Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

Yes.

Did you understand it's a criminal charge?

 

I think that's good advice ... for everyone on this board. I wonder if tRaitor tRump and his attorneys will look at it that way, considering IF they lose he could be taken off the ballot ... NATION wide ... in one stroke of the pen?

 

I'm happy to take SCOTUS word for it. I'm sorry you didn't know until today that OTHER courts have to hear it before it goes to SCOTUS.

 

The 14th Amendment is not a criminal charge. The statue you cite is . . . with criminal penalties . . . which is not what the 14th Amendment is about.

 

IF you "read the code", do YOU understand the difference between "convicted" and "engaged"?

 

Can you name a single instance in US history where the 14th Amendment was used to disqualify someone from office and a criminal conviction was required first? Neither can I.

 

Nope, But I will bring to your attention what every other judge from every other state that has seen this and declared what idiocy it is.
And now you get to hear the SCOTUS tell you what idiocy it is.
Then the entire country will see how Democrats will knowingly and falsely file anything to interfere with an election and candidates they don't like. It will also further expose Democrats desire to control voters by telling them who they can and can't vote for.
You should really prepare yourself.

 

I searched the ruling and couldn't find that. If you could provide a direct quote I would appreciate it, thanks.

 

Too late. Even your own Democrat judges know the law and refuse to sign off on this garbage.
And when the SCOTUS has to step in to stop radical Democrat judges, its going to be glorious

 

The State of Colorado must have done something right. Trump should not be qualified if he were to win to win the Republican nomination, no Trump votes would appear in Colorado, only unpledged Republican votes like in Alabama in 1964, President Johnson got no votes in Alabama that year. The rest is history.

 

They aren't my "own Democrat judges," and since weren't aware, there's a Republican majority in SCOTUS, and a third were personally appointed by Trump. I will gladly go with the SCOTUS decision on this topic. Full stop. No qualms.

You will only go with the SCOTUS decision if it goes your way. If it doesn't, there will be kicking and screaming about fake "deep state" conspiracy theories.

 

Suuure you will. Hows that abortion ruling working for ya? lol

I'm sorry you have to get embarrassed by continuing to make up claims of what others have stated every time you get your feeling hurt
Did you care to show my post about these other courts?
Or are you satisfied with just being outed again for falsely claiming what people post?

 

REVOLLUTION !!!!!!

 

So you support the SCOTUS on their abortion ruling.
Good to hear you finally came around

 

Neither Trumps attorneys or any judge is considering the SCOTUS will uphold this kind of trash.
This country would burn itself to the ground. You want to see what a real insurrection looks like?

 

The same decision that I'm on record saying should be a legislative issue and not a judicial one? That one?

What did I get incorrect?

 

The criminal charge is how insurrection is determined.

 

The criminal charge is how insurrection is determined for criminal charges. This isn't a criminal charge.

 

So you and your constitutional scholar think any judge can just claim you committed a crime, and thats the end of it?
If your constitutional scholar had any legal education, he would have told you that the legal wording in the constitution (Shall have engaged) is there for a reason. It denotes conviction. Which is why the cherry pickers on constitutional wording don't win SCOTUS rulings.

These are the same constitutional scholars who still claim the 2nd amendment doesn't say what it says.

 

That's a lie.

Maybe, maybe not; it's tRaitor tRump's dice to roll.

It won't make a damn bit of difference to anyone, because the sides were already chosen prior to the Colorado ruling.

Speak for yourself John.

 

So by your own admission, you don't agree with the SCOTUS and claim they got it wrong.

Sure

Show me where I made that claim

 

One must possess shame to feel shame. I think many folks today care very little about anything but thier cause no matter the light that's cast on them..

 

Huh? Where the **** did you get that?

So now you understand that other courts DO have the hear it first? Dude. You are all over the place.

 

Before you mount one, at least learn to spell it...

 

Nope, that's not what he said or what I think.

He's not "my" Constitutional Scholar, but that's opposite of what he said.

That's a poorly written sentience but If I'm reading it right ...

Could be but that's not the impression I got.