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.”