Latest Breaking News

Novara

(6,115 posts)

52. "engaged in insurrection"

Wed Dec 20, 2023, 07:47 AM

Dec 2023

And the lower court's decision ruled that he had. However, they also ruled that he wasn't "an officeholder." which made no sense.

I need to read what smarter people than I have to say about the types of decisions the SCOTUS can reverse and how. For example, since a lower court found that he engaged in insurrection, I am not sure that the SCOTUS can come back with, "No, he didn't," because it's a finding of fact. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but we've all become armchair lawyers since 2016 and something about finding of facts is nagging me in the back of my mind. I think the SCOTUS can reverse decisions on merits or if standing was wrongly determined. I'd like to know if either apples here and how.

I will make it my mission today to read as many lawyers' explanations of this that I can find.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal [View all] Jarqui Dec 2023 OP

neener, neener, Stinky Donny rurallib Dec 2023 #1

213 pages! This will take a while. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #2

SCOTUS is gonna have to deal with this Maeve Dec 2023 #3

The real kicker comes on page 9 Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #4

Finally. Voltaire2 Dec 2023 #5

Can he run as an Independent in the Gerneral election? OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #6

From my understanding he is disqualified from holding office MichMan Dec 2023 #8

Agreed, like voting for Daffy Duck shelshaw Dec 2023 #18

Opinion specifically and explicitly states that write-in votes cannot count Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #23

Well, That's The Thing... GB_RN Dec 2023 #33

My laptop DU tells me nothing on your post count. OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #41

Thanks. GB_RN Dec 2023 #56

Nowhere in the Amendment is conviction mentioned. The key word is "engaged" Cattledog Dec 2023 #50

"engaged in insurrection" Novara Dec 2023 #52

And also . . . DC77 Dec 2023 #58

You Have A Point. GB_RN Dec 2023 #65

Good news! Marthe48 Dec 2023 #7

I am not confident that the SC will agree with the Colorado SC. They will argue that he hasn't been charged with JohnSJ Dec 2023 #9

I am curious to see how they will twist things, given that states run elections. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #10

and I think the conservatives on the court will do a lot of twisting JohnSJ Dec 2023 #16

Realistic assessment. n/t shrike3 Dec 2023 #12

Neither charged nor convicted Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #20

Laurence Tribe says it doesn't matter MichMan Dec 2023 #24

Tribe isn't a SC Justice. Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #27

If it was for insurrection, then yes they could MichMan Dec 2023 #40

Judge Luttig also agrees with Tribe. nt Trueblue Texan Dec 2023 #57

Nobody involved in the suit and none of the judges thought of this Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #28

I'm hardly the first to raise the issue Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #32

And how do the litigants and the opinion(s) address this concern? Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #34

What concern? Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #36

Has it ever come up from the litigants that there's been no charge and conviction Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #37

It will be brought up on appeal. Nt. Fiendish Thingy Dec 2023 #38

Surely it has come up in the actual litigation Prairie Gates Dec 2023 #39

Then SCOTUS has to way in. Was it an Insurrection or not? OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #42

I think they'll rule that insurrection isn't a wink wink Polybius Dec 2023 #44

It was an Insurrection. And I would like SCOTUS to validate this simple fact. OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2023 #45

Just because we "think" it is doesn't mean that that's enough evidence Polybius Dec 2023 #46

It is not required that he be charged or convicted NJCher Dec 2023 #47

THANK YOU Novara Dec 2023 #53

Suck it Donny, you fat piece of shit Blue Owl Dec 2023 #11

This is a big deal. Now there is a precedence other courts can cite. flashman13 Dec 2023 #13

That's what I was thinking, and I hope other states will use... SKKY Dec 2023 #30

Michigan's case is going to the MI supreme court Novara Dec 2023 #54

Yay!! ificandream Dec 2023 #14

Interesting to see just how Roberts can twist this Scalded Nun Dec 2023 #15

Roberts wouldn't be the problem TwilightZone Dec 2023 #17

I Don't Think This Comes To A State Issue... GB_RN Dec 2023 #35

Kick dalton99a Dec 2023 #19

This message was self-deleted by its author Omaha Steve Dec 2023 #21

May other states quickly follow suit. Evolve Dammit Dec 2023 #22

I guess I don't have much of an imagination... dchill Dec 2023 #25

I'm delighted that this happened in Colorado FakeNoose Dec 2023 #26

Doubt that would stop him even if it were true... but it isn't FBaggins Dec 2023 #49

SCOTUS will find this easy to dispose of. Frasier Balzov Dec 2023 #29

All of your points are well covered in the decision. See the pdf linked in OP. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2023 #48

Suck it Donny you fucking piece of shit Hitler wannabe Blue Owl Dec 2023 #31

Unfortunately the wording allows SCOTUS an out jgmiller Dec 2023 #43

What about write ins? The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #51

Those votes will be discarded MichMan Dec 2023 #60

Then the COSC blundered. The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #61

It is consistent with their decision that he is disqualified from holding office MichMan Dec 2023 #62

They will look at the write in ban as voter suppression The Grand Illuminist Dec 2023 #63

In my state, write in votes are only counted when candidate petitions the state to be officially approved as a write in MichMan Dec 2023 #64

I don't get all this pause ruling to allow appeal. A ruling is a ruling. It should be in effect immediately. bullimiami Dec 2023 #55

I think SCOTUS will disqualify him from Colorado but not make it a national ruling. ificandream Dec 2023 #59