Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett triggered fierce backlash from MAGA loyalists after forcefully questioning the Trump administration’s top lawyer and voicing skepticism over ending birthright citizenship during a heated Supreme Court argument.
Since taking office, Donald Trump has pushed for an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
During oral arguments, Barrett confronted Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration, over his dismissive response to Justice Elena Kagan’s concerns. Barrett sharply asked whether Sauer truly believed there was “no way” for plaintiffs to quickly challenge the executive order, suggesting that class-action certification might expedite the process.
Held to answer does not mean sentenced. It means held responsible, or convicted. Accusations or charges are insufficient for accountability according to the Constitution.
Otherwise, you could just accuse every President you don’t like of an insurrection and they’d immediately be removed from office.
“Held to answer” in this context, with the reference to a grand jury, is talking about criminal charges, convictions, and punishment.
Or are you suggesting that a 34 year old would have to come before a grand jury before being disqualified from the office of President?
Are you suggesting there’s logic to your argument? You can’t just say, “he was part of an insurrection” and disqualify him from office. It needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and he must be found guilty by a jury of his peers. Otherwise, anyone could accuse a sitting President of an insurrection and they’d be removed from office. Think about it.
Guess what happened? Colorado Supreme Court found that he had participated, making him ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot. This is appropriate, because states manage elections, that’s also written in the Constitution.
Then SCOTUS stepped in and swept that aside, is direct contradiction to the Constitution.
Their excuse was that a “patchwork” of states shouldn’t have this power. Even though they quite literally do.
So whatever squabble we’re having here is moot.
Read the link I provided. It was not considered an insurrection according to the DOJ or SCOTUS, because he was trying to remain in power rather than overthrow the existing power of the government.
Self-coups are not a new concept
I didn’t say it was. I’m saying that’s why Jack Smith did not charge him with inciting an insurrection. It was not an insurrection by definition if he was a part of it. If he was not a part of it, it could be considered one. It’s legally murky.
That’s not how anything works, no.
Don’t tell me. Tell him.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/jack-smith-didnt-charge-donald-trump-insurrection-rcna187578