I suppose then that guns shoot people? Lock them up! — NOS4A2

Ridicule as an attempt to deflect from your hypocrisy. Very transparent.

I'll try to make this simple for you.

You are claiming that the judges would be to some degree responsible for Trump not appearing on the ballot even though the only thing they've done is issue a written judgement.

The rest of us are claiming that Trump is to some degree responsible for the attempted insurrection even though the only thing he did was give a speech.

Either accept both or reject both.

Excuse my reductions to the absurd because it’s nonsensical. You’re taking acts committed by humans and saying inanimate objects do them. I just can’t get past such weird sophistry.

The judges believe he engaged in insurrection, a federal crime, and are keeping him off the ballot because of it, even though no one has been charged (let alone convicted) of said crime. So much for the constitution. So much for democracy. The United States is now a banana republic.

The judges believe he engaged in insurrection, a federal crime, and are keeping him off the ballot because of it, even though no one has been charged (let alone convicted) of said crime. So much for the constitution. — NOS4A2

The 14th Amendment doesn't say that only someone charged (let alone convicted) of insurrection is ineligible. It only says that someone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible. It's all explained in the court order.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say they should look in the dictionary for what an insurrection Is, but that’s what they’ve done.

Oddly enough they didn’t look up what “engage” means, because he wasn’t even present where the event happened, yet they conclude he engaged in it. It’s one of the worst court documents in history.

Oddly enough they didn’t look up what “engage” means, because he wasn’t even present where the event happened, yet they conclude he engaged in it. — NOS4A2

They referenced United States v. Powell, 1871:

The expression “engaged” in insurrection, as used in the amendment, implies a voluntary effort to assist the insurrection.

Also they did look up the dictionary definitions. It starts on page 103.

Then there's this:

Attorney General Stanbery’s opinions on the meaning of “engage,” which he issued at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being debated, are in accord with these historical and modern definitions. Attorney General Stanbery opined that a person may “engage” in insurrection or rebellion “without having actually levied war or taken arms.” Stanbery I, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. at 161. Thus, in Attorney General Stanbery’s view, when individuals acting in their official capacities act “in the furtherance of the common unlawful purpose” or do “any overt act for the purpose of promoting the rebellion,” they have “engaged” in insurrection or rebellion for Section Three disqualification purposes. Id. at 161–62; see also Stanbery II, 12 Op. Att’y. Gen. at 204 (defining “engaging in rebellion” to require “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose”). Accordingly, “[d]isloyal sentiments, opinions, or sympathies would not disqualify; but when a person has, by speech or by writing, incited others to engage in rebellion, [h]e must come under the disqualification.” Stanbery II, 12 Op. Att’y. Gen. at 205; accord Stanbery I, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. at 164

...

For example, in Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75, 126 (1807), Chief Justice Marshall explained that “if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.” In other words, an individual need not directly participate in the overt act of levying war or insurrection for the law to hold him accountable as if he had.

Yes, they’re just words, and it’s superstitious to pretend they have power to manipulate the actions of organisms… but law isn’t just words. — NOS4A2

You have just explained why it is wrong to regard words as meaningless marks and sounds, separate and distinct from a form of life. Legal language is not a combination of laws that have force and words that don't. Words are an integral part of a larger whole.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not "just words". The words establish what the law is. There are no laws without the words, and no words without meaning. Thus the words have force. The words matter. Without them there would be no question of whether Trump is disqualified. Without them there would be no way to settle the question.

Nice, definitions from the 19th century. Thanks for clearing that up.

Lawmakers establish what the law is. Other than that I can’t follow your non-sequiturs.

But you believe commands command and orders order.
— NOS4A2

Yes, just as guns kill.

I’m just trying to wade through the magical thinking here.
— NOS4A2

It's not magic, it's common sense. The problem is that your position is nonsense. — Michael

It's a kind of thinking that completely refuses to acknowledge authority or the power of others. As in:

Judge: I order you to pay this fine.
Refuser: Duh. [You're not the boss of me.]

The part in brackets is usually intended but left unsaid.

To a person like that, it also makes sense, for example, to say that A didn't simply kill B by shooting him, but that B allowed himself to be shot and/or that B was too weak to withstand the bullet (and so B's death is actually B's fault).

It's a kind of thinking that takes the motto "everyone is solely responsible solely for themselves" to its logical consequences.

It's democracy at its most American finest: everyone is equal, everyone can be equally dismissed and ignored (whether a stranger in the street, a family member, or an officer of the law). If someone says something to you, it's on you and entirely on you how you will take it, whether you will even feel addressed by it at all.

I don't see why he's fighting to be on any ballot considering he's already told us the elections are rigged. Why does he want to enter a contest where he knows the result is already decided against him? — Hanover

Probably because he and his supporters are not anarchists. They do value the idea of various institutions and institutes, but not necessarily the particular persons who (currently) hold those positions. So they, for example, respect the office of the president or the democratic process of elections, but not necessarily Joe Biden or the 2020 presidential elections. They are not simply biased tribalists either, as is evidenced by how they cut ties with or get rid of those who no longer serve their cause.

Orbán has Trump's back.

'Evil is eating away at Western democracies,' says Hungarian PM Orban
^{— Euronews + Agence France Presse · Dec 21, 2023}

Such easy things to point out (especially when skipping the larger contexts), but, hey, maybe he's right. How would he characterize the Kremlin, then? (In public, no holding back, preferably?)

Goldie Lookin Chain has @NOS4A2's back.




One of those arguments that works forwards and backwards and belongs really in that Ryle dilemmas thread.

They are not simply biased tribalists either, as is evidenced by how they cut ties with or get rid of those who no longer serve their cause. — baker

It's because they're Trump loyalists who will buy into whatever argument Trump advances regardless of the evidence supporting it or the logical consistency of it.

His supporters bought into and still buy into the argument there was a nationwide conspiracy to rig the election in every contested district across the country. Despite no evidence, he continued to try to obstruct the result, all the way down to convincing his followers to physically standing in the way of it.

Trying to characterize his followers as ideological or principled is not consistent with what's been going on.

Nice, definitions from the 19th century. Thanks for clearing that up. — NOS4A2

Well yes, that’s how originalism works, and originalism seems to be one of the most common ways to interpret the constitution.

They are not simply biased tribalists either, as is evidenced by how they cut ties with or get rid of those who no longer serve their cause. — baker

Can you articulate what that cause is? Have you associated with a range of Trump voters where this lack of simple bias has been demonstrated to you?

On the face of it, you assert a unity of purpose while denying that it exists.

Words don’t influence people— people influence people. Through words. But only in some cases— like when it’s convenient to our political ideology.

Donald Trump knew there would be violence— and rallied his followers for it, knowing full well he could claim plausible deniability while he drove back to the White House.

Kudos to @Michael for continually exposing to any viewing bystander just how ridiculous our resident Trump cultist’s views are.

Lawmakers establish what the law is. — NOS4A2

They do not and cannot do this without WORDS.

Other than that I can’t follow your non-sequiturs. — NOS4A2

There is a difference between your inability to follow an argument and an argument that does not follow from what has already been said. Don't blame the argument for what you are unable to do.

The truth is though that I do think you are able and just resort to claiming non-sequiturs rather than admitting that you are wrong.

Orbán has Trump's back. — jorndoe

Trumpsters see this in a very favorable light. They prefer autocrats to the rule of law.

Nice, definitions from the 19th century. Thanks for clearing that up. — NOS4A2

Now that he [Trump] has put us all in this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court – and especially the Roberts majority – has a real dilemma on its hands. It has advertised itself as being a textualist and originalist court, in which the words say what they mean and were intended to mean when adopted.

Given that the 6 conservative justices on SCOTUS espouse some form of originalism, they (the conservative justices) must use these definitions if they wish their rulings to be consistent with their legal philosophies.

it's going to be interesting. Will politics trump principals? My prediction is that the conservative justices will find some way to wave their hands and rule against Colorado. But it would make me very happy to be wrong.

The majority opinion is so stupid and unjust, and the dissenting opinions are more originalist (some of which call out the majority’s misreading of the constitution), that I would be very surprised if they ruled in favor of the court. But hey, stranger things have happened.

Lawmakers establish what the law is. — NOS4A2

Yes, and courts determine what the law means. There is no law that defines what constitutes a rebellion or insurrection. Colorado violated neither the law nor constitution in their interpretation. It's possible SCOTUS will create a definition that has the effect of overturning the Colorado ruling, thus creating new law. If they do, it's game over. Is that what you're hoping for? SCOTUS creating law like this?

Most of us acknowledged Trump's legal rights to challenge the 2020 election in courts, so why can't you support the rights of states to challenge his eligibility using the same justice system?

“ The majority opinion is so stupid and unjust, and the dissenting opinions are more originalist (some of which call out the majority’s misreading of the constitution),”

So should an originalist judge should use the historical definitions of the terms? Yes/no/other?

Why are Trump and his lawyers objecting to Jack Smith's request to the Supreme Court to quickly rule on whether presidential immunity shields Trump from prosecution in the federal 2020 election interference case? If, as he professes, he is innocent we might think he would prefer to have it ruled on quickly to remove doubt in voters minds. In typical fashion,Trump prefers to have things drag on until after the election. Given his bluster and rhetoric, however, it would follow that even a decision against him would only helps him. Perhaps he is not as able to fool himself as he is at fooling the Trumpsters.

The basis of their argument is based on two claims.

First that Smith does not provide a reason for the date proposed.

Second, they say it should be "resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner — not at breakneck speed" and that the justices should not "rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon."

The first argument is weak. If there is nothing special about March 4th then there is nothing special about March 3rd or 1st either. The argument could be used to push for an even earlier date. They have not said what they would consider to be a reasonable date. If the proposed date was April or May 4th the would make the same argument. The only satisfactory date for the is after the election.

The second argument rests on the questionable assumption that in order to comply they would have to proceed without caution in a matter that is deliberative, that they would be have to rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. None of this, of course, is true. As they no doubt know, the way to move forward quickly is by putting it at the top of the list of cases to be decided.

If the court decides quickly and against Trump they can still use this argument in an attempt to persuade voters that the decision was rushed and Trump was treated unfairly. And, of course, the Supreme Court will be added to the list of the enemies of the United States of Trump.

Another fine example of Trump doing what he accuses others of doing, using the courts for political ends.

Added: As I was posting this the court made a decision not to fast track. A cowardly move. They can't avoid dealing with Trump. They are deciding to not decide, a decision that will harm their reputation more than the fear of making the wrong decision.

SCOTUS has ruled: they will not expedite. It will have to go through appeal.

Yeah, that happened about the same time I posted. When I saw I posted an addendum.

At least they were quick to decide not to decide.

I agree with the general idea of moving slowly, but not in a case like this.

From a practical standpoint, 6 justices would have been needed to expedite. From a legal standpoint, the reason it's rare to expedite is because the appellate process helps flesh out complex legal issues. Of course, I see nothing complex about this issue. Ruling that a sitting President has blanket immunity would create the opportunity for a de facto dictatorship.

Yes, and courts determine what the law means. There is no law that defines what constitutes a rebellion or insurrection. Colorado violated neither the law nor constitution in their interpretation. It's possible SCOTUS will create a definition that has the effect of overturning the Colorado ruling, thus creating new law. If they do, it's game over. Is that what you're hoping for? SCOTUS creating law like this?

Most of us acknowledged Trump's legal rights to challenge the 2020 election in courts, so why can't you support the rights of states to challenge his eligibility using the same justice system?

Think about Reconstruction. If state courts were to decide what constituted an insurrection, and who was guilty of it, the southern states could say those who fought for the confederacy were not insurrectionists, and thus could hold office.

It’s probably why section 5 of the fourteenth amendment says “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts. An originalist would need to consider this as a glaring problem with the state’s ruling. The fact that the president is not mentioned in the list of people who would be unable to hold office might give the originalist some more ammo against the ruling.

It’s probably why section 5 of the fourteenth amendment says “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts. — NOS4A2

Would you say the same about the Thirteenth Amendment?

An originalist would need to consider this as a glaring problem with the state’s ruling, and also the fact that the president is not mentioned in the list of people who would be unable from holding office. — NOS4A2

It mentions "or as an officer of the United States". The court found that the President is an officer of the United States, starting page 79.

I suppose yes because the 13th amendment also grants “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

No state or federal court has authority in either matter.

I suppose yes because the 13th amendment also grants “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

No state or federal court has authority in either matter. — NOS4A2

How do you draw that conclusion? The 13th Amendment establishes two things: first, that slavery is abolished, and second, that Congress shall have power to enforce this abolishment.

Your conclusion only follows if the 13th Amendment was written as:

Congress shall have power to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

But it wasn't written this way.

Compare, for example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

This wording precludes state and federal courts from laying and collecting taxes.