YoBuckStopsHereTrump ‘engaged in an insurrection,’ judge says, but should remain on Colorado ballot | CNN Politics
The judge just nullified the United States Consitution in support of Trump.
TropicalDingdongHer ruling makes no sense and shows complete disregard for the 14th amendment.
danieltonLet’s face it. Nothing makes any sense anymore.
It makes plenty of sense, the reasons are just horrible.
We all know the only true amendment to these people is the 2nd.
RIPandTERRORUntil minorities arm themselves
BaroqueInMindThe only feasible way the left can actually affect gun laws in a regular human lifetime is doing that: arm minorities and have them protest with their firerms. That's the only way you can have dipshit retard Republicans to vote against their own interests in favor of gun control, by catering to their racism/sexism/genderism.
Minorities are arming themselves.
During the COVID pandemic, NSSF industry data showed Americans from all walks of life were prolific lawful purchasers of firearms. In 2020, African-Americans bought firearms by 58 percent greater rate than 2019. Hispanic-American purchases rose by 49 percent and Asian-American purchases rose by 42 percent. Women accounted for roughly 40 percent and African-American women were especially active gun buyers. The NPR report cited data showing roughly 21 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual people live in a house with a firearm, compared to 36 percent of heterosexual adults. Those numbers, including a Pew study on partisan gun ownership, are likely on the low end, as many gun owners are reluctant to speak openly about firearm ownership. Still, the data reaffirms the lawful gun-owning community has never been more diverse.
jordanlundBased on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
www.senate.gov/about/…/oath-of-office.htm
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
constitution.congress.gov/…/ALDE_00001126/
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Because no judge in history has ever made a decision based on synonyms. I’m all too familiar with how specific wording is in when it’s pertinent to the judge’s decision, and ‘judges are meant to interpret the meaning’ when it would be against a judge’s decision. This was stupidity writ in legalese.
Not really. There’s more to this than appears in the news reports.
There are basically two things that both need to be established to remove Trump from the ballot. First, he must have engaged in an insurrection. Second, he must be an “officer” subject to the 14th Amendment.
Despite what everyone thinks, the second is a matter of legitimate debate among law professors. Some very anti-Trump scholars think he isn’t an officer.
But what they think or you think or I think about this doesn’t matter. What matters is what the judges think.
Judges, plural. The judge here gets to rule on the first question, which is a question of fact. Questions of fact are almost never overturned on appeal. Trump did engage in insurrection as far as Colorado is concerned.
On the other hand, the second is a question of law. Anything this judge decides on the “officer” issue can and will be reviewed on appeal. Which it will be. And the key here is that the appellate judge has to ignore what the first judge thought about the officer issue, and start the analysis over from scratch.
So given that this case is going to be appealed no matter what, the judge made the only ruling that matters on the subject of insurrection. The rest was irrelevant, and she probably knew it.
SquorlpleThe judge: “POTUS isn’t an officer of the United States”
Also the judge:
I sure hope questions of fact don’t get overturned on appeal as you say they rarely do, since that excerpt is from the Finding of Fact section of the court ruling.
Look, I don’t agree with her conclusion regarding whether Trump is an officer of the United States. But her argument rests on the specific phrase “Officer of the United States” and how that phrase is used in the Constitution.
So in theory you can be the CEO of the executive branch but not an “officer of the United States”. People who buy that argument point out that the Constitution says the President nominates “all officers of the United States”, logically implying the President is not one of them.
Only mealy mouthed judges and lawyers could spin an elected office holder as not being an officer of the US. Fuckers have spun their way into negating most of our rights by literally making shit up so they can make their own offices more powerful.
The president is the Commander in Chief. That’s a military rank.
The Commander in Chief is nevertheless a civilian. That’s why they are not subject to the UCMJ.
Based on her statement about the Presidential oath, I think she also bought the argument that the phrasing “having previously taken an oath… to support the Constitution” doesn’t apply because the Presidential oath doesn’t specifically include the word “support”.
Congressional oath of office:
www.senate.gov/about/…/oath-of-office.htm
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Presidential oath of office:
constitution.congress.gov/…/ALDE_00001126/
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It’s not really about the word “support”.
The argument (which I don’t agree with) is that the Constitution says that all officers of the United States must take a particular oath. It also says that the President must take a different oath. This implies that the President is not an officer of the United States (if he were, then logically he would take the first oath).
Hey America you guys are fucked
What exactly do you think happens after we guys get fucked?
πr²China wins.
Haven’t been paying much attention to their import/export numbers? Their economy is in decline. Their population peaked long ago. They’re no longer a cheap manufacturing hub, and they have a problem with political instability. They did major power on speed run and lost bigly.
museBalkanization speedrun any%
Then my second guess is Canada wins. Nobody suspects the quiet ones…
Soon we’ll all be sorry.
Pure copium
I can always tell when someone doesn’t understand something explained when they respond with “Cope” or “copium.”
Look at the actual data we’re getting about China. They don’t even publish their unemployment numbers for ages 24 and under because it’s over 22%. That’s not a country winning.
I mean, I could just make numbers up too, but I don’t need to, I just need to laugh at anyone that thinks America is doing great because the numbers kept going up after a policy of deliberate inflation.
You can’t really explain anything on something as broad as a country’s position of global power. Me saying China isn’t doing well isn’t based off some small snippet of information I heard somewhere or the illusion of what our media is doing. It’s based off raw numbers of their own government, or removal of said number when they aren’t good enough. I don’t have anything against the people of China nor their country really. I’m just objectively saying what the numbers and direction of everything is showing. When you have policies like 1 child that stay in place for generations you run risks of going to long and creating a new social norm of no new population. When you do things like zero covid for three years randomly shutting down whole regions and ports you risk creating an economy that falls due to businesses looking elsewhere to work and build things. There’s things that add up to paint a bad picture. I wish them all well and want them to be successful.
here’s youth unemployment from China. China has been growing imports and shrinking exports massively. Lastly here’s an article talking about people even on Chinas own social media saying their government did a quick 180 on the stance of the US when China suddenly wanted to “work together” as they keep posting low numbers Link. On political instability: here’s two high ranking party members with positions that were at the top who suddenly disappeared or were fired. Like a foreign minister who disappeared and wasn’t heard from for some time. Or the general who also disappeared from public the eye and was replaced. Alone as singular events these mean nothing, but add up that high ranking officials have been disappearing or fired suddenly over the last several months at a rate higher than expected and you have political instability.
Anyways, all this to say “lmao” I guess.
China has been on the brink of collapse for my whole life. I’m 42 next week.
Evergrand, housing bubbles, tech bubbles – China still there.
Who the fuck is saying China is collapsing? Economic issues, crisis of government, political instability, and unemployment are all things many countries face. I’m saying China doesn’t win if we “collapse” because of a failure of our US government because China too is in a bad situation economically and politically. It’s why Xi is over in the states trying to build back buy-in to Chinas economy.
If you had been paying attention since the early 2000s you’d have heard nothing but how China has had historic growth, had the largest population ever brought out of poverty and built massive cities in record time. There’s a lot for the people of China to be proud of. There government and there economy on the other hand isn’t built, and is an unknown on how it handles this massive dip in the economy. It could be that it’s a Great Depression for them, but the numbers seem to suggest something more and with manufacturing leaving China rapidly it’s becoming increasingly likely to be a long term problem for them to face.
China has been doing well my whole life up until Covid. That was 3, almost 4, years ago and hasn’t been able to recover since.
What an excellent demonstration of both Dunning-Kruger and how easy it is to trick morons with contextless statistics.
In other words
Lmao
how are their unemployed actually doing?
and wheres that 22% coming from, what with them not publishing the numbers?
Check my other comment I just responded to. Basically like every government China doesn’t just track “unemployment.” They track based on many different factors and sectors and age is one of them. 16-24 is a specific bracket that is often benchmarked as signs of positive growth from an economy and is linked to general upward mobility (think back to 08 in the USA when the Great Recession meant incredibly high unemployment rates, but higher rates among young people). So when those numbers aren’t favorable it paints a bleak picture that something in the economy is wrong. So rather than them actually trying to create new jobs and do better they chose to simply get rid of the numbers. The reason they most likely have a high unemployment rate among 16-24 is because those are heavy “factory” or “industrial line” years for workers who get jobs producing things. When you’re economy is contracting though and companies are building new things elsewhere then you have higher youth unemployment as a result. For the numbers check the other comment. It goes into further detail about other areas.
Things the media fucking love to lie about:
- Republican Governance
- Better Batteries
- The impending collapse of China
oce 🐆What makes you think their economy is in decline compared to other top economies?
Kalkaline Une guillotine, s’il te plaît, et peut-être une bouteille de courage.
Translation courtesy of Google Translate because lord knows I don’t speak French.
Yeah… we know…
The whole country can’t decide whether autocracy is a good idea.
Ranvier"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. "
What a terrible ruling. In what world is the president not a civil or military office? It’s the highest civil and the highest military office! And they obviously take the oath to uphold the constitution too! This is a travesty.
The other rulings had a somewhat point with primaries technically being a party thing that’s a private organization and not the real ballot. But this judge is just wiping their ass with the constitution.
I obviously agree that the Presidency should be included in the 14th Amendment, but
In what world is the president not a civil or military office?
Presumably the same world that led the drafters to mention Senators and Representatives separately as well.
Or! Not and, or. It’s saying you can’t be a representative or senator or hold any civil or military offices (members of the executive branch, ie the president). Were they supposed to go and list every single position in the executive department within the text of the amendment? That’d be ridiculous. That’s why they wrote all civil offices, all military offices, anyone who swears to uphold the constitution. You’d have to bend over backwards logically here to say the presidency isn’t a civil or military office that swears to uphold the constitution. It obviously is. What else would a civil or military office be? So I guess we need a new amendment that lists each individual job title of the tens of thousands of jobs within the executive department to satisfy this judge and you?
Were they supposed to go and list every single position in the executive department within the text of the amendment?
That’s not what I’m saying.
The question I would be asking is, “Why were Senators and Representatives mentioned explicitly?”, to which my answer would probably be that the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’. Otherwise, why bother? This is an Amendment to the Constitution ffs, there shouldn’t be a single superfluous word in it. My next question would then be, “If the drafters didn’t consider the Senate or House to be ‘civil or military offices’, would they have considered the Presidency to be one?”, to which my answer would probably be ‘no’ despite very much wanting it to be ‘yes’.
My third question would be, “Did they just forget or something?”, and my answer would be, “Gee I sure hope so. Better assume they did.”, which is why I’m not a judge.
If the presidency isn’t a civil or military office, nothing is. It’s literally the highest one of both categories. Civil officers are any positions within the executive or judicial branches. The positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices, it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch. The electors from the electoral college to select the president are even singled out too, as again they are totally seperate from the executive branch, it was just making clear that these would be included in addition.
The legislative branch positions that are singled out exclusively are to highlight that these are also included, as if they only said civil or military offices,
That would be the definition of “superfluous”, and that isn’t how legal texts are written.
it could be implied that the amendment would only apply to the executive branch and judicial branch.
I’m not sure it’s wise to bar anyone from becoming President on the basis of something that “could be implied”. The fact that Senators and Representatives are mentioned explicitly is contrary evidence, not supporting evidence. there are about a million other, better, clearer ways the drafters could have phrased it if they intended to include the Presidency.
It’s unfortunate that people around here don’t seem to recognize the exacting standard to which legal texts are—and in most cases should be—held. I was sincerely hoping he would be barred from the Presidency on these grounds, but I’m not surprised that he wasn’t. I support the dynamic interpretation of laws in our current political climate (originalists and such are morons), but let’s not forget the need for it only arises from the endless failures of the legislature.
REally?
Judge Wallace you are a complete fucking buffoon.
Either he did or did not engage in the insurrection. If he did he’s off the ballot. If he did not, then he’s off the hook.
This coward judge has doomed us all.
Trump lost Colorado… This is a state judge, and quite frankly the fear and cowardice some of you people are showing for Trump 2024 is hilarious.
And liberals wonder why everyone else call them spineless.
The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidential electors – but it does not say presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.
None of that means we shouldn't talk about the ruling itself, and it's possible implications.
Its an incoherent ruling.
Sure, it’s obviously partisan hackery, but “Doomed us all” is just outright hysterical.
If he wins, there’s going to be insane backlash, if he loses (while on ballots), there’s going to be insane backlash. After Jan 6, who knows what else they’ll try?
Bring it.
Bernie_SandalsSo your response to impending Fascism is to wait and believe you’ll be able to out last/out fight the fascists? Good luck with that
Because that’s not worked before, lol
Imagine being such a rampant and ignorant coward you actually suggest fighting fascists doesn’t work
No I’m suggesting to fight or at least delay them at the polls while the polls still exist.
Get off your fucking high horse
No said otherwise, bud. One idiot state judge made a bad/corrupt decision.
I called you a pack of panicking cowards for acting like it’s a disaster that Trump will be on a ballot in a state he lost.
I’m acting this way because an insurrectionist and traitor has the possibility of being elected at all.
There is a lot of stupid in this thread, including yours. Trump is the greatest domestic threat to the United States. Attempting to overthrow a fair election and pushing FUD to undermine trust in the system are seriously destructive. Best case scenario is we’re fixing this shit for decades.
Trump didn’t succeed. But he’s opened the gates for others to try. Caesar wasn’t the first to march on Rome.
He referred to his opponents as vermin, and his campaign manager doubled down. So yes, there’s some fear. The man mimics Hitler’s phrasing and an attempted a coup.
Your last statement is an ad hominem fallacy, not great for actual debates. Are you suggesting that it’s cowardice to remove him from ballots? What’s the brave tactic in this situation? Let the man attempt another coup using his bigoted dog whistles?