Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado case over Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility

They seem to be siding with Trump's team on this case. Ironically, you're one of the ones who pushed Laurence Tribe's position on this case as if it were credible. I remember telling you the guy was a nutjob, and you kept supporting him. Now it seems the only Justice on the court who has a chance of supporting your view is the one Tribe wrote to Obama after her nomination, telling him that she's extremely dumb and has no business being on the court. What a time to be alive.

 

The SCOTUS is merely dismissing lunacy that has never had any foundation in law.

 

It IS credible, but as with everything there is two sides to every story. One of the things I absolutely DO hate is how trump has run down and criticized, constantly, every institution of this GREAT COUNTRY, the very institutions that made the USA what it is. So I'm not going to second guess or say ANYTHING derogatory about the Supreme's.

I still support his, and many others, position that the Constitution gives the STATES the duty and responsibility to make the rules and hold the election of Federal Congress and President and Vice President. The 14th Amendment disqualifies anyone that's taken the oath of office and the participated in insurrection, rebellion or gave aid to those that did from ever holding office again; which trump clearly did all three.

You'll have to link that **** if you want me to believe it.

 

No, they are taking the stance that it's not the States but the Federal Government that is in charge of elections.

Which isn't what OUR Constitution says but, they are the Supreme's.

 

They are the "Supremes" and are making a Constitutional decision. You know, one of the major reasons the South lost the CW was that they were not cohesive while the North was. The Republic is not about to allow one or two states to determine for others what happens in the National election. The Federal government has the responsibility to protect the wishes of Trump supporters in Colorado. States have a lot of leeway otherwise. They can go full Marxist like Kalifornia if they wish.

 

They didn't have to. They could have ruled that it is Colorado and ALL States Contitutional obligation to run the election as they deem best for their citizens.

No it doesn't, the Constitution says it's up to the States.

Not according to your view. The States have States Right's right up until the Federal Government says they don't. Which is far afield of what the Founders intended. California is not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination; btw.

 

Even Colorado's petitioner admitted there is no history or precedent to support the argument beyond someone asking someone if it covers the president one time in the late 1800s. He then told Jackson that it was therefore ambiguous, to which she responded that if it was actually unclear, why would the court defer to the side that opposes democracy? He had no answer for that. Tribe's entire argument was purely based on TDS.

But you're right. There are two sides to this story. There's the right side, and there's the wrong side. Which side did the liberal justices on the court put you on?

Congress has never granted Confederate states the ability to disqualify a presidential campaign from a national ticket. There's no historical evidence they ever wanted to do that, either. They can run elections, but the process must be constitutional.

I can see why there was so much confusion about the 14th Amendment.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tribe+wrote+obama+a+letter+sotomayor

 

Point to the part of the Constitution that says the states can unilaterally disqualify a Presidential candidate based on the 14th Amendment (which the liberal justices admitted didn't even pertain to the President).

 

Just because it happened, does not mean it should have happened. Lower courts get slapped for over stepping their authority all the time. That is what happened with the Colorado court. Just because they are supporting something that you support, does not mean that what they did was correct.

 

If its so clear, then why hasn't he been charged with any of that? Not a single charge against him is about insurrection, rebellion, or giving aide to those that did...Additionally no one else has been charged with insurrection or rebellion. The closest any case has gotten is a seditious conspiracy charge, which is not an insurrection or rebellion charge. So, if its so clear...why has he not been charged with such?

And don't refer me to indictments because they are worthless because not a one of them has either of the charges that you claim he has done. Not one charge of insurrection or rebellion or giving aide to such. Not one.

 

But she hasn't been, nor will be.

Nor does it mean what they did was wrong.

You're reminding me of the opening scene from "Joe vs. The Volcano"; "I'm not arguing that with you!"

To which I replied: "It happened".

The Judge in Colorado looked at what happened on January 6th, like so many Americans, and "judged" that trump had engaged in rebellion, insurrection and gave aid and comfort to others that also did. That was her call, which she was charged and authorized to make.

She probably also factored in the many indictments (whether you like it or not) that demonstrate that he illegally used the full power of the Presidency of the USA to overturn and election to stay in power after losing and election. Which, alone is Insurrection and Rebellion. He has been charged with that.

It doesn't look like it's going to matter, the Supremes seem ready to rule that it is the purview of the Federal Government, not the States to decide how the 14th is applied ... or not. So, whatever Colorado decided or what led up to that decision is irrelevant.

 

She had no mandate to conduct a criminal trial. And that is the ONLY court that can legitimately try someone for a crime. Lawsuits are not crimes nor do they require the same degree of evidence to "convict" as does a criminal trial court. You and I both know that. So once again I ask you....WHY HASN'T TRUMP BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION/REBELLION IF HE SO CLEARLY COMMITTED THOSE CRIMES? I capitalize those because they need emphasis. A lawsuit is not a criminal trial nor is it a charge. Stop acting like it is. You said it was clear that he did all three of those things, yet he hasn't been criminally charged with those things. WHY? Stop deflecting.

 

Article 1 - Section 4 - Clause 1 of the Constitution of the U.S.

Because NO president has attempted to stay in power, violently, before in our history.

Murry was clearly out of his depth, it's a shame Colorado didn't send someone with more experience. I'm not sure it would have made a difference, but this case deserved better representation.

Did you see what you just did? You used one unrelated argument to support a completely different argument against a completely different person.

My side where I've always been. I WILL accept and support the Supremes decision. <- period That doesn't mean I have to accept it at a personal level.

That's why this is a ground breaking case, no sitting president has brought Americans to DC and incited them to attack Congress to keep them from their duty ever before.

You really like to switch arguments and the pretend what you were saying applies.

 

That's exactly what she had, a mandate, to decide a law suit.

Bingo!

The explanation I read was the Smith wants a clean easy trial so he's gong after charges that will be clean and easy to prove in court. As we see from all the bullshit on this board, what happened on January 6th 2021 would be a street fight that Smith doesn't need to engage in to prove trump committed fraud against the United States.

I'm not "acting".

I streamed it as it was happening, it was clear to me as it, apparently, was to the judge.

As YOU said the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on a law suit, no such charges were required for them to reach a decision. They were free to use their Judgement.<-period.

 

So, all you have is a copout excuse. What this really says is that it isn't as "clear" as you and the DNC make it out to be and its possible that he wouldn't be convicted of such based on the facts alone. Which means the DNC, and you, wouldn't have a talking point to point at. So its better to leave the talking point as is, rather than challenge it. IE: Better to smear than to prove.

 

No, I thought I argued it pretty well, using your logic. Thx, btw.

Such? what such.

There are plenty of facts that trump and his seditious cartel of idiot lawyers and advisers, attempted to defraud the United States and it's people.

I think the DNC is doing it's best to stay out of it. I don't seem to lack talking points.

Whatever are you trying to say. I'm looking at the charges and, the evidence available to me as a private citizen, and then sharing my conclusions. Which are in NO WAY legally binding and, certainly should NOT have you so up in arms.

I get it you seem to view yourself as a minute man that MUST put out any little fire that could possibly, somehow affect the orange god trump. A man IMHO that has not one attribute that Americans have traditionally admired and EVERY fault the has always been REPUGNANT to U.S. And then trump reaches down into the experience of a miserable criminal life and finds a way to be worse.

I keep knocking down your counter arguments and you keep resorting to personal attacks. It's really quite humorous.

 

That you think anything I said is a personal attack shows that you're not liking my arguments in the least. This is evidenced by your attempt to "not know" what I meant when I said "convicted of such", which since we're talking about insurrection/rebellion should have been obvious that when I said "convicted of such" that is what I would be referring to. At least it would to most people.

Also, "defrauding the United States" is NOT insurrection or rebellion. Those are their own charges. But you are using them as evidence that he committed insurrection/rebellion because you have nothing else to go by except a biased activist judge from a lawsuit that doesn't require actual evidence. And you certainly do not have the fact that he's been charged with insurrection/rebellion...because he hasn't been.

And yes, I get it, you're providing your own opinion. But here's the thing.... facts don't care about your opinions. And you are well entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. And the facts are that Trump has not been charged or convicted with insurrection or rebellion. Which means any claim that he has committed such is in fact slander and libelous. But you're OK with that because you hate Trump.

And no, I'm not some sort of minute man that defends all things Trump. I am however interested in a fair and just society that doesn't use the court of public opinion to put someone down and deny them Rights held. You obviously have no problem with such. I do.

 

I'm not most people, replying to ambiguities is a fools errand.

Defrauding the United States and it's people out of their VOTE to ilegally stay in power certainly IS.

Well! There you go again; who's?

No I didn't because it was a law suit.

I don't think you can prove that by her ruling alone.

It's a law suit; your own words.

So, why do you?

Thank you very much!

No kidding?

IBID.

No, it doesn't.

No, I wouldn't be. And no I don't. First, I've never hated anybody, because it's a wasted emotion. As I read recently, second, Hating your enemy is dangerous. It makes you lose focus. Which is really number one, I've just never worded it that way.

If you say so.

But, you do support his attempt to retain power illegally; interesting.

Well, there you go again. What don't I have a problem with?

Public opinion? It's you folks that want to skip the trail and exonerate trump completly. I've argued that we should have faith in our institutions and let justice run it's course. In this instance I've recognized, as you've pointed out, that this IS a law suit and within the purview of the court/judge to rule that, by looking at tapes and watching it live, that he did engage in insurrection. Such judgements are made by judges every day, all over the U.S.

 

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Swing and a miss. Strike one.

Section 3 doesn't talk specifically about staying in power. It talks primarily about people who engaged in an insurrection or rebellion holding certain public officces. We have have had that.

Swing and a miss. Strike two.

You asked me to provide a source for the attorney whose opinion on this matter that helped persuade you on this case. And this is what he thinks of the only justice who appears to have a small shot in hell of agreeing with you.

Strike three.

 

@Noone

"Article 1 - Section 4 - Clause 1 of the Constitution of the U.S."

14th Amendment Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

Which, Congress has never done.

Attempting to stay in power illegally IS insurrection.

Wuuuuut?

 

During oral arguments, even Jason Murray conceded that Congress has refused to seat elected officials who violated Section 3. I'm getting tired of correcting the falsehoods in your posts so I'll stop here on your first sentence. Please try again with a truthful statement.

 

And yet you give lots of ambiguous replies by giving one liners while parsing a post so much that it loses all context. You're right though, it is a fools errand to reply to such.

Find one post of mine that argues or says that the 91 indictments should not be happening? <Mod Edit>

And yeah, once again, you're right, its a fools errand to reply to ambiguity. Therefore we're done. <Mod Edit>

 

You aren't making a lot of sense, and your wild claims about 14A/3 seemed to leave most of the Justices wholly unconvinced. And the discussion has rapidly shifted from the 14th amendment to the 25th.

 

Hmmm.

This didn't age well for you.