Elaborate on the Maine case.

My point was that she was required by law to make a decision, and she followed the correct process. No one has done anything wrong. Of course, you can disagree with her decision, but it was her decision to make- just as (ultimately) it will be a decision for SCOTUS to make. If you feel she made a reasoning error, then identify it. Bear in mind, this was an administrative hearing and decision, and it will next be taken to court.

Re: Colorado, you said: "Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?"
Whether or not their decision is "correct" will be determined by SCOTUS. But there's nothing prima facie incorrect about basing the disqualification on the trial that found there to be clear and convincing evidence Trump participated in insurrection. I don't see how an impeachment acquittal has any bearing: an acquittal doesn't preclude a criminal indictment for the same acts, and besides - the Senate Trial didn't entail a relevant finding of fact - it merely denied the articles of impeachment.

So you think that both that both the party convicted and the party acquitted are liable? — NOS4A2

I think that impeachment and removal from office has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution. The outcome of one has no bearing on the outcome of the other.

Exactly as the DOJ determined in 2000.

FYI, NOS and I went over this starting here.

Just to save you time.

Thanks - I have now read through that. He obviously disagrees with the decisions, but it seems entirely based on regurgitating Trump's defense points- all of which have been considered by Colorado courts, and weighed against the contrary points. That's what Colorado courts did, and Maine's soon will - as is their prerogative in both cases. Same with SCOTUS. How THEY weigh the facts will be all that matters, irrespective of whether it changes anyone's mind about what "should" occur. So I'd simply like him to recognize that the correct processes are being followed, no one has done anything wrong (legally or morally, irrespective of one's agreeing with the decisions), and that the final result is yet to come - but we should respect whatever decision is made - because it will be the final word.

Sorry for the confusion but a Supreme Court interprets the constitution and law. I made the moral case that it is wrong disqualify Trump, as is obvious by the post and conversation you butted in on. Morality isn’t their expertise as far as I’m aware. Given your fidelity to good faith and reason, perhaps you could quote me in my entirety next time, because for some reason you’ve left out the reasons as to why it was wrong to disqualify Trump from the ballot, and as such, never responded to them. Appealing to authority and appealing to law doesn’t have much force on moral matters, I’m afraid.

If you wish to take another bite, I’ll reiterate. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights.

It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights. — NOS4A2

It is not a basic human right to be on the ballot for POTUS. There are criteria spelled out in the constitution. Not having engaged in insurrection is one of those criteria.

It is not a basic human right to be on the ballot for POTUS. There are criteria spelled out in the constitution. — wonderer1

So you're saying I can't run for President? Damn that Constitution, how dare it tell me what I can and can't do!

So you're saying I can't run for President? Damn that Constitution, how dare it tell me what I can and can't do! — Michael

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I'd probably vote for you, considering the likely alternatives.

At this point I'm hoping The Rock runs. Sucks that Schwarzenegger is disqualified.

It is not a basic human right to be on the ballot for POTUS. There are criteria spelled out in the constitution. Not having engaged in insurrection is one of those criteria.

But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do.

But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do. — NOS4A2

Due process is ongoing.

And punished? He is raising money on his notoriety.

By punished I mean disqualified from the ballot. Do you think someone should be disqualified from the ballot for a crime he has not been proven to commit?

By punished I mean disqualified from the ballot. Do you think someone should be disqualified from the ballot for a crime he has not been proven to commit? — NOS4A2

The Constitution lays out the criteria for being disqualified. I already pointed this out.

He incited insurrection. That you are unable to recognize that seems to be a problem you have, but I've spent more than enough time on your sophistry for today.

But he hasn’t even been charged for insurrection, let alone convicted. You’re saying he’s guilty of a crime he hasn’t been charged with or proven guilty of. That’s a problem you have.

LOL

I'm an eye witness, and you are a gaslighter.

Thank you for clarifying that you were arguing that the decisions were morally wrong. This was not obvious- considering you referenced the Constitution several times, which seems irrelevant to the morality of the decisions.

That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights. — NOS4A2

The ability to run for President is a" basic human right"?! Is it therefore immoral to enforce each of the qualifiers (over age 35, native born, max of 2 terms)?

What if the decision makers believe Trump actually participated in an insurrection? Aren't they morally bound to enforce the legal restriction? Do you deny their right to make moral judgements?

But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do.

A fair trial is required before imprisoning someone. Running for President is a privilege, not a "basic human right".

The Constitutional right to free speech does not imply it is virtuous to lie for self-gain. Do you deny that Trump lied for self-gain?

The evidence of Trump’s malfeasance is abundantly obvious to all, other than those who choose not to see it.

But he hasn’t even been charged for insurrection, let alone convicted. You’re saying he’s guilty of a crime he hasn’t been charged with or proven guilty of. That’s a problem you have. — NOS4A2

People tend to commit crimes before being charged and convicted, not after. That's how time works.

And some people commit crimes without being charged and convicted. See, for example, every unsolved murder in history.

The notion that Trump hasn't committed a crime because he hasn't been charged and convicted is fundamentally mistaken.

Running for President is a privilege, not a "basic human right". — Relativist

A privilege granted by whom?

U.S. Society, through the Constitution.

The decision was wrong. — NOS4A2

The acquittal by the Senate in the second impeachment trial was wrong. In Mitch McConnell's own words [emphasis added by me in italics] he identified Trump as the cause of the January 6th attack: "American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth – because he was angry he'd lost an election." The cause of this was Trump -- he said it right there. If this isn't a description of someone inciting an insurrection, I don't know what is. And, they all knew it was violent. On January 6th, Josh Hawley was running through the Capitol like a fast chicken. Ted Cruz was hiding in a supply closet in fear of his life and later called it a violent terrorist attack (Cruz was called out to appear on Tucker Carlson's show to backtrack his words, and if you want to see one of the cringe-inducing pieces of footage ever, check out that clip). On January 6th, 2021, Lindsey Graham said: "Count me out. Enough is enough... If you're a conservative, this is the most offensive concept in the world. That a single person could disenfranchise 155 million people." According to former DC police officer Michael Fanone, Graham told him during the attack "You guys should have shot them [the rioters] all in the head... we gave you guys guns, and you should have used them."

It seems a commonplace that rights and privileges arise together with duties. Thus in this case, the privilege of running for office entails the duty of respecting and supporting the institutions that enable running and decide the outcome. Just as the right to own property entails the duty to respect the property of others. This called a social contract.

Now it is open to any individual to repudiate the social contract, but in such case they become outlaws; one cannot both repudiate ones' duties and still claim one's rights, and expect the least respect or consideration from others. To be an outlaw from an evil society is a respectable position to take up, but don't expect any consideration from said evil society.

Trump is a whinging outlaw, demanding the respect and protection of the very social community he has disavowed. So fuck him and the moral vacuum of everything he says. And if America votes for such hypocrisy, Fuck America too.

People tend to commit crimes before being charged and convicted, not after. That's how time works.

And some people commit crimes without being charged and convicted. See, for example, every unsolved murder in history.

The notion that Trump hasn't committed a crime because he hasn't been charged and convicted is fundamentally mistaken.

How does one know someone is guilty of a crime if he hasn’t been proven guilty, in your world? Did you see him do it? Is it a gut thing? Is it because an authority says so?

One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here.

U.S. Society, through the Constitution. — Relativist

In other words, people who vote for Trump provide him the privilege to run for president, or am I understanding this wrong?

Did you see him do it? — NOS4A2

I did actually, it was on TV. I also heard him do it on various phone calls.

One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here. — NOS4A2

Presumption of innocence isn't a human right. Not being jailed without guilt being proven is probably a human right. But nobody here is suggesting that we simply kidnap Trump and throw him in a pit.

I think it's US society as a whole, through its Constitution.

I wonder where they learned that? The whole year previously there were riots everywhere, resulting in numerous deaths and billions in dollars in damage. Entire city blocks were either burned to the ground, or even occupied by bandits, because some crook died. The media largely covered for them.

So really, who cares what the politicians say? I’m glad they were scared, especially Mitch McConnell. They could use some fear in their lives.

One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here. — NOS4A2

How is that a human right? Clearly, it's a legal right - but exclusively in criminal trials. It's not applicable to civil suits, and individuals are free to make judgements - such as your judgement of Biden's actions.

I think it's US society as a whole, through its Constitution. — Relativist

What part of the constitution?

Every part that defines the office, electoral process, and the qualifications.

I did actually, it was on TV. I also heard him do it on various phone calls.

Then you heard him tell rally goers to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard, something that was not cited in the Colorado decision as far as I can tell. And what you didn’t hear was him inciting anyone to insurrection.

Presumption of innocence isn't a human right. Not being jailed without guilt being proven is probably a human right. But nobody here is suggesting that we simply kidnap Trump and throw him in a pit.

It is not only a human right, it is stupid to do otherwise.