It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump

[BackAgain]

Because Shitty Lawyer knows more about the law than Lawrence Tribe, Michael Luttig, and law professor Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society.

Tell us your credentials, Shitty Lawyer. Which online law school did you get your degree from?

You're a fucking joke.

Hey failed human. You don’t understand anything. Let me clue you in.

One isn’t obligated to accept an erroneous bit of legal “reasoning” from anyone just because they have a good education, background and experience. They are still just offering a legal OPINION.

And servile ignorant twats like you don’t even understand that their opinions might be mistaken. Or why.

The SCOTUS will decide as they decide, and it won’t have anything to do with which lawyer they happen to like. Nor on that lawyer’s alleged reputarion

They will decide based on the Constitution, prior legal cases and the principles which undergird them, the actual ntenrnof the laws as best they can discern them and on the actual law.

Mindless partisan hack bitches like you, Synthia. Understand none of that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey failed human. You don’t understand anything. Let me clue you in.

One isn’t obligated to accept an erroneous bit of legal “reasoning” from anyone just because they have a good education, background and experience. They are still just offering a legal OPINION.

And servile ignorant twats like you don’t even understand that their opinions might be mistaken. Or why.

The SCOTUS will decide as they decide, and it won’t have anything to do with which lawyer they happen to like. Nor on that lawyer’s alleged reputarion

They will decide based on the Constitution, prior legal cases and the principles which undergird them, the actual ntenrnof the laws as best they can discern them and on the actual law.

Mindless partisan hack bitches like you, Synthia. Understand none of that.

So, Bill Clinton wasn't guilty of anything! It was just some people's opinion.

 

[BackAgain]

So, Bill Clinton wasn't guilty of anything! It was just some people's opinion.

That’s even more retarded than most of the other crap you spew.

 

[Synthaholic]

That’s even more retarded than most of the other crap you spew.

Just using your fucked-up logic, Shitty Lawyer.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump​

The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.

snip

With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.


During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.

Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.

Numbnuts you got it ass backwards
Trump was president Crispie cream will never be president
Trump will be president again Crispie cream will never be president.
fat ass needs to go back to Maryland and find that bridge he shut down and jump off it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Numbnuts you got it ass backwards
Trump was president Crispie cream will never be president
Trump will be president again Crispie cream will never be president.
fat ass needs to go back to Maryland and find that bridge he shut down and jump off it.

He was governor of New Jersey, not Maryland, ignoramus.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He was governor of New Jersey, not Maryland, ignoramus.

No wonder New Jersey is so fucked up.
But you do get the secession traitor president approval bdtex
Why would a leftist use his avatar unless that's what you leftist want to do go back to the slave days

 

[BackAgain]

Just using your fucked-up logic, Shitty Lawyer.

Wrong again, shitty human.

You have no ability to make use of logic much less follow that of others.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It's interesting that the members who have replied to the OP seem to believe that their arguments about convictions for insurrection have not been considered by J. Michael Luttig, America's foremost Conservative legal mind, and Lawrence Tribe, Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus, and professor to everyone from Barack Obama to Ted Cruz, and nearly every other famous Harvard Law graduate.

That just never occurred to them!!!

Good thing that anonymous shitposters on a wingnut message board are on top of things!

Because we all can read the cotus. Apparently these two legal scholars are great at the law but bad at numbers…because the 14th amendment doesn’t stop at section 3. They want to just throw out the rule of law and the cotus and side with the democrats on “just throw him out!”

 

[bripat9643]

I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump​

The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.

snip

With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.


During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.

Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.

What makes them "conservative?"

 

[Dagosa]

Trump hasn't been charged with or convicted of insurrection or rebellion. Why would Christie waste his money on a lawsuit that he knows he's going to lose?

Yes he has. You aren’t reading the news except what passes through Fix News and Tucker.
Reoeat this slowly, click your heals together three times and say, Trump has been adjudge to be engaged in insurrection by A FKING Supreme Court in the state of Colorado. Three times…

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Yes he has. You aren’t reading the news except what passes through Fix News and Tucker.
Reoeat this slowly, click your heals together three times and say, Trump has been adjudge to be engaged in insurrection by A FKING Supreme Court in the state of Colorado. Three times…

A partisan decision that will be overturned by SCOTUS. Evidence was presented in that lawsuit that Trump didn't engage in insurrection and the Democrat judges ignored it.

 

[San Souci]

I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump​

The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.

snip

With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.


During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.

Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.

Give it a rest ,ya Moron. SCOTUS will overturn that stupid Colorado and Maine Decision. The Commie Dems want the Courts to win for their senile old bastard Commie leader. Not the VOTERS.

 

[Dagosa]

What makes them "conservative?"

A partisan decision that will be overturned by SCOTUS. Evidence was presented in that lawsuit that Trump didn't engage in insurrection and the Democrat judges ignored it.

You can call it what ever you want, but it was a legal hearing in front of a state Supreme Court and the Trump lawyers had due process and a chance to present their case. Why don’t you actually do some research on the subject. Just Google the hearing results instead arguing made up shit.

 

[Dagosa]

Give it a rest ,ya Moron. SCOTUS will overturn that stupid Colorado and Maine Decision. The Commie Dems want the Courts to win for their senile old bastard Commie leader. Not the VOTERS.

That senile old bastard is obviously much smarter than you or Trump.

 

[woodwork201]

You can call it what ever you want, but it was a legal hearing in front of a state Supreme Court and the Trump lawyers had due process and a chance to present their case. Why don’t you actually do some research on the subject. Just Google the hearing results instead arguing made up shit.

It wasn't a legal hearing, having no due process. That's why it will be overturned.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump​

The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.

snip

With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.


During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.

Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.

Your desperation is noted

 

[justoffal]

I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump​

The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.

snip

With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.


During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.

Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.

YAWWWWWN.....
BORING

 

[Dagosa]

It wasn't a legal hearing, having no due process. That's why it will be overturned.

It wasn’t legal ? In that case, you have no one to blame but Trump. ANYONE can get a legal hearing bubba.

 

[Dagosa]

It wasn't a legal hearing, having no due process. That's why it will be overturned.

That’s stupid…..they were all in front of a judge, and their lawyers made the appointments along with filling out the requests. . A judge appeared and they talked….they are call preliminary hearings to decide what course of action with proceed. They are also called “ evidentiary hearings” idiot because you must show evidence when you meet a judge, not later STUPID. He had 61 of them.
“A preliminary hearing (also called a prelim) doesn’t decide a defendant’s guilt. Rather, it’s a judicial check on the prosecutor’s decision to criminally charge a defendant with a crime.“

IN THIS CASE, 61 times, it was to to decide if a state or persons had committed voter fraud…..no one granted it dumbo.