Dude, how is this topic still confusing to you? There are three co-equal branches of government. SCOTUS is one of them. They can check the power of POTUS. There are 9 Justices on SCOTUS. Three are liberal. We need 2 more to vote reasonably to have a 5/9 majority. We’ve been getting 7/9 votes in favor of civil rights for the last three months.
Take a civics class instead of debating people to learn how the government works.
That’s literally what this whole thread and post was about. Lol
“No corporations were enriched by the creation of this content”
There are only nine Justices on SCOTUS. That’s who I’ve been talking about. We only need 5 for majority, and have been getting 7. There are two Trump loyalists, Alito and Thomas.
That’s all we need with Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Although many of the more recent rulings included Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as well.
Have you heard anything from Roberts or Barrett in the last month? They’re not putting up with any of this anymore. Roberts explicitly called out the administration’s attempts to circumvent the Constitution and had a speech on how we need to protect the rule of law. They’ve both been voting reasonably in regards to human rights. They’re still both fiscally conservative, however.
That’s not the goal of 7/9 Justices. They’re trying to protect the rule of law and uphold the Constitution.
I’m glad you agree. I think it’s time for your nap, little one.
I read through the entire report from Smith. He did not. He said, “March on the Capitol,” “Fight like hell,” “Show our strength,” and other similar notions, but he did not explicitly instruct them to storm or attack the Capitol building. That’s a key part of what the prosecution needed to prove in court through testimony of those in the Oval Office at the time.
He was handed a piece of paper that said they’re storming the Capitol. He crumpled it up, tossed in on the floor, and continued pressing Pence into invalidating the election results. That is incriminating, since any actions from that point on that did not include dispatching the National Guard could be seen as criminal conspiracy. But again, that needs to be proven in court.
That could be argued as a poor decision or incompetence. You’d need to prove it in court otherwise it’s hearsay. It’s not like there’s photographic proof of him breaking into the White House.
We didn’t see Trump break into the White House. Unless it’s proven that he was a part of it, he’s not part of it. Innocent until proven guilty.
You need legal documentation to prove your age, yes. It must be issued by a state of federal governing body. You can’t just have your friend vouch for you.
Correct. How do we determine that someone was involved in an insurrection? You can’t hold him accountable to the crime without conviction or adjudication. Otherwise it’s merely an accusation, and anyone could just say a person was part of an insurrection to bar them from holding office.
That’s true. It would be absolutely insane, but they have the legal power to make such a ruling.
So you think that someone can say “he was a part of an insurrection” the night before an election and allow the contender to automatically win?
You’re arguing semantics and completely missing the point. Conviction or adjudication is how we prove things happened. It’s how the law works.
Condescension is unnecessary and childish. Not one thing you have written is legal. I asked you what can a government legally do to someone outside of their jurisdiction.
Real runners compete against themselves. Good on ya, kid!
I follow, but you’re talking about the practical application of the situation after the ruling. I’m talking about it being the reason SCOTUS couldn’t make that ruling in the first place.
I didn’t say it was. I’m saying that’s why Jack Smith did not charge him with inciting an insurrection. It was not an insurrection by definition if he was a part of it. If he was not a part of it, it could be considered one. It’s legally murky.
WAS true. If you read SCOTUS’s ruling, you’ll see they came to the same conclusion that Jack Smith made. If Trump was part of the insurrection while he was the President, then it was not an insurrection. If he was not part of it, then it was an insurrection. They determined that you can’t violently overthrow the government in which you lead.