But obviously he can still be convicted in an actual court of law.

It wasn't obvious but for now that's what the court of appeal says, waiting for SCOTUS to confirm that in full or change it in some ways.

If it was so obvious and clear SCOTUS would have refused to hear the case wouldn't it?

It's not obvious at all

It may turn out to be true if decided that way but lol at obvious

It’s obvious. There really isn’t anyone serious that thinks acquittal in the Senate prevents a trial/conviction in the courts.

Sometimes the SCOTUS hears cases because the country needs an urgent resolution and a definitive statement from the highest court.

they didn't expedite it (yet?) though afaik

It’s obvious.
Lol what do you teach your students if you don’t understand how the judicial system works

What part of the judicial system is the senate?

Of course

We don't even know if the SCOTUS will decide to hear the case. If it does, there is some chance that the SCOTUS will somehow narrow the DC Circuit's reasoning. But there is virtually no chance that the SCOTUS will hold that Trump is protected from prosecution on grounds of double jeopardy or presidential immunity.

The best case scenario for Trump is that he loses 7-2, and a 9-0 opinion against him is infinitely more likely than the Court ruling in his favor. I honestly think that Trump's chances in that case are no better than 1 in 100. The arguments in favor of his position are risible in the extreme.

grizy is 100% correct. I am not aware of any serious person who believes that Trump has the better side of this argument. Trump's position is truly ludicrous.

I used to think it couldn’t be too bad to serve as an adjunct professor at any law school.

2p2 disabused me of that notion. I could end up committing manslaughter because a student couldn’t understand the objective standard or couldnt understand congressional impeachment proceedings are not judicial/criminal proceedings.

Or one that doesn’t understand SCOTUS finds its own precedents binding on principle/tradition, not some kind of rule it’s legally/constitutionally bound to uphold.

I just don’t have the patience. And I would go insane if said student keeps wasting class time insisting he/she is right.

Of course it's obvious. Look for anybody making that argument in the 200 years pre Trump. It's the same as the VP having a huge roll in elections and you don't even have to be a lawyer to convince yourself it's nonsense. People only started making the crazy arguments after Trump hacks needed them to be true.

+ 1,000,000

A then version of GOP/Maga would have lost their crap if during the disputed presidential election of 2000 between Al Gore and G.W. Bush, if then vice president Al Gore (he was the incumbent vice president at the time) had stood before Congress and read any elector names he wanted and declared himself the next president. But somehow in 2020 Pence magically now had those powers.

Metsandfinsfan, on February 13, 2021, a 2/3 vote was required to uphold the House of Representatives article of impeachment against the former president Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. The U.S. Senate's vote count was 57 for guilty, and 43 for not guilty.
Refer to U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 117th Congress - 1st Session .

Trump will again be judged by juries within the criminal court of Georgia and again in a District of Columbia federal court. Similar to the U.S. Senate, criminal court juries should consider all the evidence as presented to them and come to an objective decision. Unlike the U.S. Senate vote, criminal courts require unanimous agreement among all of the members of the jury for a guilty verdict to be upheld.
But to Trump's disadvantage, (unlike the U.S. Senate), those juries are not elected officials substantially dependent on their political affiliations. It's been my experience and opinion; U.S. citizens do strive to uphold the oaths they swear to as members of a jury.
Respectfully, Supposn

so hm given that now even the 3 liberal judges said the same i did, are you satisfied? 9-0 that applying the insurrection clause is strictly a federal matter, states have no role in that.

good call

The left want courts to legislate and ignore the constitution when it doesn't fit "what is best" so i doubt he is satisfied

well i meant, satisfied about the fact that it was abudantly clear the application of the insurrection clause is a strictly federal issue.

Now the 3 liberals might have an actual point of law when they claim federal courts as well as congress could apply that clause. But given the application has nationwide effects i think it should be SCOTUS in case.

Anyway aside from that, it's 100% clear now to, i hope, everyone, that disqualification from candidacy because of previous engagement in insurrection is something states have no saying about.

Which btw was a strong doubt of many democrat leaders in many states, as i reported before California did the right thing waiting this out. Many others did the same as well.

Actually, you are wrong. The Court held that the states have a role in determining insurrection for state level offices but not federal level offices. So your summary is incorrect. But obviously, in reference to Trump, they held Colorado was unable to keep him from the ballot in the upcoming federal election.

i'd argue the right leaning judges and justices legislate from the bench more than the left these days. "originalism" and "textualism" don't exist anymore. they are just things people on the right try and think about themselves while creating legal rulings out of thin air.

lol this is grotesque.

which decisions of the current scotus, or the previous one, would be legislation from the bench?

my comment wasn't only towards scotus. but at scotus the lack of any concept of originalism is my point. they just made a very obvious textually self executing section of an amendment non-self executing because they didn't like the idea of the result. i don't even think the outcome was wrong in terms of real world effect, but it's very obvious that: "No person shall.... But Congress may..." is self executing text.

There is no self execution if the criterion isn't objective. The age criterion is objective. Can't self-execute until you have a clear definition of what an insurrectionist is, which might or might not apply to Trump for example.

Who gets to decide who is an insurrectionist was the question.

even if that were the case. congress decided by a majority vote in both houses that Trump incited an insurrection. the text says nothing about being found guilty or impeached or any such language.

I never mentioned a guilty convinction being required, nor SCOTUS did.

But something, some entity, must certify the "insurrectionist" status right? so there is no automatism. The question was "which something?" and the answer is congress by passing a law, not by counting votes during an impeachment proceedings, according to this SCOTUS. 9-0, so all the range of judicial philosophy.

How that's against originalism, you tell me.

you want me to tell you how adding extra steps into the language of the constitution that weren't thought to be needed at time of drafting isn't originalism?