TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-01-08 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00027812

SCOTUS 14TH AMENDMENT RULING MeidasTouch: Why SCOTUS Justices PROTESTED 14th Amendment RULING PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECwxXnDfuWo Peter Burgess COMMENTARY There is law and there is law! Much of good law is essentially the codification of 'basic common sense' and then there is a lot of law ... especially in the United States but significantly also in place like the UK where there is a substantial amount of complex law that makes it possible for the powerful and rich to avoid all sorts of potentially expensive responsibilities. The modern world now has more billionaires than at any time in history ... good for these oligarchs, but not for the rest of us. Early in my adult career during my 'accountancy' training, I did some of the 'grunt work' at Cooper Brothers ... that evolved into Coopers and Lybrand (C&L) and later on into PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) ... for tax returns for some of the wealthiest people in London and the UK. But these people were millionaires, not billionaires ... and the taxes they were having to pay in the 1960s were far more onerous than billionaires are having to pay some 60+ years later. For me, what is thought provoking is that the rich and powerful now own so much wealth that they can ignore anything and everything in the world around them. This is not healthy ... but worse, a lot of what appears to be wealth is coming from a bigger and bigger community of people who are growing poorer and poorer with no end in sight! Peter Burgess
Why SCOTUS Justices PROTESTED 14th Amendment RULING MeidasTouch 3.47M subscribers Dec 25, 2024 MeidasTouch host Professor Ben Meiselas lectures on the majority vs. joining opinions in the Trump disqualification case and what the law of the land is right now, although we, and three Supreme Court justices, disagree with it. Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Support the MeidasTouch Network: / meidastouch Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: / meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: / meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: / meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: / meidastouch Transcript 0:00 welcome to Professor meles's classroom and as I teach my law students and undergrad students the reason why certain justices provide concurring or dissenting or joining opinions is that they ultimately want to change what the law is and have their voices heard even if they're not the majority and that's what happened back in March of 2024 when the Supreme Court made a very bad rule ruling on Trump disqualification under the 14th Amendment Section 3 a very simple question was posed to the United States Supreme Court about whether the state of Colorado could disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot Colorado Supreme Court four of their top justices in the state of Colorado smart lawyers said the 14th Amendment section three is self-executing and absolutely Donald 1:00 Trump should be disqualified they then sent it to the United States Supreme Court by staying the case it was actually done via a RIT of cersi aori just means a RIT by Trump's lawyers to go to the Supreme Court so the question posed to the Supreme Court was a simple one was Colorado Supreme Court decision the right one can a state disqualify a federal office holder in this case the president from the ballot the Supreme Court could have just answered that narrowly I mean one thing they could have said is yes Donald Trump is disqualified they did not say that the other thing the Supreme Court could have said is no Donald Trump is not disqualified because Colorado got it wrong but leave open these other questions about what would constitute disqualification so that there could be subsequent challenges that were filed like challenges that could have been filed 2:00 right now but the Supreme Court didn't do that the Supreme Court went beyond the question posed to it at least five members of the Supreme Court did and those five members said not only are we going to ruled that Colorado did not have the right to disqualify Trump but they then ruled in addition when this question wasn't even posed that the only institution that can disqualify Donald Trump is Congress through the passage of legislation that in order to enforce the 14th Amendment Section 3 the Supreme Court said 14th Amendment Section 5 requires Congress to put forward legislation in order to say Trump you're disqualified folks I disagree with the Supreme Court that wasn't even the question to be decided by the United States Supreme Court at all but they 3:02 went there why did they go there because the five justices three of whom um were or at least a lot of them were appointed by Donald Trump Amy Cony Barrett um was uh also doing a joining opinion um where she said the Supreme Court went too far but a lot of these justices were trying to protect Donald Trump the five wanted to protect him so they went beyond the question that was even posed but let's take a look at what the other justices did because all nine justices it was a nine to zero opinion all nine agreed that Colorado got it wrong by the way I disagree with those nine Supreme Court Justices I think that Colorado got it right but I'm just telling you what the Supreme Court decision ultimately States I'm I'm just reading for you what what's in the actual opinion but some of the other justices who were not in the majority said while we agree with you 4:01 that Colorado got it wrong we think you as the Supreme Court went way too far in protecting Donald Trump from other aspects of disqualification by making this an issue of Congress that wasn't the question even posed why are you saying this supreme court so let me just go over that with you because if you want to change the law if you want the law to be this you need more justices who look like just Justice Kagan and Obama appointee Justice Soto myor and Obama appointee and Justice katangi Brown Jackson a Biden appointee again these three all found still that Colorado got it wrong but they found the Supreme Court went too far by saying Congress has to pass legislation and preventing other forms of disqualification before an inauguration so let's just go into what soda mayor Kagan and Jackson said and by the way if 5:00 you disagree with my interpretation of the majority opinion why is it that Kagan soor and Jackson are saying the following here's what they say allowing Colorado to do what it did we agree was wrong it would create a chaotic state-by-state Patchwork at odds with our nation's federalism principles that is enough to resolve the case yet the majority remember I'm saying what the majority did here's what they're saying katangi Brown Jackson Kagan and Soto myor yet the majority goes further even though all nine members of the Court agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves the case those five justices go on they go beyond the simple issue of removal from a ballot on a state they go further than that why they shouldn't have and then these three justices and the joining opin opinion go they decide novel 6:01 constitutional questions to insulate this court and the petitioner from future controversy pose right there what's the future controversy that the majority is insulating Trump from the controversy right now this controversy that I'm hearing people saying oh he should be disqualified now what these justices are saying is that the Supreme Court went beyond the question that was posed to protect Trump from the situation right now they go on to say although only an individual State's action is at issue here the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce section three and how they must do so the majority announces that a disqualification for Insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to section five of the 14th Amendment in doing so the 7:00 majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily and we therefore concur only in the Judgment meaning we concur only in the fact that Colorado got it wrong and they shouldn't have disqualified Trump but we disagree with the majority opinion that they believe that Congress has to to pass legislation to disqualify for example I'll give you an open question could a lawyer file a federal lawsuit to disqualify Donald Trump Ben you're a civil rights lawyer why don't you bring a federal lawsuit there's so many powerful Federal lawsuit lawyers out there mark Elias Karen fredman annif um you know major constitutional Scholars out there who who you probably support who you know to be fearless and you're probably saying 8:01 come on guys you got to be strong why aren't you filing this precisely because the United States Supreme Court's law right now is preventing that from happening and these other three Supreme Court Justices who agree with us are basically saying that the majority opinion prevents that from happening so if a lawyer were to file a lawsuit like that as of right now now based on the current composition of the Supreme Court you would probably get severely sanctioned a lawyer could potentially lose their license if you are challenging what the actual state of the law is you're going to lose and you're going to lose in humiliating fashion and that's not helpful for anyone as much as we'd like to file those lawsuits and these justices here who disagree with the majority opinion are basically saying that right there 9:00 they go on to say the court continues to resolve questions not before us in a case involving no federal action whatsoever the court opines on how Federal enforcement of section three must proceed Congress the majority says must enact legislation under Section Five prescribing the procedures to ascertain what particular individual should be disqualified and you see that signed by Justice Soto mayor Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson they're again disagreeing with um the other justices Justice Kavanaugh Clarence Thomas Alo Roberts um and the majority of the majority justices right there um they go on to say Gorsuch um they go on to say section three states as part of this Soto mayor Kagan and Jackson they say look section three states simply that no 10:00 person shall hold certain positions in offices if they are oath breaking insurrectionist nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation under Section Five is critical in fact the text cuts the opposite way section three provides that when an oath breaking insurrectionist is disqualified Congress May by a vote of 2third of each house remove such disability it is hard to understand why the constit ution would require a congressional super majority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify section 3's operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation even petitioner even Trump's lawyer acknowledged the tension in section three that the majority's view creates so what the majority is saying as it relates to the 2/3 needed to remove the disability meaning that the individual is an 11:01 insurrectionist so that first in order to disqualify it would just need a simple majority in Congress to pass legislation but then to remove that disability after legislation is passed it would require 2/3 to remove it as these justices say that makes no sense for me it makes no sense and for you you may have been struggling with this question and say it makes no sense and if you say it makes no sense I think you are right you are agreeing with Justice Soto myor Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson You're agreeing with some of the smartest legal scholars in today the smartest who's smarter than Soto mayor Kagan and Jackson they're saying the majority opin you're not even reading the language correctly of the 14th Amendment Section 3 and they're right you're not reading it 12:01 correctly but that's how the majority read it so if you're struggling with this it's because it was a bad opinion um and then they go on to say similarly nothing else in the rest of the 14th Amendment supports the majority's view and again the majority's view is the law of the land section five gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation remedia legislation of any kind however is not required the majority is left with no text sorry the majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a section three disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose it cites this Griffin's case but that is non-precedential Lower Court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit court judge the majority resolves much more than the case before us although a federal enforcement of 13:02 Section 3 is in no way at issue the majority announces novel rules for how the enforcement must operate it reaches out to decide section three questions not before us and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a presidential candidate under that provision in a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint it abandons that course section three serves an important though rarely need needed role in our democracy the American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office and that is a great and glorious thing the men who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment however had witnessed an Insurrection and Rebellion to defend slavery they wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that Insurrection and in possible future insurrections could not return to prominent roles today the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how section three can bar an 14:01 oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president although we agree the Colorado cannot enforce Section 3 we protest the majority's efforts to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision because we would decide only the issue before us we concur only in the dud in the Judgment look at that strong language that they say we protect T the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement and by the way even Judge Amy Cony Barrett Who was appointed by Trump protests as well she goes this suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law and State Court it does not require us to address the complicated question whether Federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which section three can be enforced and the majority view of the Supreme Court which is the the supreme law of the land right now 15:01 cuz the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution says the exclusive remedy for disqualification is legislation which is being protested by three of the other judges now look you can be livid at the Supreme Court you should be pissed off at the Supreme Court Donald Trump appointed a number of Supreme Court Justices George W bush appointed Supreme Court Justices and then you even get Clarence Thomas from George HW Bush those are bad justices they overturned roie Wade and left us with DOs they've overturned the lemon test and stopped the separation of church and state these are people who have allowed the proliferation of guns um weapons of war pretty much anywhere under Clarence Thomas' um horrific opinions this is a rogue and bad Supreme Court so stipulated I just need you to know what 14th Amendment section three what the ruling was by the Supreme Court the 14th 16:00 Amendment Section 3 I'm just telling you what it says why there's this controversy is because the non-majority is pissed that the majority went beyond the question of the Colorado ballots you get it and so what the majority was trying to protect Trump and you have to understand they wanted to protect Trump From This Moment here where people would file lawsuits to try to disqualify Trump and say he's an insurrectionist and petition it or to have um you know Trump not be certifi Trump's election not be certified on January 6 because people would say oh he's an insurrectionist by them saying it requires affirmative law to do it the five justices insulated and protected Donald Trump you need to know their strategy to do that in order to prepare for the future battles you know with the Supreme Court so you know what's going on here if you don't like this decision 17:00 if this makes you livid advocate for a change in the dynamic of the Supreme Court expand the courts um that was something that uh you know even some Democrats prevented from happening uh in the Senate who you know who I'm talking about so sometimes though over years over decades sometimes shorter the non-majority opinion whether it's a joining a concurring or a sent becomes the law of the land and it becomes the law of the land because it's eventually viewed as the correct interpretation of the law but I just want you to know what the Supreme Court actually ruled um that you know and I I don't want to say that there's an ability for a lawyer to file this lawsuit right now there just there there wouldn't be you would you would lose you'd get laughed out of court and you'd probably get sanctioned as a lawyer for bringing one otherwise lawyers would be bringing it all this you know all this time the top Democrats 18:01 would be everyone would be bringing it the majority opinion is the majority opinion you just need to know what it actually says and why the joining opinion was so pissed at what the majority is but for now the majority is that's the law of the land one of the things Congress could do in the future although right now Congress is made up of Senate's going to be controlled by Republicans in January and it's controlled by Republicans in the house so they're not going to pass that legislation you think Maga Mike is going to do it with John Thun the Republican Senate majority they're not they're not doing that they're not passing the legislation it's just it's not happening right now it's not going to happen so I want to focus our energy on Trump's picks um his cabinet picks I want to focus our energy and uplifting different groups like we did with the Nurses Association other people who are going to be impacted I want to change 19:00 the dynamic of the Supreme Court I don't want the Supreme Court's composition to look like that but we have to do this systemically right the same way you had um the Federalist Society for 30 40 years change that Dynamic we the pro-democracy community have to have our own version of like that that is a pro-democracy society and those are the types of initiatives that we're supportive of in building and amplifying voices like that so there's a lot of serious work happening behind the scenes I just I want you to understand the dynamic again I think it's very important and I think when you see what the joining opinions say you get it why else would they be saying that soda mayor Kagan and katangi brown Jackson if the majority opinion wasn't what the majority opinion was which is how I've interpreted it in line with that and by the way how you probably feel thanks for watching hit subscribe and let's get to 4 million subscribers I hope you've enjoyed Professor meles's lesson love this video make sure you 20:01 stay up to dat on the latest breaking news and all things midest by signing up to the midest touch newsletter atmus touch.com newletter [Music]

SITE COUNT