Take heed to the complete Supreme Court docket oral argument on the problem of Donald Trump’s disqualification within the case Trump v. Anderson (No.
source
Take heed to the complete Supreme Court docket oral argument on the problem of Donald Trump’s disqualification within the case Trump v. Anderson (No.
source
BROADCAST begins at 13:10
LISTEN to the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meidastouch-podcast/id1510240831
SIGN UP for the MeidasTouch newsletter: https://meidastouch.com/newsletter
SUPPORT us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch
JUST TELL US HES DISQUALIFIED, BUT YOUR LETTING HIM OFF BECAUSE YOU ARE SCARED,, OR YOU LOVE THE POS, DONT TRY TO SELL US ON ANY EXCUSE,,, BECAUSE THERE IS NONE OTHER THAN YOU ATE LETTING HIM GO ,, AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE YOU ARE SCUMBAGS.. WERE NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO BY ANYTHING YOU SAY, SO TELL THE TRUMP , THEN GFY
They should fly him on the flagpole , forget disqualifying him
Complete BS, CONGRESS HAS ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN IT AT ALL EXCEPT TO VOTE FOR2/3 to hAVE THE DISQUALIFICATION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE FACT TRUMP ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION,, THEY WOULDNT BE OVERTURNING THEIR OWN DECISION , SO THIS BS ABOUT IT BEING UP TO CONGRESS IS STUPID , ANYONE THAT ARGUES IT NEEDS THEIR LAW LICENSE THROWN IN THE GARBAGE, AND THEIR READING TEACHER FIRED
In its very core, this goes to show how much faith SCOTUS has in the federal supreme court of every state. On one hand it is trying to convince Americans there is no Biden Justice or Trump Justice but on the other hand, it is saying it really can't trust the federal supreme courts of each state to be apolitical to make impartial decisions. This is the message SCOTUS is actually sending if they rule in favor of Trump based on this concern. SCOTUS is just going to slap itself in its face… again!
Nevermind that the decision in Colorado was unanimous?!
Exactly. Ivory tower arguing with zero regard for the actual reality of our current condition of great threat.
Apparently the SC doesn’t find trumps insurrection threatening despite the fact that if he wins their authority will be null and void. They argue on hypotheticals rather than face the direct consequences on the nation of allowing trump on the ballot for another round of election lies leading to another insurrection and another and another.
The Declaration of Independence preamble provides authority enough for all of the States to Declare independence from Trump in the same way that the USA declared its independence from Great Britain.
I think this is the precedent that the Supreme Court should invoke
Read it (attached to my page).
The founding fathers are talking to us from theur graves.
The States decide how to run their own elections. Last year the US Sup Ct affirmed a state case regarding an election issue. The US Sup Ct needs to affirm the Colorado case, or dismiss without opinion. The US Sup Ct should not insert itself into the election process of the states. That is NOT it's job. Daniel from Abroad.
Wow, this sounds like a significant event! Supreme Court hearings are always pivotal moments in legal and political history. It's fascinating to think about the intricate legal arguments and constitutional interpretations that come into play during such hearings. Whether it's about a former president or any high-profile figure, cases like these really underscore the importance of the judicial system in democracy. It's a great opportunity for anyone interested in law and politics to get a deeper understanding of how our institutions function. Plus, live events add an extra layer of excitement, don't they? It's like watching history unfold in real time!
Corrupt court. I have no faith in them doing the right thing.
Everything here is false. Lies.
The Extreme Court lost credibility in the year 2000 by disallowing a recount of the Florida votes… it lost again lately by abolishing Roe & Wade… now it is on the verge of allowing a criminal on the ballots… SHAME ON YOU, SCOTUS….!!!!!!!!!!!😢😢😢
This Extreme Court is too blind to see the facts… it talks about details, not seeing the whole picture…!!!
How would Scotus decide, if Al Capone was on the ballot….???
Not only is this Extreme Court very partison in its decisions, it is also inconsistent by giving back the Power to the US states in the Abortion Case, but not allowing a state like Colorado to decide, if Trump stays on the ballot….!!!
From now every thing happens to are country we have to blame the supreme leaders I lost my respect for them 😢😢😢😢😢
The TDS is strong in this forum. Even when presented with reality, your inability to make sound decisions based on facts verse feelings is whats wrong with this country. So easy to manipulate you guys with disinformation. Wake up
Trump himself has created this crisis. His punishment should be NO, NO, NO. Yes he will have a fit. So what . He has a fit over the slightest thing. Tough beans. Get over it baby trump.
interesting they have such a struggle with Trump being eligible to hold office again, but they had no struggle at all to overturn women's right to manage their own medical needs. I don't remember them arguing for long on ending a woman's right to choose. But, sure, it is a-ok to let an insurrectionist run for office —twisting themselves into pretzels to get around this. Disgusting. We can all read the Constitution and understand he should not be allowed on a ballot much less be elected as president with his criminal load he is carrying right now.
The term insurection does not apply to the incident on 6 Jan. Anyone who believes that what happened that day amounted to an insurection does not in any way shape or form understands what an insurection is.
This will be a 9-0 decision and Colorado is not going to like it.
IMHO, there was a missed opportunity to respond to the Court's hypothetical about the legality of orders given by an insurrectionist president: if Trump had given contentious orders between January 7 and January 20, to somene with a sufficiently complete factual picture to know with certainty that Donald Trump had stirred up the J6 mob with the intention of claiming a second term to which he knew he was not entitled, such a person should have recognized that Trump had no authority to issue such orders, recognizing that Donald Trump's actions had forced a Constitutional crisis. As it happened, Trump didn't do anything particularly contentious between January 7 and 20, rendering moot–at least at the time–the question of what process should have been followed if he had. The fact that he showed such restraint does not mean there wasn't an extremely dangerous and dire situation during those last two weeks.
An important thing to recognize is that there is a very strong presumption that people in government who take various actions do so legitimately; in many cases, that presumption should be strong enough that there would be no imaginable circumstances where it could be broken, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered unbreakable. Much of what has happened in the last four years falls so far outside the realm of anything that any normal person could have plausibly imagined, that it's important to recognize that what should be unbreakable presumptions may contradict each other in ways that the Constitution itself cannot resolve.
It mentioned if trump was automatically disqualified himself day of insurrection, then why no one of lower power did not just listen to him as president. Thing is, there was some who disobeyed him orders. His security detail, secret service, stood up to his request of going to halls of congress. Disobeyed trumps direct order, and as on record, he was livid. Hypothetical question, if trump would have gone towards the insurrection, if hed marched along side, whom already are imprisoned, what then? If not for his security detail, that hypothetical, wouldve been factual.
Executive or judicial officer, quick question to anybody listening. A CEO of a company, chief executive officer, aka the president of a corporation, or a company. An elected president of the United States, is our chief executive elected president, to hold office of the United States, hold "states" ad it mentioned of any states who have taken oath to protect our constitution. Trump was appointed as president of the United "States". States is still mentioned.
First time seeing this channel. Thought it was independent and unbiased but going by the comments, its just an echo chamber for TDS losers who got bullied in high school. You're all gonna be crying a lot come November.
So if the judges in any way aids or helps Trump in any way, can they also be charged? It's just a thought!
It’s obvious the Supreme Court is going to allow him on the ballot to get rid of him for a while. Even if he wins. He will not be seated as President. It is completely obvious to everyone he did violate 14 amendment.
Theirs only one person who might beat Mr Trump and that would be Michel Obama ….
Massachusetts says he's not barred from the Primary but may be barred from the general election. Ben mentions something about running for office but not holding office.
I say BS!! They're just kicking the can so not to upset anyone.
WHOSE UPSET? BUNCH OF JERKS. STAND UP FOR US!!
Спасибо тебе большое за ролик)))
Trump will do insurrection again at the end of his term. It is so obvious
Why the big concern over the votes of people who support Donald Trump? The Constitutional provision disqualifies TRAITORS. Elections to federal office are run by state governments, and they enforce the other Constitutional disqualification of age, citizenship and residency without issue. It is clear that the14/3 provision INTENDS to nullify the efforts not only of those who are TRAITORS, but also deny to them the support of those who would give them access, once again, to positions of trust and power. Because the path by which such positions were gained has changed to voting controlled by each state government, that results in a form of "disenfranchisement" – yet, THE RESULT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO. BE THE RESULT OF A POPULAR VOTE! The Colorado courts applied the best determination process – i.e., a trial, with due process protections.
That was PRECISELY THE RESULT INTENDED by 14/3! There is no requirement that 14/3 disqualification be treated as a criminal offence, rather than sui generis. Moreover, why should TRAITORS be given protection, or their supporters mollified, when no consideration is given to the fact that hundreds of thousands of persons whose future conduct poses comparatively insignificant future threat to society lose their right forever even to vote? The "issue," If any really exists, is: Donald Trump having been tried on the facts by the Colorado courts, why is his disqualification to be treated differently from those who were also tried by courts for the very same incident? "Concern" for the "disenfranchisement" of his supporters is adequately covered by the provision of the removal of the disqualification by Congressional vote,- let them have resort to THAT
The question of a generic soldier having the right to disobey an order from a generic Insurrectionist president/ Commander in Chief is clearly addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three and answered by common sense. Whereas, the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies an office holding Insurrectionist and is "SELF EXCECUTING," the very grounds for non-compliance being laid against an Insurrectionist President/Commander in Chief.
Therefore, should a generic Insurrectionist Commander in Chief order a generic Navy Seal Team Six to: immediate assassinate a generic political opponent–for any such reason–that generic soldier (bound by the US Constitution and common sense) has NO moral obligation, or duty; or personal discretions to abide by the illegal order given by that generic Insurrectionist President/Commander in Chief–period. The Military has EVERY Constitutional right to NOT CARRY OUT such a vile and illegal order. It should be easily seen that this generic president should be impeached (if not arrested) for "attemped murder." Arguements to the contrary, give an Insurrectionist President unconstitutional and unbound powers to murder and oppress at will.
What would compel someone to obey orders from someone who had been disqualified instantly upon engaging insurrection? Fear of reprisal and violence threatened by the disqualified person. Fear of violence done to their family by enraged supporters at the behest of the disqualified person. The exact scenario that is before us now.
Did he "cervical "
I kinda feel bad for these people who keep insisting on this insurrection.
If you truely believe it, you should charge him, and prove it in court.
You really missed out with this one.
I had to stop watching after about 30 mins, cuase I really wanted to know who was SPEAKING.
After 30 mins are started looking around for a version that showed who was speaking, and found the cspan one clearly says who is speaking with pictures and everything.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do that going forward.
CSPAN doesnt need more views, you do.
How is a Commander in Chief not an Officer of the land !
Can the Federal government compel a State to put on the voting ballot the name of someone who is ineligible for the office for which he or she is running?
I thought that the elections were up to the states.
Colorado courts found that Trump did commit insurrection and is ineligible for the office of President and therefore should not be allowed on the ballot. I thought that SCOTUS was not supposed to retry adjudged facts. Why were Trump's attorneys allowed to raise issues about the definition of insurrection?
Trump took a different Oath alright! White supremacy Oath !
It is no longer SCOTUS: it is SCODJT.
The ‘Absolute Immunity’ wording creates a question. Where is the boundary? Further, complete the phrase “Absolute Presidential Immunity” It may sound like word salad. To me it sounds like a can of worms. One might say that it includes everything: government, criminal and civil. Put that together with the now infamous declaration and I quote “I can do anything I want… “I can shoot somebody on 5th Avenue”.
In a system where words have legal meaning it is important to note that the Justices of the Supreme Court consistently and repeatedly said President Trump during the aural disqualification hearing.
The District Circuit Court made it a point to not use the word President. They used Citizen Trump 61 times in their 58 page ruling. “Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a problem.”
This was embarrassing.
Weaponizing our election and justice systems go try to stop orange man out of desperation is going to backfire big time.