Precedent
Comments
-
When the SCOTUS ducks the legal issues for procedural quibbles, you'll have your answer.RaceBannon said:
How does one differentiate partisan cowardice between the national court and the Colorado court?HHusky said:
I would never underestimate the partisan cowardice of this Supreme Court.Sources said:
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about. -
So you're unable to back up your assertion as usual
-
Is "locker room talk" part of the precedent? A buddy of mine with two fake law degrees and a PHD in media deconstruction says so. TYIA.
-
This doesn't take effect until Jan 6th (might have read that wrong) and it goes to the SCOTUS first, I am sure they will support this decision.
Have any of the precedent cases mentioned made it to the bigger biased Supreme Court?
I heard that the Colorado GOP is going to have caucuses and not do an election, not sure what effect that will have on the federal election.
To all our investigative poasters, has there ever been a state Supreme Court ruling that included its own stay? First tim I have heard of that happening -
March over peacefully....HHusky said:https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
The precedent likewise confirms that one can “engage” in insurrection without personally committing violent acts. Neither Kenneth Worthy nor Couy Griffin were accused of engaging in violence, yet both were ruled to be disqualified because they knowingly and voluntarily aided violent insurrections. These rulings are consistent with the views of Attorney General Henry Stanbery, who opined in 1867 that when a person has “incited others to engage in [insurrection or] rebellion, he must come under the disqualification.” President Andrew Johnson and his Cabinet approved that interpretation, and Johnson directed officers commanding the Southern military districts to follow it.
Game set match -
The only partisans were the 4 colorado judges.... this should be a 9 0 rebukingHHusky said:
I would never underestimate the partisan cowardice of this Supreme Court.Sources said:
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about. -
I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised, but I predict SCOTUS will either duck the merits or butcher the 14th Amendment in the same way they butchered the 2nd. I'm betting they'll duck the merits.Goduckies said:
The only partisans were the 4 colorado judges.... this should be a 9 0 rebukingHHusky said:
I would never underestimate the partisan cowardice of this Supreme Court.Sources said:
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about.
They might get 9-0 if they duck the merits. I doubt very much they'll get a 9-0 vote on the merits. -
NOCHHusky said:
I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised, but I predict SCOTUS will either duck the merits or butcher the 14th Amendment in the same way they butchered the 2nd. I'm betting they'll duck the merits.Goduckies said:
The only partisans were the 4 colorado judges.... this should be a 9 0 rebukingHHusky said:
I would never underestimate the partisan cowardice of this Supreme Court.Sources said:
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about.
They might get 9-0 if they duck the merits. I doubt very much they'll get a 9-0 vote on the merits. -
obviouslyRaceBannon said:
NOCHHusky said:
I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised, but I predict SCOTUS will either duck the merits or butcher the 14th Amendment in the same way they butchered the 2nd. I'm betting they'll duck the merits.Goduckies said:
The only partisans were the 4 colorado judges.... this should be a 9 0 rebukingHHusky said:
I would never underestimate the partisan cowardice of this Supreme Court.Sources said:
Way to narrow it down. SCOTUS will take it from here, kidHHusky said:I'd ignore the GOP participants in these lawsuits too if I were you.
Anyway, CREW is either correct about the precedent or it is not. Feel free to show their error.
You won't, of course.
I already told you gals you probably have nothing to worry about.
They might get 9-0 if they duck the merits. I doubt very much they'll get a 9-0 vote on the merits. -
About your worthless opinion
