Advertisement
Judge Officially Labels Jan. 6 an 'insurrection'
A judge in New Mexico declared that the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was an "insurrection," the first time any court has done so, and barred Otero County Commissioner and "Cowboys for Trump" founder Couy Griffin from office for participating in the riot.
Menu
Front Page Breaking News Comments Flagged Comments Recently Flagged User Blogs Write a Blog Entry Create a Poll Edit Account Weekly Digest Stats Page RSS Feed Back Page
Subscriptions
Read the Retort using RSS.
RSS Feed
Author Info
Rstybeach11
Joined 2011/04/17Visited 2023/09/22
Status: user
MORE STORIES
Trump Admits Directing Effort to Overturn Election (16 comments) ...
Judge Officially Labels Jan. 6 an 'insurrection' (28 comments) ...
Congressional Hearing Taking Whistleblower Testimony on UFOs (188 comments) ...
Alternate links: Google News | Twitter
Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.
Trumper down....Trumper down.
#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-09-05 04:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 3
33 years sounds appropriate.
The guy who sent him should get twice that.
#2 | Posted by Corky at 2023-09-05 04:44 PM | Reply
Looks like a state court, not a federal court.
#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-05 04:50 PM | Reply
#3
Elections are run state by state per the Constitution. Any and all objections to insurrectionists running for federal office will begin in the states, not the federal judiciary.
Of course, any state case disqualifying candidates for federal office will end up in the federal courts upon appeal which will almost certainly lead to an ultimate SCOTUS decision on the 14th Amendment clause at issue.
#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2023-09-06 07:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
The crowd at the January sixth insurrection was the largest crowd EVER at an insurrection in this country. All of those people came out to hear from President Trump, and they were not disappointed. Aerial photos from the Parks Department and the Department of Justice indicate that there were more criminals on hand than at any other time in our nation's history, and even more criminals than found in ANY state or federal prison in this country. This gathering was the greatest, and President Trump's speech calling on the crowd to "fight like hell" will go down in history! --Sean Spicer, if he had kept his job through January 7, 2021
#5 | Posted by catdog at 2023-09-06 09:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 3
"Griffin became "constitutionally disqualified" from those positions as of Jan. 6, 2021, the judge concluded."
This is noteworthy because the judge is confirming a principle that legal scholars have recently been advancing that it is the fact he was involved that disqualifies him based on the 14th amendment, not his misdemeanor conviction.
#6 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-09-06 09:48 AM | Reply
#7 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-09-06 09:48 AM | Reply
#8 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-09-06 09:49 AM | Reply
sorry about the triple post. The page froze on me and I tried refreshing. I guess that caused it.
#9 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-09-06 09:52 AM | Reply
The ones that argued on the Nooner that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection should be here any second to defend their arguments...unless they're cowards.
#10 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2023-09-06 10:24 AM | Reply
This should make for an interesting Supreme Court decision!
#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-09-06 12:42 PM | Reply
The page froze on me and I tried refreshing. I guess that caused it.
#9 | POSTED BY JOHNNY_HOTSAUCE
It's not you.
Rcade's hamster wheels running this site appear to be having intermittent McConnell moments today.
#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-09-06 12:43 PM | Reply
#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-09-06 12:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1
#5
"Everyone was saying so!"
~D. Trump
#14 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-09-06 05:35 PM | Reply
A conviction for being part of j6 now disqualifies one from ever holding office?
Can we also disqualify those guilty of aiding the traitors?
#15 | Posted by Tor at 2023-09-06 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4
This could set a precedent.
OCU
#16 | Posted by OCUser at 2023-09-06 10:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2
#15 - the ruling is not dependent on the conviction. And yes, according to the 14th amendment if the person previous taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution engaged in insurrection or provided aid or comfort to those who have then they are not eligible to hold office.
So for instance, Josh Hawley gave comfort to Jan 6 insurrectionists by showing his support for them and he gave aid to their cause by conspiring with the Trump administration and objecting to electoral votes. He should immediately be disqualified from the Senate.
#17 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-09-07 02:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2
Does this mean my very own Senator ROJO Johnson, Tea Party of WI (AKA Republican), has been disqualified? He has admitted he took part in the January 6 Capitol riot insurrection for "ONLY A FEW SECONDS." "Any unwanted penetration, no matter how slight" - UCMJ
#18 | Posted by john47 at 2023-09-07 12:23 PM | Reply
Bold step by the judge. He indeed has "declared" Jan6 to be an insurrection for legal purposes. Now let the real games begin. We all know how closely Trump's lawyers are following this issue.
#19 | Posted by moder8 at 2023-09-07 01:33 PM | Reply
If no insurection charges are brought it seems inappropriate to call it such. It certainly points to being able to question a fair trial under this judge.
#20 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-09-07 01:50 PM | Reply
If no insurection charges are brought it seems inappropriate to call it such.
There is no such thing as an "insurrection charge".
#21 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-09-07 01:57 PM | Reply
If no insurection[sic] charges are brought it seems inappropriate to call it such.
Many factors go into which charges a prosecutor decides to bring. Many times the underlying conduct meets the definition of several different crimes, and prosecutors choose the one that is the easiest "lift" to conserve their limited resources. That doesn't mean the defendant in question did not commit the other crimes.
Luckily, the disqualification clause in the 14th Am. to the Constitution contains no requirement that a person be adjudicated guilty of an insurrection statute (which wasn't even passed until 80 years after the 14th Am.), so a "textualist conservative" like you should be delighted to know that a judge can use common definitions of "insurrection" as understood by 19th-century Americans and the framers, alongside literal videos of someone engaging in same, to determine they are barred from office.
No surprise, though, that you're coming down on the side of yet another J6 scumbag.
#23 | Posted by JOE at 2023-09-07 02:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1
#20 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
Why?
Do you know the difference between a civil and criminal case?
Just because prosecutors decide not to charge someone fully or even if the Defendant wins in a criminal court, doesn't immunize them from civil cases in any way. He participated in an insurrection. End of story.
#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-09-07 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-09-07 02:49 PM | Reply
@#20 ... If no insurection charges are brought it seems inappropriate to call it such. ...
Charges that are brought are more related to what the prosecutors are confident they can win, and do not necessarily attempt to define the overall event.
It may be easier to win a prosecution for, e.g., seditious conspiracy than insurrection, and that may be they way a person is charged. Prosecutors select an appropriate charge based upon their desire to win the case.
That still does not negate calling the overall event an insurrection.
imo, of course, because IANAL.
#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-09-07 03:15 PM | Reply
If no insurection charges are brought it seems inappropriate to call it such. It certainly points to being able to question a fair trial under this judge. #20 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
This was not a criminal trial and there is nothing in section 3 of the 14th amendment that says anything about having to be criminally charged. We know that Congress and the states did not intend charges to be a prerequisite for invoking section 3. This was passed by the Senate one year after the end of the Civil War and ratified by the states two years later. This was a time when traitor states were attempting to send former Confederate leaders to Congress. Congress and the states responded by changing the Constitution to block them from doing so without regard to criminal status.
#27 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2023-09-07 04:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
#27 Yep. And as i mentioned in 23, the criminal statute against insurrection wasn't passed until 80 years after the 14th amendment, likely reflecting a common understanding that conviction of same was not a prerequisite to enforcing the disqualification clause.
#28 | Posted by JOE at 2023-09-07 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
Post a commentComments are closed for this entry.Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable
Comments are closed for this entry.
Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable