Destroyed in todays Oral arguments about the Colorado ballot challenge at SCOTUS
Colorado lawyers….
- Thread starter GeauxHerd
- Start date
the Fascist lose!! Only way they can win is when they can cheat and weaponize/corrupt those responsible to call out cheating or investigate it. Media/fbi
I’ll be very surprised if it’s anything other than 9-0.
I was thinking maybe Sotomayor but I guess Brown could too. It just seems like a very difficult dissent to write. Unless they want to write that Colorado was wrong, but Trump did an insurrection anyway so that question wasn’t relevant and he should be taken off all ballots.
What it looks like we’re headed in to is a very weird decision though, because from the questions it seems like the take is going to be that the decision if someone should be ineligible should be made after an election with the judiciary deciding not to seat someone. Which seems…. Much more contentious than even taking someone off the ballot.
I MIGHT agree with you here. The courts, including the Supreme Court, just don't want to touch elections.
Trumps lawyers did point out that there wasn’t an effort to overthrow the government. No one was attempting to remove house members, remove the President, or remove the judiciary.
It’ll be interesting to see the decision. Because at some point someone has to decide if someone is ineligible per the 14th.
If the answer is actually “the judiciary decides it when the person takes over the role or is about to” then that means that even if Trump were convicted tomorrow, he could still appears on ballots and it would only be after the electoral college that someone could bring suit that he’s ineligible. That seems like such an insane idea that I feel Roberts must have something else in mind.
Shocking.
Just kidding. She's a fvcking moron. Probably the least intelligent judge to ever sit on that court.
An unarmed one at that. Why does everyone keep saying insurrection? Anyone charged with it? Much less convicted.
Fools abound
Provide a link showing he was convicted or GTFO
She's the Kamala Harris of the Supreme Court world. Unqualified diversity hire.
From what I have read, some justices were making arguments that have no factual Constitutional basis...and that was the libs. Kagan saying they can't set a precedent of states determine candidate eligibility for national office? Um, that's exactly what all 50 states do each and every election lol...see Haley scrambling to have enough signatures to appear on the Indiana ballot. Brown grasping for straws (see Hokies post above).
And absolutely no justice wanting to touch if Trump is an insurrectionist or provided aid and comfort to insurrectionists (positive on both accounts).
I told you all the Court would bullshit its way out of this, and why they would. I also told you what the dangers are of the wrong bullshit...Kagan and Brown both make me nervous, just STFU and offer a brief dissent.
And absolutely no justice wanting to touch if Trump is an insurrectionist or provided aid and comfort to insurrectionists (positive on both accounts).
I told you all the Court would bullshit its way out of this, and why they would. I also told you what the dangers are of the wrong bullshit...Kagan and Brown both make me nervous, just STFU and offer a brief dissent.
This is what happens when they decide to dance around the fact that Trump is an insurrectionist.
Exactly. Everyone saw Trump out there resupplying the artillery rounds, pill boxes with fresh belts of ammo and patching up people in the aid stations to press forward
It doesn't take violence to overthrow our system of government. All you have to do is overthrow the Constitution. And all we have is an agreement that we all follow the rules. Trump...well, his hack lawyers, who he followed...hatched a plan to not follow the rules and to overthrow the Constitution...the riot was merely window dressing, and everyone, including you idiots and idiots on the left, focus only on it, as intended.
This isn't a new concept. You know, there was also a plot to not count the Electors for Lincoln. That's often overlooked in history.
Important nuance here: what it looks like they’re going to say is that states can’t determine federal eligibility based on federal laws like the Constitution. They can only determine it based on their own state laws. Colorado is saying that’s what they did, as they have a state law that says federally ineligible people can’t be on the ballot. But since no one with the authority to has determined Trump to be federally ineligible, the correct answer to the question of if Colorado can do that is “no.”
Looks like house of Rep going to pass a resolution saying trump didn’t engage in insurrection or give aid and comfort which will also settle the matter
Kagan's words paint it as affecting federal elections. Look, if you tell someone they can't run in a state for President whatever reason, you have effected an election for federal office. Signatures, filing fee, whatever.
And I'd be fine with actually saying this can't be done, but it opens up a can of worms in the middle of primary season. That's some shit you gotta say in an off year.
88, the board idiot.
Too stupid to remember me posting here that the Court should throw this Colorado stuff out...I'm just concerned about their reasoning, and dissents worry too, as future bad ideas can sometimes spring from seeds planted in dissent....it's not going to be a conservative court forever.
See above, more proof of idiocy. Too much of a simpleton to understand exactly what a constitutional government is.
The Founding Fathers were clear: one of the greatest threats to the United States is a President that simply refuses to step down when that time comes; they wrote about this extensively.
See directly above. Also, what in hell is this supposed to be? Weirdo.
Raoul,
Stop you are starting to sound like one of the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) wackjobs. The President cannot just stay in office after the VP has sanctioned the electors. In Lue, of a National Emergency it's just not going to happen. What do you think he will pitch a tent in the Oval Office and hang out for another four years? Not like, after sanctioning the electors, the Senate Sgt. at Arms cannot be called to remove a Tressapassor, which is exactly what he would be after the incoming Prez takes his Oath.
Stop you are starting to sound like one of the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) wackjobs. The President cannot just stay in office after the VP has sanctioned the electors. In Lue, of a National Emergency it's just not going to happen. What do you think he will pitch a tent in the Oval Office and hang out for another four years? Not like, after sanctioning the electors, the Senate Sgt. at Arms cannot be called to remove a Tressapassor, which is exactly what he would be after the incoming Prez takes his Oath.
IF the alternate electors from certain states were accepted, then a case would have been filed in SCOTUS to determine if it was constitutional or not. Trump wouldn’t have immediately remained president. In that scenario, the house would be called upon to vote (which at the time was controlled by democrats) would have likely vote for Joe and the process would then follow the normal protocol.
1. The Chief Justice has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it!
2. Keep in mind that under Article 2 if no one has a majority (the rules we assume would be used), individual reps do not vote for the count, states vote. Each state is one vote. Not sure the Dems get to a majority that way.
Would it be successful? We can debate that. Would it be a Constitutional crisis? Likely. Would there be more riots? You betcha! It's not something I care to see tried in real life.
Either way, it's an insurrection against the Constitution. The 14th never said it has to be a successful insurrection, obviously lol.
How would you describe the attempt by the Trump team to circumvent the election results by badgering at least one state official to flat out fake the results, forming slates of false electors, and telling the VP to flush the whole thing down the toilet?
I can ask a girl to suck my dick, but it’s not rape unless I can successfully force her to after she declines the request. If I try and don’t succeed, at the worst I am looking at assault.
Trump may have asked Pence to suck his dick along with a few others, but he didn’t force any of them to do it. No rape, no insurrection.
Attempt? How did Trump attempt to revolt against the government.
I could tell you to kill someone, but that doesn't make me guilty of attempted murder.
There was no insurrection, he wasn't convicted of being an insurrectionist and he didn't incite and insurrection.
Was he accused? Sure. This is America though. Innocent until proven guilty, regardless of the left's guilty until proven innocent claim of justice.
Last edited:
If an insurrection has to succeed to be an insurrection then the event that led to the amendment in the first place, when the South attempted to secede to protect slavery, wasn’t an insurrection. Since, while they sucked a lot of dick, they didn’t succeed.
Was Trump charged and convicted of an insurrection? Was he charged and convicted of inciting an insurrection?
If not, how can he be guilty of it?
Opinions are shit and they are biased.
You and I both have one and they are shit.
Innocent until proven guilty and sadly for those of you who are judging out of hatred, that isn't an opinion.
Libs will always believe that it was insurrection, just like they will always believe that Trump colluded with Putin in 2016.
If Trump were found guilty of insurrection, would you admit he did it or would you just say “it was a political witch hunt”?
