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.
Correct. How do we determine that someone was involved in an insurrection? You can’t hold him accountable to the crime without conviction or adjudication. Otherwise it’s merely an accusation, and anyone could just say a person was part of an insurrection to bar them from holding office.
You watch them on TV doing it. And after you see them on TV doing it, they become unqualified for office, based on the due process afforded by the state attorney generals, and/or departments that manage who is and who isn’t qualified and can be placed on a ballot, per due process.
You don’t need a court to adjudicate being of improper age, do you? Certain items can be considered “prima facie”… Basically: You, and everyone else watched it happens is considered prima facie for processes like this.
We didn’t see Trump break into the White House. Unless it’s proven that he was a part of it, he’s not part of it. Innocent until proven guilty.
You need legal documentation to prove your age, yes. It must be issued by a state of federal governing body. You can’t just have your friend vouch for you.
We saw him tell his people to go do it, and the refuse to tell them to stop it.
That’s called “leading an insurrection”.
That could be argued as a poor decision or incompetence. You’d need to prove it in court otherwise it’s hearsay. It’s not like there’s photographic proof of him breaking into the White House.
He was literally telling them live on TV to go storm the Capitol.
That is called “prima facie”: facts that speak for themselves.
And it is fully valid to use as a test in a process already codified in law: secretary of state (or similar postition) decides ballot eligibility.
I read through the entire report from Smith. He did not. He said, “March on the Capitol,” “Fight like hell,” “Show our strength,” and other similar notions, but he did not explicitly instruct them to storm or attack the Capitol building. That’s a key part of what the prosecution needed to prove in court through testimony of those in the Oval Office at the time.
He was handed a piece of paper that said they’re storming the Capitol. He crumpled it up, tossed in on the floor, and continued pressing Pence into invalidating the election results. That is incriminating, since any actions from that point on that did not include dispatching the National Guard could be seen as criminal conspiracy. But again, that needs to be proven in court.