Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

Teaparty Trevor wrote:

There is an interesting substack by Seth Abrahmson. (Sp?)

Let me give you the layman’s take.
Thr Supreme Court in Anderson now states that it is congress who decides if Trump is an insurrectionist and should be kept off any state ballots. But they also say that congress can do so by any means they wish. It doesn’t require a law being signed. Nor does it require any super majority voting. It is up to congress.

Here is the kicker. They already did this in his 2nd impeachment. A majority voted yes in both the house and the Senate. Trump was not removed because a super majority was needed in the Senate to remove him. (Many Senators publicly stated that Trump was guilty of insurrection but did not vote to remove because he was already out of office.)

So another state can bring a new case citing that congress has already ruled Trump to be an insurrectionist under this new Supreme Court ruling. Essentially saying: we are not deciding as a state. Congress already ruled he was in 2021 by a majority in both houses.

Also, this Supreme Court ruling screws Trumps defense in his absolute immunity case. This is because Congress has already ruled Trump to be guilty of the crime of insurrection even though it did not meet the threshold of removal from office for impeachment.
Remember that Supreme Court rulings are the final say. you can’t appeal those to anyone else.

Watch this space

comedyreleaf wrote:

Teaparty Trevor wrote:

There is an interesting substack by Seth Abrahmson. (Sp?)

Let me give you the layman’s take.
Thr Supreme Court in Anderson now states that it is congress who decides if Trump is an insurrectionist and should be kept off any state ballots. But they also say that congress can do so by any means they wish. It doesn’t require a law being signed. Nor does it require any super majority voting. It is up to congress.

Here is the kicker. They already did this in his 2nd impeachment. A majority voted yes in both the house and the Senate. Trump was not removed because a super majority was needed in the Senate to remove him. (Many Senators publicly stated that Trump was guilty of insurrection but did not vote to remove because he was already out of office.)

So another state can bring a new case citing that congress has already ruled Trump to be an insurrectionist under this new Supreme Court ruling. Essentially saying: we are not deciding as a state. Congress already ruled he was in 2021 by a majority in both houses.

Also, this Supreme Court ruling screws Trumps defense in his absolute immunity case. This is because Congress has already ruled Trump to be guilty of the crime of insurrection even though it did not meet the threshold of removal from office for impeachment.
Remember that Supreme Court rulings are the final say. you can’t appeal those to anyone else.

Watch this space

Does a court of law require a majority of a jury to find you guilty of a crime or all the jury? The Senate requires a 2/3 majority, ergo he was not guilty. End of story.

Teaparty Trevor wrote:

comedyreleaf wrote:

Does a court of law require a majority of a jury to find you guilty of a crime or all the jury? The Senate requires a 2/3 majority, ergo he was not guilty. End of story.

The new Supreme Court ruling says it is up to congress to make a determination as they see fit. They officially established new legal framework. Also, Many congressional matters are determined by a simple majority. A criminal court of law requires a unanimous decision. It is not a criminal matter. It is a ballot qualification matter.

He was not guilty of impeachment according to Senate impeachment rules. But a majority votes in both houses found that he was guilty of inciting an insurrection.

Im not claiming this is going to keep Trump off the ballot but he is boxed in by the Supreme Court saying congress gets to decide if he is an insurrectionist and they did by a majority.

Tea Party Trevor wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

You are WRONG. The Senate voted to acquit Trump of inciting a riot. Please never mention that lie here ever again.

Here is an important point as it relates to the Supreme court Anderson opinion. The SC suggests that passing a law would be one of a variety of ways that the legislative bodies could determine if a candidate was an insurrectionist. Guess what? Passing a law does not require a super majority like the impeachment Senate Threshold. It would only require a majority. So the Supreme Courts's sloppy ruling actually put their stamp of approval on Congress and the Senate making a 14th amendment determination of a candidate with a simply majority.

And they already did that in Jan 2021. A majority of House and the Senate determined that Trump was an insurrectionist. It was not a supermajority because many republicans said he is already out of office so what is the point?

Tea Party Trevor wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

You are WRONG. The Senate voted to acquit Trump of inciting a riot. Please never mention that lie here ever again.

Here is an important point as it relates to the Supreme court Anderson opinion. The SC suggests that passing a law would be one of a variety of ways that the legislative bodies could determine if a candidate was an insurrectionist. Guess what? Passing a law does not require a super majority like the impeachment Senate Threshold. It would only require a majority. So the Supreme Courts's sloppy ruling actually put their stamp of approval on Congress and the Senate making a 14th amendment determination of a candidate with a simply majority.

And they already did that in Jan 2021. A majority of House and the Senate determined that Trump was an insurrectionist. It was not a supermajority because many republicans said he is already out of office so what is the point?

Sally Vix wrote:

Tea Party Trevor wrote:

Here is an important point as it relates to the Supreme court Anderson opinion. The SC suggests that passing a law would be one of a variety of ways that the legislative bodies could determine if a candidate was an insurrectionist. Guess what? Passing a law does not require a super majority like the impeachment Senate Threshold. It would only require a majority. So the Supreme Courts's sloppy ruling actually put their stamp of approval on Congress and the Senate making a 14th amendment determination of a candidate with a simply majority.

And they already did that in Jan 2021. A majority of House and the Senate determined that Trump was an insurrectionist. It was not a supermajority because many republicans said he is already out of office so what is the point?

You said both Houses found Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection. You lied, yes?

agip wrote:

Tea Party Trevor wrote:

Here is an important point as it relates to the Supreme court Anderson opinion. The SC suggests that passing a law would be one of a variety of ways that the legislative bodies could determine if a candidate was an insurrectionist. Guess what? Passing a law does not require a super majority like the impeachment Senate Threshold. It would only require a majority. So the Supreme Courts's sloppy ruling actually put their stamp of approval on Congress and the Senate making a 14th amendment determination of a candidate with a simply majority.

And they already did that in Jan 2021. A majority of House and the Senate determined that Trump was an insurrectionist. It was not a supermajority because many republicans said he is already out of office so what is the point?

why wouldn't m'aga just filibuster the bill in the senate so it never gets to the president's desk?