January 6th insurrection thread...
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Like I said the only difference between what happened in 2020 and previous elections where this "fringe" legal theory was tested was that the parties were reversed.
The Insurrection clause states Congress determines if an insurrection occurs with no mention of the courts' involvement.
Two SCOTUS chief justices said that the Insurrection clause is not self-executing.
Colorado supreme court ignored this and said Trump was off the ticket.
Go to SCOTUS and lose 9-0.
Yeah, i would say that was pretty damn fringe.
Two SCOTUS chief justices said that the Insurrection clause is not self-executing.
Colorado supreme court ignored this and said Trump was off the ticket.
Go to SCOTUS and lose 9-0.
Yeah, i would say that was pretty damn fringe.
The kicker is that in 2000, 2004 and 2016 the democrats actually ASKED the VP to accept alternate electors.
There was nobody talking about a coup or overthrowing an election.
Last edited:
Tapate50
Well-known member
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Talking out your ass yet again. No one apart of Gore, Kerry, or Hillary's campagin personally asked the VP to accept alternate electors with the goal of overturning the results. Did some random Democrat somewhere make the suggestion. Probably. That is not the same thing as a person working for the losing candidate pushing it on the VP with the suppport of the losing candidate. Gore even was the VP in 2000. Biden was the VP in 2016.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
There was no binding precedent. The only ruling previously was by a lone Chief Justice which was precedent but not a full Supreme Court ruling that would set a binding precedent.
And quote for me where it says Congress determines if an insurrection occurs. It only states that Congress can remove the disability with a 2/3rds majority. Nothing about Congress being the one to impose the disability.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The issue isnt his legal theory the issue is their attempts to fabricate reality to muddy the waters to try to create chaos where they mind find a way to stay in power. The problem for them is that there are legal avenues to take if their claims were true. They lost all of them. Then tried to do it anyway. You have to be a very naive person to think that if Pence was able to throw it back to the states for an audit that the audit wouldnt have been politicized and propagandized to get the result Trump wanted. It was never going to be an honest look at the vote. It was going to be "I piss on your legs and you tell the people its raining or I will destroy your career and send my rabid cult after you" to the Republican legislators in those states.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://newrepublic.com/post/180199/jeffrey-clark-screws-donald-trump-2020-election-case
Jeffrey Clarke in disciplinary hearings invoked attorney client privilege. When asked who his client was. He said President Trump. Followed by Clarkes attorney telling him to please STFU. lol But thanks for admitting he was acting for the benefit of Trump and not the US when he took his actions. He is going to be seeing that statement in the future.
Jeffrey Clarke in disciplinary hearings invoked attorney client privilege. When asked who his client was. He said President Trump. Followed by Clarkes attorney telling him to please STFU. lol But thanks for admitting he was acting for the benefit of Trump and not the US when he took his actions. He is going to be seeing that statement in the future.
lolololol
Dershowitz laid out plans for Gore in 2000 just like Eastman. There isn't anything that says just because someone was in the campaign doing it makes it illegal.
Not one but two SCOTUS chief justices said it. Yes, it was binding.
Congress controls the insurrection clause. It plainly states that.
You lost 9-0.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Gore? The guy who conceded when he lost the court battle? If Trump conceded after the lost his lawsuits like Gore there would be no issue. So tell me when Gore asked himself to do what Trump asked Pence to do. Dershowitz laid out his opinion his Gores options. Gore said nah, I lost, its over. Eastman laid out his opinion, Trump said sounds great lets do it. Big difference there.
That shouldn't affect Dershowitz who should have been punished like Eastman if it was illegal.
The difference was nobody cared and Dershowitz was praised for being brilliant
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Its not a binding precedent unless the full court hears it. Trumps lawyers didnt even make the argument that there was a binding precedent. The supreme court wouldnt have even taken the case if there was a binding precedent. They do sometimes take on cases that have a binding precedent but when they do that theres atleast some interest on some of their parts to overturn that. A 9-0 vote shows none of them had any intention of overturning that precedent.
Quote me the language in the Constitution that you tell me exists.
The vote by the Supreme Court was on whether the insurrection clause was self executing. Thats it. And for federal candidates they said it isnt. Which is the right decision. I just disagree that only Congress can execute the clause. I think federal courts have that power because you dont need to state that Congress can remove the disability if its the one placing the disability. By the logic used even a person convicted of insurrection couldnt be disqualified unless Congress, including allowing supporters of the insurection, vote for it. The 14th amendment itself couldnt have even passed by those qualifications.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Eastman along with the candidate tried to enact that legal theory. And unlike Trump Gore actually had a valid reason. Trump and Eastman sought to try to fabricate a reason to enact their legal theory. If there actually was election fraud like they tried to say there was than they did nothing wrong. It was just a means to disenfranchise voters not protecting the integrity of the election.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Because your whole interpretation is the same argument that got zilched 9-0.
You do realize that the Colorado court was the only one who tried this. All the other courts across America including the leftist ones laughed it out of court.
The Insurrection clause is clear who controls the execution of it.