berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 14,953
- 12,381
- 2,320
some of his interesting quotes found here Richard A. Posner Quotes (Author of How Judges Think)
.....Judges figure out what ruling they want and then go find the legal reasoning to justify it.
Constitutional interpretation being more art than science, the document's sometimes vague language and failure to foresee all contingencies (who could have predicted a human wrecking ball like Trump) gives the Justices quite a bit of latitude in making their rulings.
IOW, despite the historical record showing it was the intent of the 14th's authors that the VP and prez be included among "officer(s) of the United States,"
“While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed,” the court ruled, “his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power.”
despite,
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
despite due process arguments being manifestly made moot by virtue of the SCOTUS being the third court that will consider the evidence of the case beginning in one of CO's lower courts,
Before a lower court last month, lawyers made wide-ranging arguments during closing arguments (after 5 days of testimony and the introduction of evidence), grappling over the ins and outs of specific language in the 14th Amendment and the extent to which Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to insurrection.
GOP in uproar after Colorado court bars Trump from state ballot - Roll Call
despite the mountain of documentary and testimonial evidence of Trump's participation in an insurrection
there should be no question in anyone's mind the the conservative Justices and their clerks are busily researching a legal rationale to justify the ruling they want.
So, perhaps more important, is the next ruling they will make on Trump's bizarre claim of presidential immunity. Then Jack Smith can go about the business of proving the grounds on which Don's disqualification from the ballot should have been upheld.
.....Judges figure out what ruling they want and then go find the legal reasoning to justify it.
Constitutional interpretation being more art than science, the document's sometimes vague language and failure to foresee all contingencies (who could have predicted a human wrecking ball like Trump) gives the Justices quite a bit of latitude in making their rulings.
IOW, despite the historical record showing it was the intent of the 14th's authors that the VP and prez be included among "officer(s) of the United States,"
“While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed,” the court ruled, “his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power.”
despite,
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
despite due process arguments being manifestly made moot by virtue of the SCOTUS being the third court that will consider the evidence of the case beginning in one of CO's lower courts,
Before a lower court last month, lawyers made wide-ranging arguments during closing arguments (after 5 days of testimony and the introduction of evidence), grappling over the ins and outs of specific language in the 14th Amendment and the extent to which Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to insurrection.
GOP in uproar after Colorado court bars Trump from state ballot - Roll Call
despite the mountain of documentary and testimonial evidence of Trump's participation in an insurrection
there should be no question in anyone's mind the the conservative Justices and their clerks are busily researching a legal rationale to justify the ruling they want.
So, perhaps more important, is the next ruling they will make on Trump's bizarre claim of presidential immunity. Then Jack Smith can go about the business of proving the grounds on which Don's disqualification from the ballot should have been upheld.
Last edited:
