Trump's over all tactic: delay, delay, delay

[mickeycrimm]

It's rare that appellate courts reverse issues of fact. In CO all the way up the courts have held that Grump did engage in insurrection or rebellion. The issue of law that was reversed was over an interpretation of the 14th Amendment - whether presidents are subject to the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment because they are or are not an “officer of the United States.” The trial court in CO said no, the Supreme Court of CO said yes.

So unless the US Supreme Court decides that the CO trial court was completely out of line with ruling that Grump engaged in insurrection or rebellion, they'll just consider the more narrow legal issue of whether or not the 14th Amendment or CO's equivalent constitutional statute bar an insurrectionary former President from running/being President again. I don't see them de novo trying the entire insurrection issue again, unless some other courts rule that Grump did not engage in insurrection, and mixed rulings get sent up to the Supreme Court, then they might have to decide for themselves on the underlying insurrection issue.

We'll know how narrow the focus will be soon enough.

Trump was not charged or convicted of insurrection. Until he is convicted of insurrection....there was no insurrection on his part. Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.

[MDawg]

So now Grump lost (unanimously) his "Presidential Immunity" appeal in the DC Circuit, where he is facing the criminal election case. Will no doubt ask for a full circuit review (will be denied), then seek a writ of certiorari.

In a masterful opinion, the D.C. Circuit rejected the former president’s bid for immunity.

The DC Circuit, among other things, used Grump's own words against him, where his attorneys (and Republican Senators too) argued before Congress that it is the job of the criminal courts to deal with his alleged insurrection, that Congress cannot impeach a former President.

Meantime, he will try a version of the same loser argument in Florida before the 11th Circuit, where he is facing the classified documents criminal case.

If you can't win, delay!

[mickeycrimm]

Bad day for the Colorado supreme court

[MDawg]

It's rare that appellate courts reverse issues of fact. In CO all the way up the courts have held that Grump did engage in insurrection or rebellion.

Nevertheless, the question of whether Grump engaged in insurrection is still most likely not going to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

[MDawg]

This is what SCOTUS will focus on:

Section 5.
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

By this statement only Congress has the power to bar individuals from holding national office. They did not give any power to the states on the issue. And there was a damn good reason for them not to give any power to the states on issue.

MCrimm was right about that. Even though he is a racist.

Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. ___ (2024) :

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal office-holders.

Moreover, permitting state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates would raise se-rious questions about the scope of that power.

Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal office-holders and candidates, though, would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on “[t]he Congress.”

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests withCongress and not the States.

Barratt, Kagan and Jackson agreed with the ruling, but not with the outright principle that legislation pursuant to Section 5 is needed to enforce Section 3 - they felt that other means via Congress could enforce Section 3.

It's rare that appellate courts reverse issues of fact. In CO all the way up the courts have held that Grump did engage in insurrection or rebellion.

Nevertheless, the question of whether Grump engaged in insurrection is still most likely not going to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

I was right about that too.

[MDawg]

The court’s Monday opinion does not discuss or decide whether Trump engaged in insurrection after losing the election in November 2020.

The lawyers who brought the suit in Colorado on behalf of several Republican voters called that a victory of sorts.

“While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump. The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington or CREW.

[Garnabby]

Won't all of it come down to how badly Trump loses the election?

[mickeycrimm]

MCrimm was right about that. Even though he is a racist.

Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. ___ (2024) :

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal office-holders.

Moreover, permitting state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates would raise se-rious questions about the scope of that power.

Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal office-holders and candidates, though, would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on “[t]he Congress.”

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests withCongress and not the States.

Barratt, Kagan and Jackson agreed with the ruling, but not with the outright principle that legislation pursuant to Section 5 is needed to enforce Section 3 - they felt that other means via Congress could enforce Section 3.

It's rare that appellate courts reverse issues of fact. In CO all the way up the courts have held that Grump did engage in insurrection or rebellion.

Nevertheless, the question of whether Grump engaged in insurrection is still most likely not going to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

I was right about that too.

I'm not a lawyer but I was right about SCOTUS using Section 5 to overturn Colorado. It was written in plain english. Just not possible for anyone to make a wrong interpretation.

MDawg is a lawyer but ignored Section 5. This is what irrational leftists do, make wrong interpretations based on convoluted logic to come up with an explanation that assuages their emotional hatred.

[mickeycrimm]

Dawg, did you hear about the sandnagger space expedition to the sun?

They said their going to go at night.

[Garnabby]

Dawg, did you hear about the sandnagger space expedition to the sun? They said their going to go at night.

Humans have been talking for, well, we don't really know, but call it at least 80,000 and maybe as long as two million years.

Not only do we talk, we "learn" to speak despite never receiving sufficient instruction to do so. (This is Chomsky's Poverty of Stimulus argument.) Place an infant with talking humans, and the infant will learn to speak their language -- even if the infant is adopted, and was born to culture speaking a different language. Place an infant among deaf people, and the infant will learn to sign. All this with or without explicit instruction, regardless of malnutrition, destitution, neglect, even if the child in raised in slavery, in prison, in a sweatshop.

Even more remarkably, place infants in a culture where the adults speak an ungrammatical melange made of bits and pieces of several languages -- a trade pidgin -- and the infants, growing into childhood, will invent a new language, with a consistent grammar, known as a creole.

Speech is the most dexterous physical act most of us produce, far more dexterous than anything -- like writing -- that we do with the fingers that distinguish us from animals (though deaf sign probably approaches it): speaking a sentence involves hundreds of co-ordinated movements of the lips, tongue, mouth, and throat, in order to shape a column of air to produce sounds that while unique to each person (this is how we recognize voices) also map, in our listeners' minds, to commonly shared meanings. Even more remarkable, that column of air is produced by overriding and re-patterning the automatic inhalations and exhalations of breathing required to keep ourselves alive.

Contrast all this to writing. Writing is at most 6000 years old; mastering even the rudiments requires years of explicit instruction; and even in the modern West with free public education, illiteracy is hardly unknown. And even the nominally literate are often unable to clearly express themselves in writing, as any perusal of Youtube's comments will attest.

It seems highly likely, then, that composing thoughts into words is an instinctual exercise of speech (in which separate and distinct thoughts are sometimes "jammed" into homonymic "boxes"), and that writing is a taught rather than instinctual conscious process artificially grafted to the end of this naturally evolved chain of processes.

So, it seems that you think in speech, and speech contains homonyms, the correct meanings of which are usually but not always implicit in the context of the whole thought, that is to say, when spoken (and when they're not implicitly clear, a pun, conscious or unconscious, results), and writing is a rather laborious process of General Intelligence as opposed to specialized evolved organs, which serves to transcribe "unspoken speech".

(Reading it seems, is the converse -- I'm reliably informed that less accomplished readers sub-vocalize what they read, and that one can observe their throats tremble as they unconsciously form the words they are reading into speech. Even when I, (an accomplished reader), read, I sometimes "hear" what I'm reading "in my head", as if spoken aloud -- although usually only when fatigued.)

Since applications of General Intelligence are, generally, more difficult than instinct (as brains must be explicitly re-purposed, using taught rather than an evolved algorithms), you're more likely to make mistakes due to distraction or fatigue.

Now, it's a funny sort of mistake: you don't fail to write the word, you just write the wrong homonym. It's as if you are auditing (see the root word there? auditing: hearing) yourself, and committing the wrong homonym to paper. Now, it's not that you don't have a sense of the whole phrase that serves to disambiguate the homonym; you aren't suddenly thing that your though is about a "pomaceous fruit" instead of a "two similar or grouped things".

Or maybe the part of your brain that does the transcription is temporarily "disconnected" from the part that maintains context: perhaps a subroutine has been "cut loose", and so it blindly grabs the homonym that gets the most use. We might expect "pair" to be more often used than "pear", at least for most of us who don't keep orchards, but perhaps there are other factors, even the letters making up the word, or the general words shapes most recently processed. It's unclear.

But what is clear is that writing is supernumerary, artificial, learned and conscious, tacked on to the very end of the long chain of unconscious, essential, instinctual processes involved in turning thoughts into speech sounds (or possibly just making speech sounds, on the not unlikely theory that thought itself is just a strange and baroque elaboration of the more fundamental process of making sounds).

Just as you'll keeping making mistakes in consciously doing sums, you'll make mistakes in writing, even though, absent brain damage, you'll make incredibly few in the unconscious sums you unerringly "calculate" to determine how to move your muscle to walk, or to move a piece of food to your mouth.

[Garnabby]

This is what irrational leftists do, make wrong interpretations based on convoluted logic to come up with an explanation that assuages their emotional hatred.

But what is trying to have "your" party elected permanently? What sort of hatred to which degree is this?

[mickeycrimm]

I very well know the difference between gonna and going. "Gonna" was intentional because it's the way a lot of people speak. Get a clue, dude. You got to much idle time on your hands.

And before you spout off I'm putting you back on ignore.

[Garnabby]

I was just curious about "homophone errors", such as confusing the words their, there, and they're, in writing. Seems that, like speech, with particular muscles in the throat, the muscles of the hand become subconsciously conditioned to automatically do their thing. "Muscle memory", along with the spinal cord, may thus be considered an extension of the brain. But, typing is something fairly new, and, so, unlike writing things out, relying on that memory is less reliable. We tend to type out the more usual version of their, there, and they're, or, the one that we are used to typing more often.

But, again, if I cared about being "put on ignore" on an internet gambling forum, I at least would have went with a new username instead of going back to my initial one, which, I guess, most have already put on ignore. Ha.

[MDawg]

Trying to claim that no one will lose money, no one lost money, didn't work for Sam, won't work for Grump either.

"The defendant's assertion that FTX customers and creditors will be paid in full is misleading, it is logically flawed, it is speculative," Kaplan said. "A thief who takes his loot to Las Vegas and successfully bets the stolen money is not entitled to a discount on the sentence by using his Las Vegas winnings to pay back what he stole."

Disgraced crypto king Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years for FTX fraud


During the dot com era a CEO of one of the public companies used to raise the payroll when desperate at the Vegas blackjack tables. Eventually though the company went under.

PurchasePro CEO guilty, faces prison

[Rob.Singer]

I'm being fully entertained trying to visualize what a collection of fools looks like as they suffer thru another election night of a landslide Trump victory! One can only IMAGINE the misery of a wretched and crooked Hillary Clinton in 2016, and a horrified racist Obama as he looked on in despair. Then there was the downtrodden MSNBC and CNN anchors, and their endless collection of ugly minority commentators. And to think----we're gonna get to see the glory all over again!!

These upcoming sham trials....look for convictions by biased judges and juries, then appeals up thru SCOTUS. "OVERTURNED" will be the word that will end up being the bane of every libtard's existence.

[Garnabby]

All of them are crooked, but, Trump is old news. He could, and might, "catch lightning" again, but, it's fairly unlikely, especially given that he's about to implode like one of his old buildings. Ha.




Garnabby Garnabby is online now
Gold
Garnabby's AvatarJoin Date
Aug 2020
Posts
929

[Chipychip]

Trump's pulling out all the stops to slow things down, hoping to avoid any convictions or judgments before the next election. Can't blame him for trying, but it's a risky move. If he drags it out too long, people might see through it and turn against him.

[MDawg]

Looks like Grump will have to face the criminal music, starting Monday.

Appeals judge denies Trump’s request to delay start of hush money trial so he can challenge gag order


Judge denies Trump’s request to postpone trial and consider venue change in hush money case


As long as you have a bunch of donors funding every conceivable legal motion and challenge, why not keep trying to delay, delay, delay. Obviously Grump fears a conviction.