Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Quote from: ersi on 2023-12-23, 03:50:59

You are a hyper-partisan QAnon Trumpite of the alt-facts gang. Is this specific enough? Need more details?

Yeah. One example or two...

...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.)

Actually, in both USA and in every other country it is precisely the job of judges to judge who is guilty or not.

Actually, [...] The jury determines matters of fact, and guilt or innocence.

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?

Quote from: ersi on 2023-12-23, 05:55:25

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?

State Supreme Courts do not decide U.S. Constitutional matters...

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.

Congress should take action to enforce Section Three against anyone engaged in the January 6th insurrection. There is currently no federal statutory authority to enforce Section Three, and if this deficiency is not addressed many problems will follow. First, some states may simply choose to ignore Section Three or do minimal enforcement. Second, having each state enforce Section Three in its own way will result in a haphazard system especially ill-suited to resolving a question of presidential ineligibility. Third, if former President Trump runs again, his eligibility must be determined promptly--before any elections take place--otherwise the Republican nominating contest will be thrown in chaos. But the ability of the ex-President or his opponents to engage in litigation gamesmanship during a primary process where each state is acting independently could easily thwart a prompt resolution by the Supreme Court. And it would be particularly unfortunate if the Court were called upon to resolve the issue in an emergency application for a stay on the eve of a primary where due deliberation on the arguments could not occur.

Congress can resolve many of these issues by using its enforcement authority under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to create a rational and fair process for Section Three claims.

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?

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"

what I already know: USA is not a country of law or order or any valuable principle worth emulating.

[Trump said in a campaign speech:] One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”

Trump's lawyer was in turn compensated from campaign funds

if the political system values integrity and self-preservation. American political system clearly does not

"Regardless of the trial's outcome, its consequences will have a profound effect on the presidency. The weaker the Trump cases are, the more open the invitation is to future prosecutors of presidents of the opposite party. "After this Trump trial, any city, county, or state prosecutor might be encouraged to prosecute any federal officer for conjured violations of a state's criminal law or other patently partisan reasons."

To remedy "this breach of constitutional norms," Yoo indicated that Republicans' only recourse is to observe the Golden rule: "Do unto others as they have done unto you. In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents."

Quote from: ersi on 2024-06-01, 01:42:27

Trump's lawyer was in turn compensated from campaign funds

This was neither charged nor litigated... But — that's your style!

As for the rest, ...

You don't (or didn't?!) recognize the egregious lapses of integrity performed by the Democrats throughout these "Trump prosecution"?

Let me quote a Berkeley law professor and former federal prosecutor:
John Yoo states it plainly:

Personality cult for the rapist, serial adulterer, convicted felon, business fraudster, insurrectionist, nepotist dictator wannabe, peddler of state secrets and election thief is your holy ideological principle.

While I likely know more about this episode than most here,...

Despite all the faux outrage over Judge Cannon's decision, she disqualified only one person from pursuing this case: Jack Smith. Cannon did not grant Trump any immunity for his actions during or after he left office. The United States attorney for the southern district of Florida is fully capable of prosecuting Trump. To be sure, Attorney General Merrick Garland does not want his Justice Department to take the heat for prosecuting his boss's political rival, but that is a political problem for Garland and the administration and not a legal problem for the judiciary. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has no reason to accommodate politically motivated efforts to convict Trump before the election or inauguration. Trump should be treated like any other defendant.
(source)