Page 259 of 294

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:37 am
by cradleandshoot
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:23 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:15 am
Andersen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:05 am Astonishing logical and ethical gymnastics from those who claim the Colorado ruling is subverting democracy, election interference or subverting the will of the voters by barring a man who tried to violently and criminally overturn a Presidential election and negate the votes of the majority.
So what was trump convicted of? So an accusation is justification for suppression of a million people who would vote for trump in all likelihood. So you are supremely confidant the SCOTUS will agree with you?? :D You Democrats are about to crash and burn on this issue. Cart before the horse you Democrats, cart before the horse. Even most mittens Republicans are ticked off about this, except for one that I'm aware of who predominates his opinion on this forum. :D
Andersen, I already tried to respond to C&S on these very questions. He likes to repeat himself.
Sorry there counselor. I'm not trying to repeat myself. Maybe I'm just really stupid like you think I am. So as not to inconvenience your valuable time please enlighten me as to what I missed. Where am I off base under the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Is that a concept that is differentiated from criminal to civil law?

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:43 am
by cradleandshoot
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:36 am Tech, thanks for posting the Brooks opinion piece. It is very interesting, much one can agree on and a bit that it pretty loose thinking. The strange shot at Obama for calling the policies his administration he rolled out "smart" repackaged as "elitism" seems strained. A President supports his administration's policies and initiatives not by calling them, "something we thought we'd try and see how it worked." They call them smart, what the voters want, etc., ...when in fact most legislation is, in fact, an effort to see if the levers brought into play work in the manner the so-called policymakers want or think.

But the litigation against Trump -- both the criminal indictments and the 14th Amendment, Section 3 litigation -- are results of the tensions in the system that Brooks essentially acknowledges, when he says Trump is a monster who ought to go to jail. The system, at its foundation, requires adherence to the rule of law and the legal norms of the Constitution and laws. Leaving prosecution of the alleged crimes, or the alleged disqualifying conduct ignored means that the country has to rely solely on the voters to reject a potential criminal who is, according the Constitution, disqualified from holding office. In our system of laws, we are not wrong in pursuing both avenues -- fighting for and against at the ballot box, and fighting for or against a construction of the Constitution and laws.

It's hard to write this without thinking that the second impeachment proceeding was the opportunity that really passed us by. Romney was right.
So innocent until proven guilty in a court of law bothers the hell out of a distinguished counselor such as yourself? You remember how John Adams felt about that issue??? Seems to me he fought like hell to defend a very unpopular individual.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:52 am
by Seacoaster(1)
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:43 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:36 am Tech, thanks for posting the Brooks opinion piece. It is very interesting, much one can agree on and a bit that it pretty loose thinking. The strange shot at Obama for calling the policies his administration he rolled out "smart" repackaged as "elitism" seems strained. A President supports his administration's policies and initiatives not by calling them, "something we thought we'd try and see how it worked." They call them smart, what the voters want, etc., ...when in fact most legislation is, in fact, an effort to see if the levers brought into play work in the manner the so-called policymakers want or think.

But the litigation against Trump -- both the criminal indictments and the 14th Amendment, Section 3 litigation -- are results of the tensions in the system that Brooks essentially acknowledges, when he says Trump is a monster who ought to go to jail. The system, at its foundation, requires adherence to the rule of law and the legal norms of the Constitution and laws. Leaving prosecution of the alleged crimes, or the alleged disqualifying conduct ignored means that the country has to rely solely on the voters to reject a potential criminal who is, according the Constitution, disqualified from holding office. In our system of laws, we are not wrong in pursuing both avenues -- fighting for and against at the ballot box, and fighting for or against a construction of the Constitution and laws.

It's hard to write this without thinking that the second impeachment proceeding was the opportunity that really passed us by. Romney was right.
So innocent until proven guilty in a court of law bothers the hell out of a distinguished counselor such as yourself? You remember how John Adams felt about that issue??? Seems to me he fought like hell to defend a very unpopular individual.
I responded to this already, most recently on the immediately previous page of this very thread. I don't think you're stupid; I think you fixate on a concept and then fail to read about it, or fail to read the responses you get, or just troll away irrespective of the views of and information provided by others. It's a little tedious, especially when the cute little "valuable time" stuff is mixed into it.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:53 am
by cradleandshoot
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:36 am Tech, thanks for posting the Brooks opinion piece. It is very interesting, much one can agree on and a bit that it pretty loose thinking. The strange shot at Obama for calling the policies his administration he rolled out "smart" repackaged as "elitism" seems strained. A President supports his administration's policies and initiatives not by calling them, "something we thought we'd try and see how it worked." They call them smart, what the voters want, etc., ...when in fact most legislation is, in fact, an effort to see if the levers brought into play work in the manner the so-called policymakers want or think.

But the litigation against Trump -- both the criminal indictments and the 14th Amendment, Section 3 litigation -- are results of the tensions in the system that Brooks essentially acknowledges, when he says Trump is a monster who ought to go to jail. The system, at its foundation, requires adherence to the rule of law and the legal norms of the Constitution and laws. Leaving prosecution of the alleged crimes, or the alleged disqualifying conduct ignored means that the country has to rely solely on the voters to reject a potential criminal who is, according the Constitution, disqualified from holding office. In our system of laws, we are not wrong in pursuing both avenues -- fighting for and against at the ballot box, and fighting for or against a construction of the Constitution and laws.

It's hard to write this without thinking that the second impeachment proceeding was the opportunity that really passed us by. Romney was right.
So innocent until proven guilty in a court of law bothers the hell out of a distinguished counselor such as yourself? You remember how John Adams felt about that issue??? Seems to me he fought like hell to defend a very unpopular group of British soldiers because nobody else would do it. Do you remember John Adams direct quote?? I just finished rereading this episode. It seems Samuel Adams tried to convince his cousin this was proof the Redcoats fired with no cause. John Adams defense was they fired in self defense. Sorry for hijacking the thread.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:54 am
by MDlaxfan76
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:37 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:23 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:15 am
Andersen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:05 am Astonishing logical and ethical gymnastics from those who claim the Colorado ruling is subverting democracy, election interference or subverting the will of the voters by barring a man who tried to violently and criminally overturn a Presidential election and negate the votes of the majority.
So what was trump convicted of? So an accusation is justification for suppression of a million people who would vote for trump in all likelihood. So you are supremely confidant the SCOTUS will agree with you?? :D You Democrats are about to crash and burn on this issue. Cart before the horse you Democrats, cart before the horse. Even most mittens Republicans are ticked off about this, except for one that I'm aware of who predominates his opinion on this forum. :D
Andersen, I already tried to respond to C&S on these very questions. He likes to repeat himself.
Sorry there counselor. I'm not trying to repeat myself. Maybe I'm just really stupid like you think I am. So as not to inconvenience your valuable time please enlighten me as to what I missed. Where am I off base under the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Is that a concept that is differentiated from criminal to civil law?
There was a trial, cradle. Testimony and evidence presented by both sides. That trial resulted in a legal finding that Trump "engaged in insurrection". That finding was appealed and the finding held (indeed 6-1 on that aspect). It's being appealed again. Due process.

The standard you are citing has to do with putting people in jail. It's a higher standard for good reason, but it's not the standard for civil affairs, which is what this is.

I think this has been explained multiple times to you yet you keep posting as if you don't comprehend it, almost as if you just didn't bother to read the explanations.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:55 am
by Seacoaster(1)
OK, maybe you are just stupid. Can't say I didn't try to keep it civil.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:10 am
by cradleandshoot
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:52 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:43 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:36 am Tech, thanks for posting the Brooks opinion piece. It is very interesting, much one can agree on and a bit that it pretty loose thinking. The strange shot at Obama for calling the policies his administration he rolled out "smart" repackaged as "elitism" seems strained. A President supports his administration's policies and initiatives not by calling them, "something we thought we'd try and see how it worked." They call them smart, what the voters want, etc., ...when in fact most legislation is, in fact, an effort to see if the levers brought into play work in the manner the so-called policymakers want or think.

But the litigation against Trump -- both the criminal indictments and the 14th Amendment, Section 3 litigation -- are results of the tensions in the system that Brooks essentially acknowledges, when he says Trump is a monster who ought to go to jail. The system, at its foundation, requires adherence to the rule of law and the legal norms of the Constitution and laws. Leaving prosecution of the alleged crimes, or the alleged disqualifying conduct ignored means that the country has to rely solely on the voters to reject a potential criminal who is, according the Constitution, disqualified from holding office. In our system of laws, we are not wrong in pursuing both avenues -- fighting for and against at the ballot box, and fighting for or against a construction of the Constitution and laws.

It's hard to write this without thinking that the second impeachment proceeding was the opportunity that really passed us by. Romney was right.
So innocent until proven guilty in a court of law bothers the hell out of a distinguished counselor such as yourself? You remember how John Adams felt about that issue??? Seems to me he fought like hell to defend a very unpopular individual.
I responded to this already, most recently on the immediately previous page of this very thread. I don't think you're stupid; I think you fixate on a concept and then fail to read about it, or fail to read the responses you get, or just troll away irrespective of the views of and information provided by others. It's a little tedious, especially when the cute little "valuable time" stuff is mixed into it.
You didn't get my poking fun at you? All lawyers time is "valuable" that is what a good lawyer will tell you. FTR I don't believe I fixate in anything any more than you do. This little kerfuffle will be the live hand grenade with the pin pulled that will be tossed into the laps of the SCOTUS. My opinion remains the same though I have no legal degree. Without a conviction in your hands punitive and potentially unconstitutional decisions should scare the hell out of all Americans. That is probably the reason this Colorado decision has stirred up a hornets nest on this forum. It will be interesting for me to see what the vote will be. Will it be 6 to 3 or 9 to zero?? This same court decision has already been overturned in 3 other states. Is that the equivalent of throwing enough legal spaghetti against the wall in the hope that something will stick? How does stare decisis come in to play here?

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:16 am
by Seacoaster(1)
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:10 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:52 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:43 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:36 am Tech, thanks for posting the Brooks opinion piece. It is very interesting, much one can agree on and a bit that it pretty loose thinking. The strange shot at Obama for calling the policies his administration he rolled out "smart" repackaged as "elitism" seems strained. A President supports his administration's policies and initiatives not by calling them, "something we thought we'd try and see how it worked." They call them smart, what the voters want, etc., ...when in fact most legislation is, in fact, an effort to see if the levers brought into play work in the manner the so-called policymakers want or think.

But the litigation against Trump -- both the criminal indictments and the 14th Amendment, Section 3 litigation -- are results of the tensions in the system that Brooks essentially acknowledges, when he says Trump is a monster who ought to go to jail. The system, at its foundation, requires adherence to the rule of law and the legal norms of the Constitution and laws. Leaving prosecution of the alleged crimes, or the alleged disqualifying conduct ignored means that the country has to rely solely on the voters to reject a potential criminal who is, according the Constitution, disqualified from holding office. In our system of laws, we are not wrong in pursuing both avenues -- fighting for and against at the ballot box, and fighting for or against a construction of the Constitution and laws.

It's hard to write this without thinking that the second impeachment proceeding was the opportunity that really passed us by. Romney was right.
So innocent until proven guilty in a court of law bothers the hell out of a distinguished counselor such as yourself? You remember how John Adams felt about that issue??? Seems to me he fought like hell to defend a very unpopular individual.
I responded to this already, most recently on the immediately previous page of this very thread. I don't think you're stupid; I think you fixate on a concept and then fail to read about it, or fail to read the responses you get, or just troll away irrespective of the views of and information provided by others. It's a little tedious, especially when the cute little "valuable time" stuff is mixed into it.
You didn't get my poking fun at you? All lawyers time is "valuable" that is what a good lawyer will tell you. FTR I don't believe I fixate in anything any more than you do. This little kerfuffle will be the live hand grenade with the pin pulled that will be tossed into the laps of the SCOTUS. My opinion remains the same though I have no legal degree. Without a conviction in your hands punitive and potentially unconstitutional decisions should scare the hell out of all Americans. That is probably the reason this Colorado decision has stirred up a hornets nest on this forum. It will be interesting for me to see what the vote will be. Will it be 6 to 3 or 9 to zero?? This same court decision has already been overturned in 3 other states. Is that the equivalent of throwing enough legal spaghetti against the wall in the hope that something will stick? How does stare decisis come in to play here?
Not overturned, I think anyway. Here in NH the case was dismissed because the Plaintiff didn't have standing; it never got to the merits.

Here is a tracking website:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-pr ... on-tracker

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:18 am
by cradleandshoot
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:55 am OK, maybe you are just stupid. Can't say I didn't try to keep it civil.
When was I uncivil counselor?? Your trying to obfuscate and deflect. I'm not as smart legally as you will ever be. I do know when someone is trying to blow smoke up my ass.

Go tell the Spartans stranger passing by, that here obedient to their laws we lie.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:20 am
by cradleandshoot
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:55 am OK, maybe you are just stupid. Can't say I didn't try to keep it civil.
When was I uncivil counselor?? Your trying to obfuscate and deflect. I'm not as smart legally as you will ever be. I do know when someone is trying to blow smoke up my ass.

Go tell the Spartans stranger passing by, that here obedient to their laws we lie.

An epitaph written in honor and respect of the battle of Thermopylae.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 12:15 pm
by jhu72
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:15 am
Andersen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:05 am Astonishing logical and ethical gymnastics from those who claim the Colorado ruling is subverting democracy, election interference or subverting the will of the voters by barring a man who tried to violently and criminally overturn a Presidential election and negate the votes of the majority.
So what was trump convicted of? So an accusation is justification for suppression of a million people who would vote for trump in all likelihood. So you are supremely confidant the SCOTUS will agree with you?? :D You Democrats are about to crash and burn on this issue. Cart before the horse you Democrats, cart before the horse. Even most mittens Republicans are ticked off about this, except for one that I'm aware of who predominates his opinion on this forum. :D
FTR all of you geniuses on this forum should openly understand what your accomplishing here. Kinda what Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor. You've awakened a sleeping giant that has been for quite awhile oblivious to what has been going on around them. I'm a poker player that as of today would go all in for one particular side
IN COLORADO ---- INSURRECTION!

Then the Colorado SC (a different higher court) declared he was ineligible for the ballot placement. Your guy has had DUE PROCESS in that one state.

No cart before horse.

You really don't follow the news. :roll:

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 12:19 pm
by Seacoaster(1)
Conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig disagreed with former Attorney General Bill Barr, for saying the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling was "counterproductive": "The former attorney general is categorically incorrect...It was in every single respect, not only under state law, but more importantly, under the federal constitutional law. An impeccable decision."

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... p-00132792

Luttig answers most of the questions, in his opinion, in this interview. It's worth READING.

So I have Alina Habba and Cradle&Shoot on one side, and Judge Luttig and Laurence Tribe and George Conway and Neal Katyal on the other side. Not sure what to do. We'll see what the Supreme Court decides to do.

And Clarence Thomas? His wife was texting with witnesses and unindicted co-conspirators. His former law clerk and friend was the architect of the entire fake electors/get Congress to refuse to certify plan. For the good of the judicial branch you'd think....No. Guess not. We'll see.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 12:39 pm
by kramerica.inc
A guy at work and I are on opposing sides politically. But we talk a lot and both find it interesting when both extremes of the political spectrum go so far to their left and right sides that they end up wanting the same thing.

In this case, we noticed that the left and right extremes both wished Jan 6 was a REAL insurrection.

We both agree it is sad.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 12:49 pm
by RedFromMI
kramerica.inc wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 12:39 pm A guy at work and I are on opposing sides politically. But we talk a lot and both find it interesting when both extremes of the political spectrum go so far to their left and right sides that they end up wanting the same thing.

In this case, we noticed that the left and right extremes both wished Jan 6 was a REAL insurrection.

We both agree it is sad.
I am not on any extreme and I am sure it was an insurrection. Not anything I wanted, as I just expected that a defeated president would just leave office as all the previous ones did.

I think when the J6 trial gets going the country will see how the events of that day were well planned to have a march on the capitol.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:05 pm
by DMac
kram, what do you mean by Real insurrection? As opposed to.....?
My buddy and I are the same, complete opposite ends....laser lights
started the fires in Hawaii and it was intentional, election was stolen,
huge anti vaxxer. He posted this one the other day:
Says Henry Kissinger said that "once the herd accepts mandatory forcible vaccination, it’s game over," and that vaccine makers "stand to make billions … We thin out the herd and the herd pays us for providing extermination services."
Had to ask him if he really thought the savvy statesman was stupid enough to say something like that in front of the world. Of course he never did but the conspiracy theorists like to pull that one out their conspiracy bag and recirculate it every once in awhile despite its being proven to be wrong. Conspiracy theorists are something else.

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:31 pm
by Typical Lax Dad

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:14 pm
by a fan
DMac wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:05 pm kram, what do you mean by Real insurrection? As opposed to.....?
My buddy and I are the same, complete opposite ends....laser lights
started the fires in Hawaii and it was intentional, election was stolen,
huge anti vaxxer. He posted this one the other day:
Says Henry Kissinger said that "once the herd accepts mandatory forcible vaccination, it’s game over," and that vaccine makers "stand to make billions … We thin out the herd and the herd pays us for providing extermination services."
Had to ask him if he really thought the savvy statesman was stupid enough to say something like that in front of the world. Of course he never did but the conspiracy theorists like to pull that one out their conspiracy bag and recirculate it every once in awhile despite its being proven to be wrong. Conspiracy theorists are something else.
Did you tell him we've had State mandated vaccinations in all 50 States....for children, no less......for decades?

You guys are the same age? He ever notice the welt on his arm from the smallpox vaccine?

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:17 pm
by a fan
kramerica.inc wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 12:39 pm A guy at work and I are on opposing sides politically. But we talk a lot and both find it interesting when both extremes of the political spectrum go so far to their left and right sides that they end up wanting the same thing.

In this case, we noticed that the left and right extremes both wished Jan 6 was a REAL insurrection.

We both agree it is sad.
Are we really going to pretend that an clumsily-attempted insurrection doesn't count? Or is no big deal?

You know that there have been guilty pleas on this count, yes?

https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/10/24/j ... -election/

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:32 pm
by DMac
a fan wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:14 pm
DMac wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:05 pm kram, what do you mean by Real insurrection? As opposed to.....?
My buddy and I are the same, complete opposite ends....laser lights
started the fires in Hawaii and it was intentional, election was stolen,
huge anti vaxxer. He posted this one the other day:
Says Henry Kissinger said that "once the herd accepts mandatory forcible vaccination, it’s game over," and that vaccine makers "stand to make billions … We thin out the herd and the herd pays us for providing extermination services."
Had to ask him if he really thought the savvy statesman was stupid enough to say something like that in front of the world. Of course he never did but the conspiracy theorists like to pull that one out their conspiracy bag and recirculate it every once in awhile despite its being proven to be wrong. Conspiracy theorists are something else.
Did you tell him we've had State mandated vaccinations in all 50 States....for children, no less......for decades?

You guys are the same age? He ever notice the welt on his arm from the smallpox vaccine?
I'm 11 years his senior. Polio vaccine wasn't necessary it was on it's way out anyway.
Everyone is going to die from "the jab" (I so hate that saying) the evil empire is trying
to cut the world population down....on and on with this stuff. Yup, he knows but that shouldn't
be being done. I'm better off pounding my head against a brick wall than to talk to him about
it so I don't (nobody's mind is going to changed).

Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:15 pm
by Seacoaster(1)
Another smart guy weighing in on the Colorado decision, and its prospects before the Supreme Court:

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/trump ... eme-court/

"The first objection is that the Court disqualifying Trump from running might not be the best outcome for the country and that if Trump is to be denied the presidency, better it comes at the hands of voters. This argument rests on the assumption that Trump’s supporters would be more likely to accept a defeat at the ballot box than a disqualification in court.

But that assessment is belied by the evidence. His supporters got a chance to accept his defeat at the ballot box in 2020 and in large numbers refused. Letting the voters throw him out, so to speak, led to a violent insurrection and him running again on an even more openly authoritarian platform. It’s unclear why those making this argument expect anything different to happen if he loses at the ballot box this time. In all likelihood, having had several years to rally his base into even greater distrust of elections and our institutions, their reaction to a Trump electoral loss in 2024 is likely to produce an even more destructive reaction than in 2020. That is hardly something for the Court to defer to.

A second and related concern is a more small-d democratic one: that as a matter of governing philosophy it should ultimately be up to voters to decide who the president should be, not courts. That may be a reasonable political theory, but it is decidedly not what the American Constitution lays out. The Constitution has numerous gating requirements for the presidency: a 35-year-old age requirement and the requirement that candidates be natural born citizens are just two of them. Earlier this month, the Republican Secretary of State in Arkansas barred the talk show host Cenk Uygur from appearing on their presidential ballot because Uygur was born overseas. There were no howls of protest from those objecting to the Colorado decision.

That the experience of the Civil War led the United States to add an additional restriction against those who have so grossly violated an oath to the Constitution they once took from being able to serve again is a reasonable decision for us to have made to avoid a repeat of that tragic era. We could decide as a country to remove that restriction by amending the Constitution (or Congress can override it by a two-thirds vote in individual circumstances under the very terms of Section 3), but short of that, simply nullifying or ignoring it makes no more sense than nullifying or ignoring the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause if a bare majority of people at a single moment in time prefer that.

And let’s not forget, if Trump’s argument is that the majority of voters should ultimately determine the president full stop, he wouldn’t have become president in 2016, when the majority of voters preferred his opponent.

A third objection is rooted in a fear of violence. But surely as a nation we do not believe violent mobs should be able to intimidate courts into declining to apply the law. We have already read reports that Members of Congress may have declined to vote to impeach and/or convict Trump after impeachment out of fear that doing so might subject themselves or their families to violent retaliation by Trump’s most extreme followers. Do we really believe the violent mob he has stirred up should be able to now intimidate a second branch of government to bend its knee to Trump?

But even if one believes the Court should take the risk of violence into account, Trump’s most extreme supporters are unfortunately just as likely to engage in violence if he loses at the ballot box. They’ve already shown that in 2020. And worse, experts on political violence warn that violence can be more pronounced when autocrats win than when they lose. When they win their most violent supporters feel empowered and protected. So if a faction within Trump’s base may be prone to engage in violence if he wins or if he loses, should the Court contort the law to defer to that?

A fourth objection is procedural: that Trump has not been afforded “due process” and should not be deprived of an opportunity to run without that. This objection is wrong as a matter of both facts and law. On the factual side, Donald Trump is a party in the Colorado case! There was a five-day trial in the case in which Donald Trump was able to make both factual and legal submissions to the court. Trump will be able to make his case to the U.S. Supreme Court just as he’s been able to make his case in the Colorado courts. As a legal matter, critics raising this objection are conflating the rights our system affords to criminal defendants with the rights our system affords in non-criminal proceedings. Holding office is a privilege, not a right. One’s eligibility to do so is therefore subject to a lower standard of procedural protections than we give to people whom the system seeks to deprive of their very freedom.

There is fairly broad legal consensus that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require a criminal conviction for a crime of “insurrection” to apply. As CREW (who brought the Colorado case on behalf of several Republican voters) notes in a report, of the seven historical precedents of people being disqualified under Section 3, not one of them “was charged under the criminal ‘rebellion or insurrection’ statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors.” Section 3 imposes a civil consequence, not a criminal penalty.

It therefore does not require the same procedures that Donald Trump is entitled to in his criminal cases. He’ll get those protections in the four cases in which he’s been criminally indicted on 91 felony counts. But the Colorado case is a civil question of legal interpretation for which Trump is receiving the same due process protections that every candidate for office receives when their eligibility is challenged – something that frankly happens across the country in lower-stakes cases all the time.

A fifth objection is that the Colorado case and subsequent proceedings in the Supreme Court are bad for the country because they are politically helpful to Trump, and since he has shown himself to be a danger to the Republic, anything that helps him is bad for the country. There’s likely some truth to the fact that civil and criminal cases against Trump that he can use to paint himself as a victim are helpful to him in the Republican primary. But the general election is a different story. History and international experience show that accountability for gross abuses of power tends to reduce the chance of those abuses continuing into the future. In the US, in our laboratories of democracy, when state chief executives have been held accountable for abuses of power, the legal process playing out has actually been the thing that ultimately lessens their political support. In short, our system tends to work when it is applied.

And a final objection is that the U.S. Supreme Court is almost certainly going to overturn this decision and so it has been a misguided effort and distraction to pursue this path at all. I’ll admit, a version of this objection informed why we at Protect Democracy declined to bring one of these cases. That and a concern that disqualifying candidates from the ballot is a tool that can be misused and has been by autocrats overseas and we should not unsheath that sword if the case was likely to ultimately fail. But that ship has sailed. And there’s a compelling counterargument that any law can be misused but that’s not a sufficient reason not to apply it in the situations for which it was properly intended.

While speculation about how the Supreme Court will rule in any case is a popular pastime, it’s premature to declare that anyone knows what the Supreme Court will ultimately do. Sure, there are two justices who will use this case in whatever way they think will most benefit Donald Trump. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are such loyal foot soldiers in the Trumpist March on Rome that they’ve effectively traded in their black robes for red hats. But the other seven justices may be harder to predict here. Beyond the earlier points about textualism and originalism, the other seven justices have repeatedly declined invitations to step in and help Donald Trump in cases in which his personal interests are before them. Unlike Members of Congress who must frequently run for office before a Trumpified GOP primary electorate, the justices are not as subject to that pressure. And as we’ve seen among retired Republican office holders, when no longer faced with the need to run in a GOP primary, they are much more comfortable calling Trump out for the insurrectionist he is."