Findings of fact: Insurrection?

[meaner gene]

The actual words of the Constitution which are explicit and clear?

And actually there has been a recent commission ruling on it that didn't go any further.

State Ballot Law Commission upholds barring Cenk Uygur from NH Primary ballot

Interesting that you would post it being the job of each states secretary of state to conclude eligibility to run for a particular office on ballot.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No trier of fact is required by the 14th amendment for a ruling of insurrectionary behavior

 

[Donald H]

The left is desperately trying to prevent the people from democratically making their choice known. Why? Because they’re afraid the majority of voters will prefer a second Trump term over the shitshow we have now.

Those are 'my' talking points you bozo. The majority of voters will likely re-elect Trump.

 

[meaner gene]

You do realize they came AFTER the 14th amendment was passed, and were thus were unconstitutional from the get go, right?

Unless of course you agree with the judgement in Plessey.

As said Jim Crow laws were legal until the 14th and other amendments made them unconstitutional. The country had long denied the vote to blacks, women etc.

 

[Donald H]

No trier of fact is required by the 14th amendment for a ruling of insurrectionary behavior

That makes Colorado's case clean. stay with their attack on the Constitution! The Scotus has it hanging around their necks.
Most likely will be settled by political persuasion.

 

[meaner gene]

No trier of fact is required by the 14th amendment for a ruling of insurrectionary behavior

That becomes clear, from my example of if Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to run for President of the United States.

The decision to keep him off the ballot wouldn't have to go to the courts.

 

[meaner gene]

A question that should be answered by the American people at the ballot box. The left is desperately trying to prevent the people from democratically making their choice known. Why? Because they’re afraid the majority of voters will prefer a second Trump term over the shitshow we have now.

What if a majority of voters wanted Arnold Schwarzengger to be president?

Do we let the voters decide?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If Trump's claim of immunity is recognized, any President, including, Biden is untouchable. They are, in fact, dictators.

 

[meaner gene]

If Trump's claim of immunity is recognized, any President, including, Biden is untouchable. They are, in fact, dictators.

Too bad the court can't make any preemptive decisions (advisory) because a great many questions would be better answered before they become "ripe" and are immersed in politics.

 

[Orangecat]

Who decides that Schwarzenegger isn't eligible to be on a states ballot?

Answer that question, since no court has made that finding of fact.

Sit down, child. No one is obligated to answer your silly hypotheticals.

 

[Orangecat]

Those are 'my' talking points you bozo. The majority of voters will likely re-elect Trump.

Looks like I triggered another foreign clown with no life.

 

[Orangecat]

What if a majority of voters wanted Arnold Schwarzengger to be president?

Do we let the voters decide?

What if the majority of voters wanted Mickey Mouse to be president?
Again, child, no one is obligated to answer your silly hypotheticals.

 

[Nobody911]

finding of fact​

finding

www.law.cornell.edu

conclusion of fact

www.law.cornell.edu

finding of fact

www.law.cornell.edu

Primary tabs​

A finding of fact, also known as a conclusion of fact, refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case.
Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Findings of fact may be made by either a jury or a judge depending on whether the case is criminal or civil and/or if there is an agreement between the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgment until the factual dispute is resolved.

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.

[Last updated in December of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]



With so many here professing legal expertise, I'm left wondering why I don't see this mentioned in most all posts (though that's a whole 'nother thread). I do see it in a signature of postman: "The most important difference between an appellate court and a trial court is that the appellate court generally does not decide issues of fact. In a trial court, the factfinder—usually a judge or jury—will make findings of fact."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/president-biden-making-america-normal-again.876476/page-17603#post-33235844

Do people see how this affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) generally does not have the power to find new facts in a case. The Court's role is primarily to review legal issues and questions of law, rather than reevaluating or reexamining factual findings made by lower courts. The Supreme Court's decisions are based on legal arguments, precedents, and constitutional interpretations, rather than establishing new facts.

The Court's power is derived from its authority of judicial review, which allows it to ensure that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. The Court's review is typically focused on questions of law and constitutional interpretation, rather than fact-finding.

The SCOTUS generally accepts cases that have already been decided in lower courts, such as U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest court in a given state. While the Court may consider the factual record established by the lower courts, it does not typically engage in independent fact-finding investigations or establish new facts in a case.

If a party believes that there was an error in the factual findings made by a lower court, they may have the option to appeal the case to a higher court. However, the Supreme Court's review is generally focused on legal issues rather than reevaluating factual determinations.

While the SCOTUS generally does not have the power to find new facts in a case, there have been instances where the Court has ordered further fact-finding or remanded a case back to a lower court for additional factual development. However, such instances are relatively rare and typically occur in specific circumstances.

One example of the SCOTUS ordering further fact-finding is the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In this landmark case, which dealt with the issue of segregation in public schools, the Court ordered additional hearings to gather more evidence and facts before rendering its decision.

Another example is the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), where the SCOTUS reimagined the facts of the case and ordered further fact-finding.

These instances, however, should be understood as exceptions rather than the norm. The Supreme Court's primary role is to review legal issues and questions of law, rather than engage in fact-finding. The Court's decisions are typically based on the legal arguments and factual record established by the lower courts.

==> I do hope the SCOTUS will not play any stupid political games with the 2 political parties. Playing games like little brats is not the judges' job, right? lol.

Source :

1. About the Supreme Court

2. Supreme Court Procedures

3. History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment

 

[the other mike]

America can't rely on being able to stop him at the ballot box. It's too risky.

You need to face up to the reality of the situation by recalling how government stopped Kennedy when no other solution was available.

With Trump, there are a few other solutions before anything extreme.

If I ever start putting people on ignore remind me to make you the first one

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If I ever start putting people on ignore remind me to make you the first one

... because Donald H makes the other mike look goofy every single time.

 

[the other mike]

... because Donald H makes the other mike look goofy every single time.

Being called names by dishonest gaslighters like you guys is a compliment

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Being called names by dishonest gaslighters like you guys is a compliment

Since when did you object to name calling, only when you are the target. Donald H simply makes you look silly.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If Trump's claim of immunity is recognized, any President, including, Biden is untouchable. They are, in fact, dictators.

The MAGA-World is saying Biden is untouchable?

cool

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) generally does not have the power to find new facts in a case.

Did somebody claim they did?

Links from POST #1

Conclusions of fact receive deferential treatment on appeal, and an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact obviously made an error. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The MAGA-World is saying Biden is untouchable?

cool

Orangecat If Trump's claim of immunity is recognized, doesn't it extend to Biden and all other Presidents and Ex Presidents