😂😂😂

It's incredible how few comments here actually engage with the video rather than just offering unrelated quips

💯😂👍

TBF that is the role of the supreme court. They decide the final interpretations of the constitution, but ONLY the constitution. If it's seriously questioned the US has other branches of government that can rectify the issue by e.g. changing legislation or in some cases executive action / intentional inaction.

Thanks you

🐐

I love you.

I ❤ u

You’re amazing thank you ❤

He certainly was well prepared.

Absolutely agree, I’m grateful that there is transparency rather than just rash decisions, taking it out of the hands of the public

One is generally unprepared to argue that which was utter nonsense to begin with

I wouldn’t count on that. They’ll answer the questions he couldn’t answer and justify it somehow. It should be 9-0 before even hearing their crap argument that equates to “we don’t like him”

KBJ will find some absurd reason to dissent

@@golferguy916 No. I don't think so. She seemed pretty strong on the interpretation that the 14 Amendment didn't apply to the president, only to lower offices.

Doesn't matter if you're from the left or right. Being open minded enough to learn and see new point of views is a lost art. I've learned new things also 😊

Oral arguments can be pretty good, sometimes they rip into attorneys. In general, Supreme Court opinions aren't as daunting as they sound, (they can be! and certainly the Justices have different writing styles.) What I like most, is agree or disagree the Court justifies its opinion with reasoning. You can analyze the reasoning and decide which is the stronger for you personally. A lot more than we get from any other branch.

The whole thing is like a penalty without confirmation of a violation in a Super Bowl, and wish the other team has to accept it.

@@motionattached ?

We need first a convicted insurrection crime before any action imposed on it, @@LawBeats

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 stay in your lane

Yup, exactly.

Your children and grandchildren will be embarrassed about you

What happened at January 6 is called insurrection. Nothing more, nothing less. The specific point was to stop the certification of Joe Biden.

NO, Trump made a fool of you, the state, the nation. If it wasn't for criminal idiots like him, and fools who keep voting for him, following him blindly, we wouldn't even BE here dealing with this! Control your boy... and stay in YOUR lane, pal... in fact, just get off the highway.

Some do not even know what a woman is…

It’s not a state call.

That dude might have been able to save Ted Bundy 😂😂😂 Those Colorado voters should have gone to him

He had an easy job. The Colorado guy really needed a miracle to argue his point.

What? He got torn apart, his whole argument was based on a case that was thrown out and even taken back by the originator of the judge that ruled on it. Its insane that they even brought up that some people think it was an insurrection while others wouldn't. It clearly was and one man was at the forefront through MANY recordings that corroborate what he wanted to happen. Its insane that anyone would argue against that.

This is why I think “President” was left off of the list. If somehow someone managed to rise to the lvl of a national candidate and then win, then I guess it was just the will of the people.

"Even Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederacy - and his lawyer - knew the insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution not only disqualified him from holding office but, importantly, that Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment “executes itself”

There is way more to it than that. Finding of insurrection is major issue, albeit not touched on much here. In to ways. Having individual states making "finding" without ever charging i.e., your guilty of a crime without being tried and found guilty), and conflicts between findings. Due process issues all over the place. Trump's lawyer made a major mistake in not funding home the problematic aspect of Colorado's finding of insurrection as opposed to simply whether the state has the authority to drop anyone from the ballet based on a Federal amendment.

Yep

Why would a President NOT be the highest officer? I don’t believe his lawyers argued this thoroughly.

@@wildfireorganics8045 The proposed argument is that it has not been defined as such, hence the ambiguous argument.

Well, before 2016, you didn't miss much.

This one was very basic. They are often more impressive with the depth. This one was not so deep, just very ....... Volatile of a topic

Well done! Kudos to you for paying attention to this.

How does Trump sound when he speaks?😅

@@jeffghant4760 Just fine when you watch the whole video.

One of the linchpins of Jonathan "Bounties to Enforce My Handmaids Tale Vision" Mitchell is that the president isn't an officer of the United States, a colossally brain dead argument based on fallacious reasoning (like arguing "If you're in London, you're in England; you're not in London; therefore you're not in England"). Mitchell also clearly says that he will not concede that the President isn't immune from criminal prosecution (in other words, his client is above the law and the divine right of kings is what we should go by). It's also clear from the history from the drafters of the 14th amendment that the insurrection clause was intended to apply to presidents and potential presidential candidates (as others mentioned, Jefferson Davis). I understand who Mitchell's client is in this case, but Mitchell's so deferential to royal-like figures, you'd think he's afraid of becoming the next Sir Thomas More. As it is, it's ludicrous to argue that January 6 was unorganized, was not intended to disrupt the certification of a presidential election, or a blatantly terrorist act, or that it didn't happen without the blessing of Mitchell's client. It's also a joke to argue that the president isn't an officer of the United States; that's like arguing that a Wal-Mart greeter isn't a Wal-Mart employee because the word "employee" isn't in her job title. My guess is SCOTUS will vote to overrule Colorado (though I think they'll be wrong), on narrow procedural grounds, or on the grounds that this isn't in the Colorado SoS's jurisdiction (I think it is, as much as a decision to exclude Arnold Schwarzenegger or a 30 year old from the ballot due to ineligibility). I think being a non-insurrectionist should be a low bar to clear, but Trump doesn't clear it, and he had an opportunity to disprove the allegation that he's an insurrectionist during the trial phase in Colorado (the trial court found that he was one). He'll have another chance when the DC January 6 case goes to trial. In any case, SCOTUS will take any off ramp they can on this.

Yes, the MCL graduate of Harvard Law who clerked for two Supreme Court justices is a total moron. Me thinks you just did not understand what he was saying.

@@jeffghant4760 Bringing trump into a SCOTUS argument when he wasn't even presently speaking there.

😂 indeed a sticky wicket 😂

Let's not foreget this whole case could have made SCOTUS a little nervous for their own lifetime appointments being removed

Good comments & questions. I agree with your self-evident comment. Everyone knew who an insurrection was post-Civil War. Today, not as much.

🙄

Granted, they had a very weak position to start with. Even the left leaning judges seem to really tear apart the narrative and the fault in the logic.

The Justices kept cutting him off and were allowing the defense attorney for Trump to trample on our constitution using a case that they stated wasn’t useable.

Notice that the CO lawyer has been purposefully pushed closer and closer to admitting that he doesn’t even really have a case because all of his evidence is invalid and nothing but personal bias.

Because the argument itself is ludicrous. You can't defend the indefensible. The justices questions and comments saw this madness for what it is.

Well, the media made a ton of money on this traffic while it lasted. Nothing burger as usual. Maddow really did sound convincing tho 😂

This pains the WP for having to post this, and these comments.

Competent Governance ?? You better wTFU. 90 % of our Gov't is out of Control & cannot be reigned in. They don't want to govern, they want to RULE. The Dem's don't believe in the Constitution, period . The Law Schools across America are largely not even teaching, much less advocating, Constitutional-guided government & Law-

The political reason being to stop a traitor from being president.

Very well said for a guy that looks quite young. Really articulate.

@@jsmall10671 Odd that you declare him a traitor when no one has even charged him......

Jsmall, (of the mind) 10671@@SilverSergeant

Thanks

And Jackson, at least.

Dear heart...it's a Federal candidate...states cannot screw up a national election ballot tally.

Do you not know how these things usually go? Kagan asked a great question, because she wanted to hear the witness respond. Ironic you found her to be needing coffee, I thought she killed it every time she asked a question.

They aren’t asking just to learn the answer, they’re asking to hear the logic behind the answer to determine the strength of the argument. Obviously Kagan could view their opinions in their briefs, it’s why Justice Brown was confused by Mitchell’s (at least to me) flip-flopping on whether Trump’s behavior rose to the level of insurrection.

"this court is here to deside if the candidate is 'Eligible For Election.'" I'm not sure that's the issue. The issue seems to be whether a state can decide that issue.

None because they all got waivers, something Trump didn't do because he thinks hes above the law.

Good question

They were pardoned

I could be wrong, but it would seem just being a Confederate was insurrectionist. So there wouldn't really need to be a trial to prove insurrection.

Hold on, all the legal scholars need to listen to this random opinion on KZfaq

Well, since he was never charged with an insurrection... because the glove doesn't fit. Pay attention to Biden's case...on documents that he was never to take...as senator or VP. Trump had that privilege. There's steadfast reasons why...as the commander in chief. Like if the White House was bombed...get it? Shame...it's disgusting...read Biden's outcome, on this investigation. Horrible.

The logic of an unethical and uneducated moron. What court found Trump guilty of insurrection?

@@jimmyofdeath you don't have that same energy for right wing commenters though

One can not be denied from holding office until they have the opportunity. The argument is it's not ripe to preemptively.

Unanimous rebuke.

Just listened to the tape of the oral arguments. SCOTUS shredded Colorado's case in a dozen ways. Even the liberal justices. Clearly going to be a 9-0 outcome.

I think they need to be unanimous here, even a single dissenting opinion would be used as the rallying cry of every state seeking to try something like this again. There needs to be a clear precedent set on the limits a single state may have in determining the results of a Presidential Election.

I am feeling that only Sotomayor had any support for Colorado. Kagan and even Jackson seems to have their mind pretty much set.

Why would Roberts recuse himself?

Nobody on this case.

14 people have been charged with Seditious Conspiracy... Seditious Conspiracy sentence is twice that of an Insurrectionist... Would you rather we call you a Seditionist from here on?

I voted online from South Africa in 2012, not in the military.

I strongly disagree. I am disabled, homebound and am very zealous about voting. I'm grateful my country cares that my vote is counted.

....and you have no assurance at all that your vote was tallied & not manipulated by the Big Tech/Government Alliance@@kshepard52

There is never cameras allowed in the SC

How Supreme Court hearings work… both sides argue their constitutional points on why their cases matters Then the Court deliberates with the constitution and history and precedent on who was right which takes 6-8 weeks

@@BigNorm4Life thanks bro I'm not from the US so I was just clarifying how this works, I was really confused at first xD

If you're going to speak on this and what's "clear," make sure you understand it before spouting off. There's a distinct difference between an elected officer and an appointed officer.

This fool doesn’t know the difference between elected vs appointed!!!!!🤣🤣🤣🙂

@@ec3886 what is your point?

@@ec3886 or perhaps i should rephrase to make my point clear: in what regard is your comment relevant to mine, in the context of the subject being discussed, eg the 14th Amendment and the Emoluments clause?

It's obviously not clear since its been argued over the centuries on what is an officer....if it was clear they could point to a specific case where a specific Court held a detailed definition. Its been generically defined as one who is appointed and has significant authority. It has never been widely applied to all positions or specifically defined. I think the bigger issue that isn't really being argued correctly is how is one banned without due process of being tried for the alleged insurrection.

Same here, comments I made asking for some proof to the claims made by leftists here were deleted

They do that a lot.

Seems to be the status quo for the media and social media these days. They need to remember that they don't get to think and act for all of us 🙂

My comments on this thread were deleted again mirroring your experience LOL 😂

Not surprised. If you write anything even remotely supporting of the republican party it gets deleted almost immediately. I posted the exact same comment a dozen times into a video a few weeks ago and they kept deleting it. The entire comments section wasn't going their way and KZfaq eventually turned off comments as everyone was in support of the Republican party.

Tell that to your lib friends

@@Bidens_diaper_rash Sorry, it's not my place to say anything to anyone!

I believe He (aym1978) was opining for the conservative?constitut'l side of the debate. He wasn't defending the lib's. He simply had a typo & left out "was" before "systematically targeted"@@aymenmisawi1978

... Conservative/Constitut'l ... (I'm Typo'g too)

That is beyond ridiculous!!!!!!

"Fight and fight like he'll, or you won't have a country" -Donald J Trump

@@maybeisalwaysgood That is true. We have to fight like hell in the public square, against the liberal media, in the courts and in state legislature and Congress or we won't have a country. Or the only country we will have will be the Socialist States of America.

She didn’t quite finish the thought, but she’s asking why Mitchell isn’t arguing against section 3 automatically applying to federally disqualify Trump from office… he’s saying they’re only arguing against the state being able to enforce section 3 as Congress isn’t trying to disqualify Trump 😊

For libs

Maybe it will help you reflect on the fact that you haven't really been thinking logically about Jan 6th or about anything about Trump. You sucked up propaganda and swallowed it whole. Do now you are surprised by what logical, honest people already knew.

It does sound ridiculous, but that is what the 14th amendment says. And it says it for a reason. A state cannot override the right of Congress to lift the disability by preventing someone from running and thereby preventing them from being elected.

@danamarie8718 so have multiple elections instead of being cleared first? So he wins, this congress rejects him under this ridiculous theory, now who's president? The guy in second place I assume?

Shouldn't be barred from running. Should be barred from office. If he wins, congress could remove the disability by a 2/3rds vote (unlikely). If he wins and congress does not remove the disability, the president is unfit for office, and the Vice President assumes the role of president. Were I voting for trump, I'd be SERIOUSLY looking at who his VP pick is....

...Here is why: When the Facts are on Your side, Argue the Facts. When the Law is on Your side, Argue the Law. When neither the Facts, nor the Law, are on Your side, Argue Long & Loud !! (Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Mechanics)

That's why You see the Democrats screaming, yelling & squalling in the halls of Congress.

He wasn’t convicted of anything of that nature. So it doesn’t even matter. There’s nothing to excuse. I swear it’s almost like you guys are delusional or something. You’ve got your minds made up and you refuse to acknowledge reality. Congress impeached him over January 6th and it turned out it was federal agents provoking the RIOT. There was no insurrection. The insurrectionists are running the government currently. Accuse your enemy of what you’re doing. Hitler did that, the Bolshevik’s did that. It’s straight out of the authoritarian hand book.

Public education. has failed you.

Pretty cool

Colorado was the defence. Trump was the plaintiff

Trump is the plaintiff ya dummy!

???

I laughed so hard! That lawyer literally said that any other case would be frivolous, just not his .

Not even charged with insurrection.

@@heatherhall7899 he could be charged and convicted and you morons would still vote for him

You sir, are wise. Alot of sense in what you've written. The Democrats as we know are afraid, fully aware that if trump appears on the ballots, he will win no matter what trick they pull this time which, if they do, will seal their doom, because every eye will be watching. This is how I see it, though I believe you have a clearer perspective.