Tom G. Hughes
A
Is there more than a snowball's chance in Hell that the infamous Roberts Court will strike down the man who gave them maximum leverage?

I'm no legal expert, but I can see them leaning heavily on "Well, he's only charged, not convicted."

Money doesn't talk, it swears.
10:12 AM - Sep 06, 2023
Avatar Avatar Avatar
0
6
7
Aurora Wildey
A
In response to Tom G. Hughes.
Somehow I'm not optimistic. Anyone TFG appointed should have to recuse themselves from ruling on the case, but you know they won't. They're all just itching too badly to see him get re-elected again.
01:17 PM - Sep 06, 2023
0
0
John Muenchrath
B
In response to Tom G. Hughes.
It’s difficult for me to see how the court could find him ineligible without a finding of fact - like a conviction related to the insurrection.

That said, I think it’s obvious that the 14th amendment applies to Trump.

So here’s hoping he’s convicted before this question comes before the court.
10:32 AM - Sep 06, 2023
0
3
John Spink
A
In response to Tom G. Hughes.
No chance, unfortunately.
As far as I know, he's not charged with insurrection or rebellion, so cannot be convicted on those counts, and there's no mechanism for enforcement mentioned in Article 3..
10:26 AM - Sep 06, 2023
0
2
William Turner
A
In response to Tom G. Hughes.
This spout was removed because the account associated with it was suspended.
10:19 AM - Sep 06, 2023
2
2
Tom G. Hughes
A
In response to William Turner.
Bad headline indeed then. Still not optimistic they'll vote in any way that could kick their boy out of the game.
10:22 AM - Sep 06, 2023
0
0
ML Hart
A
In response to William Turner.
Agree with bad headline; also declining to address
If they did, though, I think it would come to parsing out the words 'engaged in'
While we may see TFG's rhetoric as that, a closer reading could only apply to those who were at Capitol, being violent, were 'engaging' in insurrection
10:30 AM - Sep 06, 2023
0
0

 

{{ notificationModalContent }} {{ promptModalMessage }}