politics

Her ruling makes no sense and shows complete disregard for the 14th amendment.

So any president can engage in insurrection as recognized by a court completely unpunished as long as they aren’t an officer in the military and “only a civilian”?

It's even weirder, because she is saying this phrase, "any office, civil or military, under the United States” does not cover the office of the president. Which is a terrible ruling as the president is a civilian officer and thus covered by section 3 of the Fourteenth amendment. The ruling comes off as a blatant misreading of the text.

Maybe this legal system does deserve to be burned to the ground if it’s that ignorant.

Our government is being infiltrated by fascists at all levels. We need to vote the fascists out.

What exactly do you think happens after we guys get fucked?

Une guillotine, s'il te plaît, et peut-être une bouteille de courage.

Translation courtesy of Google Translate because lord knows I don't speak French.

Well, they claim that the liberals are making up all of the evidence in Trump's indictments. So in their view he should still be eligible.

A Colorado judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents

Wallace concluded that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech” at the Ellipse that day. She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”

The provision explicitly bans insurrectionists from serving as US senators, representatives, and even presidential electors – but it does not say anything about presidents. It says it covers “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” and Wallace ruled that this does not include the office of the presidency.

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

Please reread the article. I've quoted the relevant sections. The ruling has nothing to do with Trump needing to be convicted. The judge explicitly states that she believes that the office of the president is not covered by the phrase "any office, civil or military, under the United States" and therefore is not covered by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This ruling benefits Trump to the detriment of us all. The ruling seems to be grounded in the idea that the president is above the law. This ruling is a symptom of the fascist movement that is trying to take over our country. We can not afford to misunderstand this ruling. We need to see it for what it is, another blow to the foundations of our democracy. edit: typo

"What she's saying is that she believes that he engaged in insurrection, but that her belief is not sufficient to keep him off the ballot. And she's right."

Where did she say this? From the court order:

"The Court further concludes that the events on and around January 6, 2021, easily satisfy this definition of insurrection."

That's not the judge's personal opinion, that's the finding of the court. Further, the order explicitly says that Trump would not have to be convicted in order to be kept off the ballot:

"The Court does note that at no point in this proceeding has Trump (or any other party) argued that some type of appropriate criminal conviction is a necessary precondition to disqualification under Section Three. There is nothing in the text of Section Three suggesting that such is required, and the Court has found no case law or historical source suggesting that a conviction is a required element of disqualification."

The idea that a criminal conviction is necessary is so much without legal basis that even Trump's lawyers didn't try to argue that. The only reason that the judge didn't bar Trump from the ballot is that she doesn't believe that Section 3 of the fourteenth amendment applies to the presidency. The order is fairly clear that she does feel that there is sufficient evidence that he engaged in insurrection in order to keep him off the ballot, but only if he were running for a different office.

That's not what the ruling says. She ruled that he did engage in an insurrection as a matter of fact but that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to him as a matter of law because the president isn't an officer of the United States.

No, she did rule that he engaged in insurrection, and would have removed him from the ballot except she didn't think the wording of the 14th amendment applied specifically to presidents (just all other elected and appointed offices). Which is an asinine reading.

Are you fucking high, or simply didn't read the actual text in the slightest?