On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:41 PM Dylan Distasio <interz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *> Whether Trump was actually guilty of insurrection is a moot point from > a legal perspective in ruling on a state taking this kind of action. It > would have to come from Congress.* > Then why didn't the 14th amendment specify that the federal government, not the states, were the ultimate authority on who committed insurrection and who did not? Historically, unless the US Constitution said otherwise, the states were allowed to write their own election laws. For example, Wyoming gave women the right to vote as early as 1869, but the 19th amendment which gave all women in all the states the right to vote didn't become law until 1920. Another example would be the direct election of senators, in 1908 Oregon law said senators would be determined by the popular vote, but that didn't become universal across the country until 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment. > *everyone should feel good that the SCOTUS put personal feelings aside, > and did their job.* It's absolutely outrageous that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself on this decision because his wife was part of the mob that attacked the capital on January 6, 2021. And I do NOT feel good about that because if that isn't a conflict of interest then what the hell is? There's something else I don't feel good about. When it comes to a criminal case that is likely to harm Trump, like deciding if a former president can be prosecuted for ordering seal team six to assassinate a political rival, the Supreme Court is doing everything in its power to slow down the case until after the elections because after he becomes president again Trump will simply make that criminal case against him disappear. Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity <https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/#:~:text=Former%20President%20Trump's%20legal%20team,broad%20immunity%20to%20criminal%20prosecution.> But when it comes to a case that could help Trump like this one, then the supreme court moves at warp speed. It's stuff like that gives hypocrisy a bad name. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> thb > Now that the Supreme Court has decreed that it's constitutional to ignore >> the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and allow Trump to remain on >> the ballot, would it also be constitutional to ignore the second >> amendment to the Constitution? >> >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3yDQA3ROxrz6iOYty1307PaY7X7s26di3nCZdkHNrV%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
