Colorado Supreme Court erred egregiously in banning Trump from ballot over "insurrection"

[Hutch Starskey]

Do not believe a Prog. A rule for survival. Also. The people pushing this are totally different than the people in 1866. In fact, they may think Trump is the victim. It is clear the Progs are deathly afraid of him winning the Presidency. And if he does, I expect him to treat Progs like they treated him.

I find evaluating the information more effective than who is delivering it. Discounting information only leaves you in the dark.

 

[noonereal]

Trump has never been convicted of insurrection!

This is of no consequence. The court found that he had indeed done so.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

No low is too low for leftists. Just think, they deny existence of a deep State, and the left's assault on this country's core, yet even the Co. Supreme Court proves to be on their team.


Democrats are the most intellectually dishonest people I know. Deep down they support it.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

This is of no consequence. The court found that he had indeed done so.

Without any proof. Ah, their feelings.

They can say whatever the fuck they want these days, doesn't make it true, and where the left are concerned, it's never true.

 

[OKTexas]

Funny how they edited in thing Bannon didn't say. Oh well, that's the way commie propagandist work.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Section 3 clearly bars those who participate in insurrection from serving in any office.

The presidency is clearly called an "office" in the Constitution.

Well that was easy. Two sentences. Where did you find these dishonest twats?

Perhaps you should get someone that has english as a first language to read and explain what Sec 3 of the 14th actually says and means to you. There is a section that clearly says to whom it applies, the executives of the US are not included in that application list.

.

 

[noonereal]

Without any proof.

False.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

False.

Wow, you really proved me wrong. Guess I'll just have to take your word for it that.......

The Republicans are actually Democrats and vise versa. Thus the Republicans fought for slavery and the Democrats freed the slaves.

Chicks have dicks too.

 

[noonereal]

Wow, you really proved me wrong. Guess I'll just have to take your word for it that.......

The Republicans are actually Democrats and vise versa. Thus the Republicans fought for slavery and the Democrats freed the slaves.

Chicks have dicks too.

Rotflmao!
The GOP of today would free slaves?
Rotflmao

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Rotflmao!
The GOP of today would free slaves?
Rotflmao

You really got me a good one.

 

[Rigby5]

In no way is there any indication of "insurrection" in any of that.
The ONLY way to achieve an "insurrection" is to either bribe the police and military to your side, or kill them all.
Neither at all happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No low is too low for leftists. Just think, they deny existence of a deep State, and the left's assault on this country's core, yet even the Co. Supreme Court proves to be on their team.


Democrats are the most intellectually dishonest people I know. Deep down they support it.

The lawsuit was brought by Republicans.

The tiebreaker vote in the Colorado SC was cast by a republican appointee.

AM radio is turning your brains to tapioca.

 

[Rigby5]

Bad legal advice.

The CO decision addressed that directly. You should read it.
Or watch this instead.

That is a lie.
No criminal court has ever ruled Trump was involved in an insurrection at all.
And a civil case does not have the same standards of a criminal case, which would have to be followed in order to take away the rights of a candidate and those who would vote for that candidate.

 

[Rigby5]

The lawsuit was brought by Republicans.

The tiebreaker vote in the Colorado SC was cast by a republican appointee.

AM radio is turning your brains to tapioca.

The ruling in a civil lawsuit cannot be used to enact a criminal penalty.
It is totally illegal for the courts to use this one ruling to block basic political rights of candidates and voters.
That IS "insurrection" to attempt to block candidates.
That is not normal, acceptable, or ever done.
After the civil war was different, in that the Civil War was half a million deaths that were technically all felonies.
So the already existing rules against felons applied.
No such definitive acts applied in this case.

 

[jbrownson0831]

La-kook-ta

 

[Rigby5]

La-kook-ta

Wrong.
All Bannon said is that he wanted to attack the election results.
It never says why.
It if was over an actual belief in voter fraud, then there is nothing at all wrong with what Bannon, Trump, or the Jan 6 demonstrators said or did.
There is zero implication of an "insurrection" because that requires either bribing the police and military to your side, or out gunning them somehow.
There is no such thing as an "insurrection" by delaying certification of a vote.
That is just ridiculous.
Congress can certify the vote themselves if they want.

 

[Rigby5]

The lawsuit was brought by Republicans.

The tiebreaker vote in the Colorado SC was cast by a republican appointee.

AM radio is turning your brains to tapioca.

That is totally irrelevant.
Lots of the old corrupt republican party dislike Trump.
They like wars and profiteering, which Trump did not facilitate.
Biden did.
Which is why it is Biden who should not be allowed to run.
He is obviously implicated in several illegal wars.

 

[Faun]

What Colorado's Supreme Court refuses to understand about Trump and the 14th Amendment

On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision to block former President Trump from the ballot in the 2024 election.

www.foxnews.com

This is information from attorneys who obviously STUDY the law and the US Constitution.

But even if you don't read this and we know the liberals among us will NOT

There's this little problem:

Trump has never been convicted of insurrection! Yes, as far as I know, you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nice try, you creepy leftoid idiots

op Site (emphasis added)


If the 14th Amendment’s Framers had wanted to bar past presidents, who join an insurrection, from ever holding federal office again, they could have easily included "President" in the very same sentence.

Or consider the Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the President may nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may appoint "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." Under this Clause, the president himself is distinguished from "Officers of the United States." Article II, which establishes the executive branch, specifies that the President is "elected," not appointed, and gives the president the responsibility to "Commission all the Officers of the United States."

Another section, written by attorneys:

The examples where the Constitution distinguishes between the president and an "Officer of the United States" are legion. You need look only at the text of Section 3 itself. It bars insurrectionists from serving as "elector of President and Vice-President."

Trump has never been convicted of insurrection! Yes, as far as I know, you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In criminal court, not civil court.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No low is too low for leftists. Just think, they deny existence of a deep State, and the left's assault on this country's core, yet even the Co. Supreme Court proves to be on their team.


Democrats are the most intellectually dishonest people I know. Deep down they support it.

So, who is the "deep state" then?

 

[WTH_Progs?]

So, who is the "deep state" then?

Your mother