The minority's opinion on today's case is truly mindblowing.

The Minority tried to have its cake and eat it too, and in the process showed the problem with Liberal law theory. First, before giving their opinion they try to cushion the blow by basically saying "Hey, at least we agree with the majority", but not before uttering under their breath how they don't like how it was done, and the laughable part to me, is their claim that the conservative justices did or created something that didn't already exist.

You heard me right: The chief complaint of the Liberal justices was already well in effect, prior to their ruling. Essentially, they are upset that the conservative justices noted that Section 5 would put the onus on Congress through legislation to affirm an insurrection.

I'm guessing they are of the flawed legal opinion that this would mean Congress would have to agree that each and every case of insurrection is an insurrection before it would be so. If they didn't just complain about it, I would have a hard time believing a SCOTUS to be this incompetent.

Congress did not write Section 5 with the intent of having to actively judge each insurrection separately for enforcement. And Congress had already penned a solution.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscode


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

This law is all-encompassing. The DOJ is charged with law enforcement, it is a body created by congress, whose main officers are confirmed by the body!

Like, I mean this sincerely to the Liberal justices: Did you hit your head this morning? In their effort I guess to placate Liberal voters they wanted to find something, anything to complain about but this was mindbogglingly stupid.

 

The democrats are truly master manipulators, trump may be second. How they convinced so many there was russia collusion based on false information paid for by democrats, in part, was truly a masterful manipulation. Then, somehow, they have convinced the same minds that Trump ordered an insurrection when all it was was a riot by mostly unarmed imbeciles, acting like clowns based on anger. Trump himself is heard uttering the words ‘protest peacefullly’. The dems somehow have convinced many of total lies which would never be upheld in court. The DOJ is responsible for charging for insurrectionist acts and they couldn’t charge trump for a reason!

It is mind blowing that anyone thinks this was an insurrection and even more mind blowing that some would be ok with states all over the country removing a presidential candidate from the ballot of presidential election based on their beliefs of a crime that DOJ couldn’t find.

we have lost our way. Trump derangement syndrome has messed up so many minds that it’s now remove him at all costs, no matter the method.

 

If they can't stop Trump in the court room and they can't stop him at the ballot box, they're going to go to the cartridge box.

 

what i fear

 

Part of me kinda looks forward to it.

 

When the Amendment was written, what was the federal legislation that made insurrection or rebellion a crime and what was the punishment? Was it considered a misdemeanor or a felony? I've never heard any Trumpist address these questions no matter how much I ask them.

 

We've addressed it ad nauseum.

Now, however, the argument has been settled.

 

well it was unanimous and Sheila isn't exactly a moderate. Why? because this case should have never happened. Its even more simple then "should you eat yellow snow"?
The left wasted lots of time and effort with this pathetic scheme!

 

The reason you find it laughable is because you are guessing wrong, and completely misrepresent the supplementary opinions to the majority.

Their concern is not that section 5 means Congress would have to "affirm an insurrection" through legislation before anyone could be disqualified for insurrection. There is NO suggestion of anything of the kind by any of the Justices.

Their concern is the opinion that Congress must first pass legislation, stating how and by whom Section 3 can be enforced, before anyone can be disqualified for insurrection.

 

Yeah, except you are forgetting an insurrection has to actually be an insurrection, not just a tweet and a group of angry people in cosplay outfits trespassing. This is what happens when you people want to make a word outstay its welcome, it looses value and meaning. Nobody even cares about the word anymore because they've heard it so much.

 

When something is not relevant, it's not forgotten; it's simply not pertinent to the issue addressed - the poster's perceived concerns of certain justices compared to their actual concerns.

 

That means verbatim, the same thing. In passing a law on insurrection, it is clear that responsibility for enforcment lies with the justice system. Congress is not a law enforcement body and never had any intention on becoming a law enforcement body. So no, I didn't misinterpret their silliness, their silliness had been addressed before they even heard the case.

As a result, it means nothing. Congress has no need or desire to take action, because there isn't action to take that they hadn't already taken.

 

Yet that isn't what the 14th says.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Which means Congress can enforce the article by vote. Not come up with more legislation to enforce by appropriate legislation.
How do people even come up with this stuff.
Its the same people who claim the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, doesn't mean people can have firearms.

Which is how we got here in the first place. Apparently democrats have a problem with simple English language.

 

Not just the left, but to be honest a lot of Americans in general. I'm on the Noam Chomsky side of things when it comes to the English language. How such a beautiful, simplistic language can be butchered like this is honestly because it's too simple.

You don't even need to innately know the English rules, once you've been drilled in them enough it becomes second hand nature. And as a result, that's how they come up with this stuff.

 

Where would they be if they couldn't make up new definitions and word meanings.

 

They voted 9:0 and you are still whining about the "liberal justices" on the court. You guys are really sore winners.

 

It's not "some people" coming up with this stuff.

It's the Justices, in their opinion.

 

Because their opinion is some of the stupidest crap I'd ever read. "The conservative majority pointed out something that's already been done, the horror!"

I can only agree sarcastically with them that the conservatives needn't have included that portion in their judgment because it wasn't necessary but it also didn't foreclose questions, it established the clear boundaries that were already there.

 

No one - least of all the justices - is saying an insurrection law needs to be passed.

So yes, you clearly misinterpreted the Opinion.

It states that Congress, not the states, is empowered to disqualify but needs to pass legislation that specifies how this is to done - processes and procedures.

Those that added supplementary opinions are concerned that this would close off other methods by which Section 3 can be applied.

 

There never was "other methods" to begin with. That's what they don't understand. Our system is one where criminal behavior(one of the things the conservatives decided to do, rightly is to embrace that the 14th amendment's disqualification is a penalty. Like, duh! In no other amendment does the 14th's disqualification language, exist.). So since it's a penalty, it deals with criminal behavior.

This is enforced via the criminal court system. And the majority had shown that, every such case was resolved where? In the courts. In my OP, I link to a criminal stature and confirmation that US Code is written by a sub-section of the House(IE: Congress)

In short, all of these questions were long answered before the minority complained about them.

 

Or another way to put it: The Judiciary body, as a branch of the federal government is not considered to be a "part of the States". Today's ruling does not, and was never intended to foreclose a criminal judicial remedy. In fact, again: That is the primary remedy chosen by Congress. The reason this is confusing, is because of the political court known as the Senate.

The Senate has the power to try and remove in an impeachment conviction on insurrection(or any other offense found in an impeachment). But it does not have incarceration ability. Hence, it is allowed(though I disagree with this morally) for the judicial court system to pick up and try the case in their venue.

The 14th spells out how Congress must create the enforcement mechanic.But the thing is: They already did. I know the minority thought they were being sly in quoting Bush V Gore, but it applies to the SCOTUS as a whole: The enforcement mechanic already exists, hence it was a mute point on both sides of the court

Congress isn't going to write a second enforcement mechanic.

 

Who said a person has to be convicted of insurrection before they can be disqualified for engaging in an insurrection?

No one.

This is one of the issues that legislation specifying procedures and processes might address - should a person be convicted of insurrection, via the justice system, before the disqualification process could begin, or would a civil hearing of some sort suffice.

After all, the 'penalty' is merely a civil one, not a criminal one. A preponderance of the evidence may be sufficient.

 

Isn't it the same justice who couldn't explain what a woman is.
The Constitution isn't a difficult document to read.
It was put in fairly simple language. Its not complicated.
Example
Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This is now supposed to mean, you need legislation to legislate the 14th amendment? No
It says on plain English, Congress shall enforce the the provision of the 14th by legislation.
Meaning, any determinations that are being addressed will be done by vote of Congress.

We also have justices who don't believe the 2nd amendment says you can own a gun.
I don't need a justice who can't even describe a woman because of their bias, trying to convince me there is some magical words that only they can interpret.

 

The penalty isn't merely a civil one, since there is an enforceable criminal code that punishes(and incarcerates) a would be insurrectionist. To argue otherwise, one would have to argue that the Title 18 42 section doesn't exist(it very plainly does exist.)

Like, how can anyone's argument be frozen in time(basically arguing as though before section 5 was written). It was unclear only PRIOR to section 5. Section 5 was written and Congress acted on it.

That was supposed to be the end of it, and was the end of it until this saga.

Now the liberal minority made an argument about something that was already decided, about something that already exists. Are we complaining about the order of operation?

Well, traditionally speaking we're all innocent until proven(voted) guilty in the court of law. So lawfully, one would have to be convicted before being called an insurrectionist.

Politically speaking however, one doesn't have to vote for Trump if they think he's guilty before such a trial. He just couldn't be removed from ballots until being officially declared guilty. But this is no different than any other crime outside of the political ramifications.

 

For those of us who were not confederates fighting against the United States, the 6th amendment.