Oh he did plenty of shit that was wrong. I think there's all sorts of stuff he could be nailed on. I am just skeptical that "insurrection" is one of them.
I do not think Trump is competent to be president. I think he is selfish, stupid and vain. I think he is dangerously egotistical. But I think he cratered when his rally spun out of his control.
I prefer "totally fucking pedantic" but thanks
If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"
Trying to press his claim that the election had been stolen from him. And it spun out of control on him because he's an idiot surrounded by morons and schemers who blew smoke up his ass about what he could and couldn't do.
Where?
So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly? The ACLU has publicly stated Trump's comments at the rally are protected speech (I'm not saying they're right). And a lot of this stuff is the same shady election fraud that happens all the time - and which should be prosecuted when it can be - but that does not make it an insurrection. Sending false documents somewhere is not even in the same universe as using force to overthrow a government.
The civil war was an insurrection. I do not think Trump was trying to overthrow the government. If you want to persecute every candidate who has pushed the lie that an election was stolen from them, you will have a tough row to hoe.
Wickard was clearly wrong. Roe was laughably wrong. Dobbs was wrong because stare decisis is critical to ordered liberty. Obamacare was wrong because you cannot call something a "tax" unless it originates in the House. That's my only beef with that decision. They should have addressed the interstate commerce issues more squarely. It was a sleight of hand.
Sorry my fault. I don't think there needs to be a "conviction," per se. I do think that there has to be some sort of federal government action against an individual before he or she can be categorized as an insurrectionist and therefore subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 3. It could be legislative, or some sort of judicial process, but it cannot just be states taking their best shot at it, so to speak. I should have been more clear.
I disagree but I understand your point.
You tell me. I don't think DJT fomented an insurrection, or that what happened on 1/6 was an insurrection. I also think they should have shot every single person who tried to storm the Capitol that day.
No my opinion would not change based on the political party.
Obviously there's a disagreement as to the disqualification. Are you kidding me with that "of course we all agree" nonsense?
The constitution still has to be enforced. That's why 1983 and 1988 exist. They are congressional legislation created for the enforcement of the Reconstruction Era amendments.
No I'm not. I'm not talking about uniform federal election law. I don't mind if the states control their ballots to some degree. But what they cannot do is strike a candidate on political grounds. That's just not tolerable, nor is it legal.
I respectfully disagree. There's an enormous qualitative difference between barring a candidate for failing to meet clearly established, evenly applied, objective criteria to be on a state's ballot and striking the presumptive candidate of one of the major parties because you don't like something he did.
I disagree with the court for reaching the issue of HOW to enforce Section 3, but having a five day bench trial in Colorado to decide whether the former president is an insurrectionist (or Maine's secretary of parking just throwing him off the ballot there) ain't it. There has to be some sort of determination that Trump is guilty of insurrection for Section 3 to execute. And it has to be uniformly, nationally applied/applicable.
Your approach works if you're okay with every state getting to hold a hearing to determine if some politician "actually committed insurrection," whatever that means, with the total chaos (if not outright civil war) that resulted from forcibly removing people from ballots for political reasons.
I seldom agree with you but in this case agree entirely with your analysis up until your last paragraph. The four concurring justices are correct that the Court should never have reached the issues decided in 1A of the opinion.
It's been a wild ride here in the Heart of Dixie.
I'm still not worried about it. Expectations need to be realistic. Losing Grubb is unfortunate, but again, whatever.