How about all those other state Supreme Courts who have rulings on the very same point - whether Trump qualifies or not under Section 3 of Amendment XIV of U.S. Constitution - in Arizona, Minnesota and Michigan?
They've yet to be decided... Hence, a SCOTUS decision against the Colorado Supreme Court would be timely, and moot the others.
But — What fun when Biden is disqualified on (technically spurious federal) grounds! (Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida...)
As I cautioned: "An ounce of perception is worth a pound of presumption"
yes, unconditional surrender is proportional when the aggressor is engaged in all-out assault in all directions. The comparison on this point puts Israel in worse light than Hamas.
You're delusional!
Israel should bend the neck, and wait for the sword to drop? You would, of course! No, you silly goose, you wouldn't... (Do I hear you chanting "Better Red than Dead"?)
State Supreme Courts do not decide U.S. Constitutional matters... And the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes state courts, including their Supreme Courts, subservient to SCOTUS — which presides over federal law, and ultimately the Constitution. Only by amending the Constitution can Congress over-rule SCOTUS. (Of course, Presidents like Obama and Biden can thumb their noses... But there are consequences! )
For you, ersi, I'll spell it out in short sentences:
The U.S. Constitution lists the qualifications for the office of the Presidency. (You can look it up...) While the 14th Amendment's Section Three prohibits "insurrectionists" from office, the required act of congress to effect this prohibition was made and needs be followed. The effecting statute has not been followed. (I.e., no lawful prosecution has taken place...) Hence, no determination of guilt has been reached — by law. And -obviously- no punishment that deprives a citizen of his rights can be applied. Q.E.D.
BTW: Clarance Thomas remains my "favorite" Supreme Court Justice!
Dear ersi, when will you learn "An ounce of perception is worth a pound of presumption"?
you do not know that Supreme Courts (both of the states and federal) do not do jurys in the cases they pick up for their own judgement?
In the Federal Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution stipulates which cases are the purview of the court. Can you show an exception for any State Supreme Court? Are you familiar with the phrase "of first impression"? The Supreme Court of the U.S. is an appellant's court...
A case in point: Jack Smith wanted SCOTUS to expedite hearing his contention that Trump should be constrained from appealing (thru the regular means) his jeopardy in the Insurrection charges filed... SCOTUS said NO! He's an American citizen; his legal rights can't be abrogated.
Jack should go back to the Hague... (He's had quite a bit of bad luck with SCOTUS over the years.)
Actually, in both USA and in every other country it is precisely the job of judges to judge who is guilty or not.
Actually, in the USA, the suspect needs to be indicted by a Grand Jury for a specific offense and prosecuted before a judge and jury of his peers, with his full rights as a citizen in play... For the most part, a trial judge here sits mainly to preside over the adversarial trial and see to it that the niceties of the law are followed by both the prosecution and the defense. (It's an Anglo-Saxon thing.) The jury determines matters of fact, and guilt or innocence.
Was the U.S.S.R (e.g., Russia) wrong to pursue the destruction of Nazi Germany in WWII? Were the Allies wrong to do so? Should lawyers and accountants have drawn up tote-sheets to determine what was acceptable? Read General Sherman's words again, please. He understood. You don't. Learn from him. (You could read Clausewitz too. And others. But you won't. Bureaucrats only read memos... Oh, and politicians have their staff read white papers!) When war is declared, victory is the objective. If no just peace can be accepted by your adversary, victory is the only possible objective, with them vanquished. Hamas has as its objective the destruction of Israel. What terms might make Israel accept such an outcome? I'd say, defeat... Well, it's been tried — every now and then. You don't like how it turned out? Re-write history, like Orwell predicted.
You are a hyper-partisan QAnon Trumpite of the alt-facts gang. Is this specific enough? Need more details?
Yeah. One example or two... But you don't have them: For you, name-calling and hand-waving are sufficient!
Since you can't or won't be bothered to read and understand what I write, you rely on your absurd sufficiency, much like the four Colorado Supreme Court Justices recently: We know he's guilty, so we treat him so! (Might work in other countries; it's not supposed to in the U.S.)
A grossly misguided one, when war has been declared. You are not just naive, you are perversely so. Israel has been repeatedly attacked... It has attempted repeatedly to accept a "two-state" solution. But how, I ask you, does one accept a neighbor who openly calls for your destruction, and works tirelessly toward that end? You (perhaps snidely) ignore the Islamist nature of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, itself. I wouldn't be surprised...
I've been a Zionist since 1967. Admittedly, on little information — then. I've learned much, of history and geopolitics since. I remain a Zionist: I accept the nation of Israel as the home of the Jews. Zebulon Vance was an obscure American politician... Just because you find some of his published works' words useful for your ad hominems, I should give them credence? Your mentions of him are spurious. But that's what you do best!
I'm quite aware that Israel is a U.S. ally — for reasons that you will never understand. You're still too much under the influence of your Soviet education, a love-hate relationship that will forever hamper your intellect.
Despite the likelihood that CoV-2 was a lab experiment let loose and not a bio-weapon deployed, it was known quickly what its virulence was... And how to react, in the short term. Instead, a virtual panic ensued — for the benefit of the Bio-War Gamers?
the leading Republican presidential candidate Trump who is at the same time election head-fraudster and insurrection arch-conspirator. You always miss the point in every topic every single time.
You mean, I can't enter into the Bizarro-world inhabited by one ersi?
I'm a hypocrite? Your logic is lapsing: In what (try to be specific!) am I hypocritical? You mean your ad hominem fluffery has to be accepted, otherwise you lose your case? Yeah. I know. Logic ain't your strong suit.
Oh, well. I probably must: Gorsuch in Bostock played a word game with "sex" and "gender". and thus derived an interpretation of the law that Congress had repeatedly refused to accept. Your contention was, basically, that the age-old procedures of Common Law countenanced this ignored the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is not a Common Law court... You commended him for this. I derided him for it.
But -of course- because Gorsuch has been described as "Conservative" and something he said may support an ultra-liberal (for ersi, any anti Trump) stance, I must be a hypocrite! His typical as hominem! (He still uses and mis-uses Aristotle's logic — syllogisms, which are too complicated for him to understand. (W.V.O. Quine published an axiomatization of such... Again, of course, he remains unaware.[1] )
p.s., ersi: In the case cited Hassan was not born in the U.S. or any of its territories... The Constitution's enumeration of qualifications decided the case. Likewise, the 14th Amendment required Congress to pass legislation to enforce the pertinent portion of Section 3... They did: 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Oddly enough, Donald J. Trump has not been charged with such crime, let alone convicted! But four Colorado Supreme Court Justices -perhaps with the connivance of one of their inferior courts (that's not passing the buck, is it? )- decided, without due process, that he was guilty.
Folks in other countries may readily accept such shenanigans. Americans tend to get a little testy, when their basic rights are abrogated...
1 He could easily avoid his mistakes, if he'd learn some modern techniques... ↵
Since when is war against an enemy whose stated purpose is your destruction a "tit-for-tat" affair, one death at a time? Be that as it may, you don't "generously assume" anything — it's not in your nature! Israel's "ruthlessness" -as you term it- is a rational acceptance of the realities of war.[1] This war is not a Marquess of Queensberry boxing match: It is -for Israel- a war of survival. You of course don't care.
You'll likewise not care when Taiwan is "reunified"... (I don't recall you being upset at what happened when Great Britain ceded Hong Kong back to China...)
One wonders: How about Estonia?
1 "Know your enemy" being one of the most important tasks in conducting a successful campaign, Israel must react to what Hamas is. The whole world knows both the duplicity of which Hamas is capable and the utter disregard they have for Palestinians...let alone others↵
The methods and policies deployed in the West are the same as were already in use in Far East, that is less touching, more cleaning of hands, masks and vaccines. All these methods have a proven effect with very contagious air-borne viruses, but are far from fully reliable - because it's a very contagious air-borne virus and people don't follow best practices for various reasons.
The "methods and policies deployed" turned out to be between futile and ruinous... You missed that? Oh, I forgot: You follow the party line! Take another jab and mask up. Do what's good for you, and don't believe your own eyes — politicians are the best arbiters of science because their motives are pure!
A man-made pandemic could be pretty nasty, but covid helped us prepare for future pandemics.
...only if we take the right lessons from what was an abysmal response in most of the Western World: Determine the threat, mitigate by protecting the most vulnerable, and let actual science proceed — to give us the best understanding possible...
I fear the worst lessons were learned: Ignore or obfuscate the the origin of the threat, impose next to useless societal and economically ruinous strictures, and stifle scientific communication so that only that which supports the strictures is communicated...
Even in the worst case scenario, though: Humanity will likely survive. Natural selection hasn't been obviated — only outlawed!
A simple question: Does the state of Israel have the right to exist?
And another, from American history:
Quote
“You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.” ― William T. Sherman
Let me help you out by beginning with an analogous situation: When Fort Sumpter was fired upon, and some states seceded from the U.S., President Lincoln had as his overriding goal the preservation of the Union; secondarily (and consequently) the ending of chattel slavery. I'm sure he thought long and hard about the ramifications. But he achieved his main goal. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, his victory at arms was only to lead to a long struggle with — human nature.
Here in the U.S., racism is primarily seen as against Negros (black folk). In Europe, that too occurs. But it pales in comparison to how people there see the Jew! It's amazing the justifications people put forward to support their prejudices...
So you'all don't misunderstand me: I think Israel should -indeed, must- destroy Hamas. And I'd like to see my nation return to a policy of containment-plus regarding the Mullahs' Iran.
What Hamas did last week should have sparked a robust debate about -oh, I don't know- the rules of war, the role of Antisemitism, and the resurgence of the barbarian. I guess people have other things on their minds...
Europe (I assume most here are European) has other things on its mind. But its preoccupations will likely lead to a deepening of its morass. Immigration and assimilation are in constant conflict, and its policies are incoherent.
I'm sorry to say, such is very much the same in my nation; and our choices of leadership are severely constrained...
But — has no one here anything to say? No information to relay, no insights to offer, no spleen to vent?
Is Europe irrelevant? Is that recognition so prevalent that mum's the word?
Why, I'd ask, as an American, should I care about European matters?
I know it is very hard for you, but try to understand: This is not about you. It is about the country called USA. USA does its own thing without asking you.
Your attitude is quite understandable: You think no factions of the U.S. electorate have consequential effects on U.S. policy, let alone determinative effects... That's how all good Europeans think — or else you fear some faction of the electorate may actually succeed in retrieving the republic from the current mess. You might be wrong! ——————————————————— What I think most confuses your analyses of U.S. politics is your failure to recognize the impact of the American Left's Maoist bent; and how badly that will affect the polity.
By now Republicans have devolved into Trumpites whose plan is to dissolve Nato. This is not what I'd call a better chance.
As many in my country would ask, What is the purpose of NATO? Was it not to defend Europe from the Soviet Union?
With the Soviet Union dissolved, Europe might resume its fascination and repugnance with Russia... But Europe is somehow incapable of either treating honestly with Russia or defending itself from an aggressive (and irredentist) Russia? Hence NATO (i.e., the U.S.) must support (finance) the frustration of Russia's aims.
ersi, the United States has long preferred a neutrality regarding the perennial squabbles of Europe. (Those between the East and the West are of more recent origin, and compelling; but the ideology of Communism has so muddled the waters that what lies beneath the surface does not appear -clearly- to anyone.) Why, I'd ask, as an American, should I care about European matters?
As Ed Whelan noted in his most recent "Confirmation Tales" column:
Quote
If you ever wonder why a senator seems ill-prepared for a confirmation hearing, just remember that even a very talented teacher can do only so much for some students.
You presume that the U.S. is a pupil, to be taught — but most Americans (rightly) assume they've graduated to "free agent" status.
Europe can do what it wants. Russia can do what it wants. So, too, can China. But -while the Leftists decry it- the United States still says "Don't Tread on Me!"
No, you silly goose, you wouldn't...