretty much my take on it. Congress actually has a criminal statute that deals with insurrection, which uses similar language to what is in section 3 (USC 18, S. 2383). The initial cases against former members of the Confederacy were, if I recall correctly, brought by civil actions against them, and this was at a time when Southern states had not been readmitted and had no representatives seated in Congress. So when people argue that convictions aren't required, there's truth to that, but the context now is different from the context then. It's highly unlikely they intended for each state to determine on its own whether a particular individual had or had not engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason, which, in my opinion, Congress gave itself that exclusive authority.

 

[Exquisitor]

And what truth is that?

That Trump's attempt is unacceptable.

That Trump is a miserly criminal and not a very good leader.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As has been pointed out roughly a million times already, a conviction for insurection is not required here.

The Supreme Court will make a rulling and I have a feeling they know the law slightly better than anyone on here does.

See post #21 and 18 U.S.C. 2383.

A conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 carries severe consequences. If you are found guilty of acts of insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. government, you could face the following:

• Imprisonment for up to 10 years; and
• A fine of up to $250,000 as determined by the court.

In addition, regardless of other penalties, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2383 permanently disqualifies you from holding any government office in the United States.