8 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Jstn Green's avatar

I understand, but it seems you.might have missed my point. SCOTUS didn't rule on the validity of 14/3. Dicta are merely added comments and have no legal force behind them.

Expand full comment
Vau Geha's avatar

The ruling of SCOTUS food not involve saying whether Trump engaged in insurrection but rather required Congress to do so. Most legal experts therefore are saying that Congress needed to do it, though Seth Abramson pointed me to the second impeachment which fulfills the requirement. I don't see why it shouldn't apply.

Expand full comment
Jstn Green's avatar

And Sippy Cup Caligula was ajudicated an insurrectionist by a Colorado State Court which was confirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Expand full comment
Vau Geha's avatar

ЁЯдФ

Expand full comment
Vau Geha's avatar

Nothing to gain from your post.

Expand full comment
Jstn Green's avatar

Perhaps that's because you aren't listening or have trouble understanding. Last time...

SCOTUS never ruled on requiring Congress to do anything. All that is part of the dicta. Dicta is basically tacked on thoughts with a decision. They have ZERO NADA Zip force of law behind them and are not part of the official decision. Kind of like tacking on individual pieces of the math involved on the bottom of a college math test.

Expand full comment
Vau Geha's avatar

Yeah, your Sippy post is exactly that, dicta. I never said that Congress was required to rule, just that the Supreme Court ruled that Congress would need to rule in order to trigger amendment 14,3, and it's time for you to LISTEN.

But of course there could be something to gain from, like from dicta issued by a court. But there isn't.

Expand full comment
Jstn Green's avatar

You jst keep repeating the same incorrect garbage. Go back to your parent's basement, troll!

Expand full comment