BREAKING: SCOTUS has granted cert in the case of Colorado attempting to remove Pres. Trump from the ballot.

[OKTexas]

Yes they concluded guilt

Yep, absent that they would have no cause to exclude him from the ballot.

.

 

[wamose]

Those Colorado SC justices are obviously smoking too much of that legal, Colorado weed. They lost track of our constitution. Stoners are boring. Dangerous too. MAGA

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What the fuck are you smoking child? Insurrection is a federal crime.

.

Derp…
Sure it is and no one has been charged with it let alone been found guilty. Don’t know why you keep circle jerking this point.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You really are as senile as xiden, not even going to try to reeducate your ignorant ass on events from just a bit over 3 years ago.

Joe won. Why would he want recounts?
Was that Joe that hired the cyber ninjas?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Damn, 3 irrelevant posts in a row, good job commie.

.

You mean reality. The one you choose to ignore in favor of childish fantasies.

 

[hadit]

Maybe that's what they want, so that they can pull another Bush v Gore scam over the American public. And declare that this also cannot be used as precedent in future cases.

I think more likely they either rule for Trump on some kind of technicality, or they just rule for him outright, and destroy what's left of their credibility, especially as devoted originalists of the Constitution.

There's a chance that they follow the law, common sense, and their own eyes while using that actual interpretation of the 14th to finally rid themselves and the country of the only traitor to ever sit in the Oval Office. Remember: Supreme Court Judges, in any country, have no real authority in authoritarian regimes. They are strictly for show. I don't see any one of our SCOTUS hankering to give up their power, influence, and personal legacies. Do you?

And there is one who doesn't care about legal niceties, only getting blood.

 

[OKTexas]

Derp…
Sure it is and no one has been charged with it let alone been found guilty. Don’t know why you keep circle jerking this point.

Exactly, in this country your innocent unless proven guilty. So what's that tell ya?

.

 

[Lesh]

Exactly, in this country your innocent unless proven guilty. So what's that tell ya?

.

Being removed from the ballot is different from being found guilty and jailed

 

[OKTexas]

Being removed from the ballot is different from being found guilty and jailed

Oh they declared him guilty of a federal crime, that's the only way to legally remove him from the ballot. Yet under our system he is innocent, Only in commie land could this be possible.

.

 

[Lesh]

Oh they declared him guilty of a federal crime, that's the only was to legally remove him from the ballot. Yet under our system he is innocent, Only in commie land could this be possible.

.

Becoming ineligible for office does not require conviction as per the 14th Section 3

That act has affected people in the past who were ruled ineligible for office and they were neither tried nor convicted

 

[OKTexas]

Becoming ineligible for office does not require conviction as per the 14th Section 3

That act has affected people in the past who were ruled ineligible for office and they were neither tried nor convicted

Yeah, they were confederates that fell under Lincoln's amnesty, they couldn't be charged. This isn't the mid to late 1800s.

.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh they declared him guilty of a federal crime, that's the only was to legally remove him from the ballot. Yet under our system he is innocent, Only in commie land could this be possible.

Only a court of law, operating in accordance with the Sixth Amendment, can declare someone guilty of a crime. Congress presuming to do so would be a Bill of Attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits. See Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 and Article I Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

 

[Rambunctious]

What does Joe have to do with it?

He tells Garland and Wray what to do...

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Becoming ineligible for office does not require conviction as per the 14th Section 3

That act has affected people in the past who were ruled ineligible for office and they were neither tried nor convicted

So if the Republican Supreme Court in Texas decides that Biden engaged in insurrection you'd support that decision, right?

 

[Lesh]

So if the Republican Supreme Court in Texas decides that Biden engaged in insurrection you'd support that decision, right?

What would they base that on… hard feelings?

 

[Lesh]

Only a court of law, operating in accordance with the Sixth Amendment, can declare someone guilty of a crime. Congress presuming to do so would be a Bill of Attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits. See Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 and Article I Section 10, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

A bill of attainder imposes a penalty.

The 14th simply makes one ineligible for office.

And catch up jackass, your buddies have been claiming that Congress CAN DO THIS… and only Congress

Keep your bullshit arguments straight

 

[LeroyDumonde]

What would they base that on… hard feelings?

Why not? That's what the Democrats did.

 

[Hollie]

We are literally down to the Supreme Court standing between the Democrat Regime and a Police State.

That is a fact. The Democrat Party, the “Party of Communist Totalitarianism”, has become a real danger to themselves and everyone around them.

 

[Lesh]

Why not? That's what the Democrats did.

That’ll play well next election

 

[LeroyDumonde]

That’ll play well next election

They can keep Biden off all the primary ballots in Republican states. Say hi to Candidate Williamson for me.