So, you think it would politcally unfair game to say a two year old can't run for president and that the people should have the right to vote for that child?
These aren't criminal trials, so there is no criminal conviction.
The application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment involves civil litigation which addresses disputes between people, or organisations.
When Trump was found liable for s*xual abuse and defamation against E Jean Carroll and Judge Kaplan affirmed that he did indeed rape Carroll, it was in the context of a civil suit, not a criminal one. It resulted from a jury reaching a verdict based upon the preponderance of the evidence, a much lower bar than beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal conviction. That's why he was ordered to pay $5M, rather than go to prison for up to a life term.
If Trump had responded to Carroll's allegations without defaming her, he would have got away with raping her scot free.
Likewise, finding that Trump incited an insurrection in a civil court based upon the preponderance of evidence is not enough to criminally convict him. It is, however, due process, i.e. fair treatment through the normal judicial system before an impartial judge in a civil suit.
Whether Trump is disquaified from the primary ballot will depend upon each state's laws, each court's findings and due process through to the appellate courts.
For example, Michigan state law has no provision for disqualifying anyone from the primary ballot: a 23 year old born in Luxembourg could be on the Michian primary ballot. It's only if that candidate wins the primaries can Michigan sue to have them disqualified from running for presidential office according to the 14th Amendment.
Indeed, that is exacty what has happened in Michigan: whilst Trump has not been disqualified from the primary ballot because there is no legal provision for that action, the Michigan courts have recognised that there is recourse for the state applying 3/14 should Trump win the primaries.
Whether Trump is eventually disqualified from being on some primary ballots, or not, it doesn't mean he'll be disqualified from all the states' primary ballots unless there is a federal ruling from the US Supreme Court to do so. Being disqualified from the primary ballot in some states may not affect who wins and Trump may yet become the Republican candidate running for the presdency despite being found to have incited insurrection.
Trump will not be convicted of insurrection based upon these civil cases. If you want to huff about him being criminally convicted on charges related to him inciting insurrection, you're going to have to wait for any positive outcome in the Washington conspiracy and Georgia RICO cases.
Until such a time, or indeed if criminal insurrection charges are brought and proven against Trump in the future (unlikely), you (the OP) are spreading misinformation.
It's a question that is asked for dramatic effect or to make a point.
An answer is not expected, nor necessarily wanted.
An example of a rhetorical question might be, "Do you have to chew with your mouth open?"
Or:
The effect, or point is to highlight that cutting people's genitals off is an abusive behaviour, just as child sex abuse is an abusive behaviour.
You cannot end abuse by abusing someone. You merely join in with and perpetuate abuse. You become the abuser, the person you despise.
It is entirely within your control whether you respond to to one of my posts, or rhetorical questions, or not. In fact, it's entirely within your control whether you even read my comments.
I assumed you would never say those things about women, ergo they are equally egregious and reprehensible things to say about men.
That was the whole point of swapping the gender in that scenario. It's a useful technique for examining discrimination, gender, or otherwise.
Okay, you don't understand what 'psychotic' means.
Women don't become mentally unwell with a psychotic symptoms because they treat men with contempt whilst men try to placate and soothe them. That's just an unhealthy interaction, or unhealthy relationship, not the cause of hallucinations, or delusions.
You shouting and demanding certain behaviours from me in this medium is unlikely to gain you control over me. That should be obvious to any reasonable adult.
If a woman had her genital area hacked away with a razor by her husband, would that be an appropriate way to intimidate other women into behaving themselves sexually?
Should attempting to control all women's behaviour s*xual through the threat of gross violence be a social norm?
In Brazil the age of consent is 14 years old and below that age s*xual penetration is statutory rape. However, it appears that between the ages of 14 and 18 s*xual activity with a minor is still a criminal offense.
Various news sources describe the s*xual offense as cheating, a relationship, bedded, sleeping with, an affair. These are wholly inappropriate ways of describing the abuse of a 15 year old girl by a 39 year old man.
Neither is it appropriate to cut off someone's p*nis, relish in the story, nor sensationalise it in the media.
How are we to address child sex abuse if it's exploited for entertainment? Isn't that exploiting the child twice with a complete disregard for the impact on her?
I wasn't asking what the UK government could do when I said 'we'.
I am not a part of the UK government.
The UK has a second generation immigrant Prime Minister who was not voted in by the people and who appears to believe that immigration is for the privileged and wealthy like his parents. He appears to believe that it's acceptable to let desperate people die rather than enter the UK and claim refugee status.
I doubt very much Rishi Sunak would suddenly become humane about the desperate and dying in Russia.
'We', in my post, referred to those of us who are reading your blog.
'Swatting' would imply a false report of a violent emergency situation such as a shooting, or hostage situation that would require a SWAT team response.
It doesn't sound much like Marjorie Taylor Greene and her family experienced a SWAT team response for the eighth time, certainly not like Breonna Taylor experienced a SWAT team response.
I'm not saying it's acceptable for people to be making false reports to the police.
I'm saying that using language that implies a SWAT team did their thing eight times, including on Christmas day appears to be...ummm... ...false reporting.
Oh, hang on...
I'd glady swat the backs of Marjorie Taylor Greene's childish knees for her if she wants to report something accurate and truthful for a change.
I have several dicky letters, but I'm more likely miss the L's when proof reading.
SC Justices can be removed by imprisoning, or shooting them.
My mother remembered being carried and my grandmother's feet bleeding as she ran through the streets because there was no time to put on her shoes. Nobility is not a protection against men with guns and we all have the same status when naked on a mortuary slab.
Yes, that's how it works in the US democratic republic, but the democratic republic only works for as long as the rules, laws and constitution are adhered to.
The Trump inspired insurrection was not a part of the democratic process. Trump has hinted and directly stated that if he regains power he will not abide by the democratic processes in a number of different ways. He has refused to pubicly confirm that he won't be a dictator, just as he refused to confirm the peaceful transfer of power all those years ago.
Time and time again Trump has made statements of his undemocratic intent and has actioned them.
What will it take for people to realise that if Trump regains power it will confirm to him that he can do exactly as he pleases.
Why would he tolerate the Supreme Court having a say in his executive orders, especially after they 'disloyally' dismissed every single election fraud appeal he made to them?
Am I the only person who thinks the self-preservation move for the Supreme Court is to uphold the Colorado disqualification ruling which would then be applicable to every state?
The other alternative would be to rescind the case back to the Colorado courts and allow a state by state, chaotic process until such a time as Trump is convicted on the conspiracy charges in Washington before disquaifying him.
If the Supreme Court rules that he's qualified to run, they may be signing their own career and US democracy death sentence. Trump has made it clear if he regains power that he will have the self-appointed right to terminate the current system incuding the constitution.
The courts have always been involved in the creation, or perhaps more properly, the development of law.
That's why every ruling is littered with citations of precedent and the Trump legal team are failing miserably without, or with misappropriated precedent citations. It's the rulings established by the courts that guide the precise meaning of the law.
The Supreme Court is on a par, or above the office of president. The Supreme Court gets the final decision on whether an action is lawful/constitutional, or not. Otherwise, the president, or congress could set rules (as Trump has said he will if he regains power) that will turn the US into a dictatorship like Russia and North Korea.
The courts are your last line of defense with respect to maintaining your Democratic Republic and avoiding dictatorial, or autocratic rule. You not only have a responsibility to maintain your democracy for yourselves, but for the rest of the world, too.
Disruption shouldn't be supported indiscriminately, nor for the sake of it. Even most teenagers support disruption with a purpose. Trump's is more Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
Are you referring to the Trump campaign using the shady techniques of Cambridge Analytica in 2016?
I have wondered if the Republican use of underhand technology (aka cheating) may have been why Trump couldn't believe he'd lost in 2020 unless the Democrats had also cheated.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this part of your comment.
I was agreeing with the impartiality, or at least reviewing the circumstances on their own merit.
I think I asked more than two questions and I think you answered the first subject - Judge Wallace's ruling that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection satisfies the application of 3/14 and a criminal conviction for insurrection is not necessary.
The second subject was having a guess at what the Supreme Court's next move will be, which you didn't answer.
Judge Wallace's ruling that the presidential office isn't an office, or that the presidential oath doesn't include the word 'support' in reference to the constitution is bizarre to me.
I get trying to decide how to establish an act of insurrection fairly, but in the absence of a specific measure being stated in the constitution, I don't agree it is dependent upon a specific insurrection criminal conviction.
I'm not convinced by the purist argument of the founding fathers' intent, either. We're not in a position to know what they were thinking and they weren't in a position to foresee Donald Trump. I'm not sure it matters if 3/14 was meant for this situation - the important element is whether it fits this situation.
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,997)
...false reporting.
RE: Due Process Of Law
So, you think it would politcally unfair game to say a two year old can't run for president and that the people should have the right to vote for that child?