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

[Synthaholic]

First of all, there are many Amendments that are poorly written. Second of all, they didn't need to spell it out because the rest of the Constitution is still valid. If no conviction is needed, then what prevents Secretaries of State from disqualifying political opponents from running based on engaging in insurrections that never happened?

Because this insurrection attempt actually happened.

 

[BS Filter]

Because this insurrection attempt actually happened.

The Supreme Court is going to reject your propaganda.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Joe sure is afraid of Trump... why?... didn't Joe beat him the last time?... why is he so afraid?....

What does Joe have to do with it?

 

[Synthaholic]

You can't claim anyone is guilty of insurrection without a trial, regardless of what you say. You're about to get a reality slap upside your head. Of course, you're gonna blame the Supreme Court for being right wing fascists blah blah blah blah blah.

There was a trial, in Denver. They used evidence from the J6 Committee and the DoJ. Both sides - that includes Trump's, for the brain-dead here - presented their arguments and evidence. The District Court ruled against Trump, then the Supreme Court upheld it.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Supreme Court is going to reject your propaganda.

They very well may. But I don't think so. I think the majority of them want to rid themselves and the country of a traitor. As I already posted in this thread. Go find it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

First of all, there are many Amendments that are poorly written. Second of all, they didn't need to spell it out because the rest of the Constitution is still valid. If no conviction is needed, then what prevents Secretaries of State from disqualifying political opponents from running based on engaging in insurrections that never happened?

You actually thought that made sense?

 

[BS Filter]

There was a trial, in Denver. They used evidence from the J6 Committee and the DoJ. Both sides - that includes Trump's, for the brain-dead here - presented their arguments and evidence. The District Court ruled against Trump, then the Supreme Court upheld it.

It's about to be reversed. Trump was never convicted of insurrection.

 

[scruffy]

Expect Trump to be Triumphant!

This isn't about Trump.

It's about a very nasty bunch of liberal elitists.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Because this insurrection attempt actually happened.

No it didn't.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

You actually thought that made sense?

It does to people who aren't retarded.

 

[BS Filter]

What does Joe have to do with it?

Joe Biden sounded like a demagogue.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Colorado's highest court ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to appear on the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a state court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s primary ballot this year.

Oral arguments are scheduled to commence Feb. 8.

The court’s decision Friday to take up the case follows a Colorado Supreme Court ruling in December that Trump is ineligible for office because he violated the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the nation must be barred from state or federal office.

That decision cited Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He’s been charged with four federal crimes over the attempted coup to remain in the White House despite losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, and the trial is scheduled to start in March.

Following the Colorado ruling, Trump’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the state-level decision before the state nominating process begins this month.

More at the link below...

IT'S ON: SUPREMES TO DECIDE TRUMP BALLOT CASE

Will it be a fair hearing? Will it be tainted by partisanship? What do you think?

It's pretty obvious what will happen. The 6 right wing justices will be like "oh, we've found that they can't do anything because.... because... oh, where did this bag of money come from? Better put it in my bank account to keep it safe until we can find out who left it here"

 

[candycorn]

Colorado's highest court ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to appear on the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a state court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s primary ballot this year.

Oral arguments are scheduled to commence Feb. 8.

The court’s decision Friday to take up the case follows a Colorado Supreme Court ruling in December that Trump is ineligible for office because he violated the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the nation must be barred from state or federal office.

That decision cited Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He’s been charged with four federal crimes over the attempted coup to remain in the White House despite losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, and the trial is scheduled to start in March.

Following the Colorado ruling, Trump’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the state-level decision before the state nominating process begins this month.

More at the link below...

IT'S ON: SUPREMES TO DECIDE TRUMP BALLOT CASE

Will it be a fair hearing? Will it be tainted by partisanship? What do you think?

Well whatever they decide...lets all live with it, ok?

 

[candycorn]

I have experiences in listening to political precinct chairmen for almost 30 years, and back then what they claimed they were doing horrified me one night in the late 90s when I was online, I ran into a bunch of precinct dudes and dudettes bragging on how many times they voted, like it was as horrifying to me as having a boyfriend who was in the ex-virgin-tally club bragging on their numeric scores of how many innocent young girls they seduced into painful coituses. IOW, it's sickening to know such a secret that American precinct chairmen were bragging on who took in the most criminal votes by manipulating theirs and others' ballots to insure their Democrat choice was winning a national election through fraud in their precinct, and the association in their state responsible for that anti-Constitutional as well as anti-Christian behaviors that cheated the opposite party by fluffing their numbers from losing to winning in the precinct according to an unlawful count. I am still horrified to this day for listening to the precinct chairmen in their states from North to South as well as state chairmen East to West. I didn't say a word, nor type a post on that thread. I may not have been the only silent witness to the jabberwocky precinct chairpeople coast to coast, because about a month after that shocking evening, Time Magazine closed down their political discussion board where I heard it. I don't even remember which year it was, but it was in the late 90s sometime between 1996 to 1999. I really missed their discussion board, but their reason was stated as being they didn't have the manpower to discipline the political hostility on their board with the majority of their participants were Democrats, although I was used to it, having participated on the New York Times boards which also closed its doors due to the political infighting of reporters and supervisors on their staff. When they closed down, they closed down the best poetry forums I have ever seen. I suspect some of their poetry contributors were among the best poets who ever lived. To give an example of that you could read 10 people, and at least 3 of them made you cry and as many as that could make you laugh for days later. Those poets and participants were brilliant. I learned a lot from their expertise in creating heart-felt experiences. Wow, just wow.

Sorry I got off topic a few sentences, but precinct level mischief has been going on for at least 30 years, I fear, and regret to know that some states may be delivering unacceptable counts, and they're not going to be caught, either. Computers can be fixed to do a crime against all voters in a country, but present it (the criminally initiated votes) as a true fact when recounting. The computer is programmed to declare that all is well in ways I don't know. And precinct chairmen who are into criminal counts may communicate they are from one state when they're actually in another to avoid detection if anyone looks at their Hunterlike couputer with its damning evidence. I guess this is the computer generation, and young hackers can outpace their elders who'd never think of committing a crime nor harming anybody in a million years.

Time to get some shut-eye this evening. The puppies have to be fed and cleaned up after early tomorrow morning. I'm going to pray that people in America will return to their Christian values, that we never have another First Lady turned to holding high office when she has been so corrupt she has to bleach and burn her computer used to commit crimes of state on to damage other people. It's vesper hours in this senior household. I pray for the nation to do right by its people and to in the future have votes that are 100% authored by citizens who practice the 10 suggestions, I mean commandments, with gratitude to God that we can once again be honest at the polls and let the people do the talking with their one person one vote rule of law, and with peace of God in mind for leaders and precincts that are 100% truthful for and with their voters. Sweet dreams, all.

None of that shit happened.

 

[candycorn]

, I ran into a bunch of precinct dudes and dudettes bragging on how many times they voted,

So what did the cops say when you reported these folonies?

You did report the felonies...right?

 

[Synthaholic]

No it didn't.

 

[OKTexas]

Colorado's highest court ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to appear on the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a state court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s primary ballot this year.

Oral arguments are scheduled to commence Feb. 8.

The court’s decision Friday to take up the case follows a Colorado Supreme Court ruling in December that Trump is ineligible for office because he violated the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the nation must be barred from state or federal office.

That decision cited Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He’s been charged with four federal crimes over the attempted coup to remain in the White House despite losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, and the trial is scheduled to start in March.

Following the Colorado ruling, Trump’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the state-level decision before the state nominating process begins this month.

More at the link below...

IT'S ON: SUPREMES TO DECIDE TRUMP BALLOT CASE

Will it be a fair hearing? Will it be tainted by partisanship? What do you think?

I think Trump will win 9-0.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

If they follow the law they will say a State can't arbitrarily declare some one guilty of a federal crime, that they have never been charged with or convicted of, by federal authorities.

.

 

[OKTexas]

What scam did the United States Supreme Court pull in Bush v. Gore?

They didn't, al the whore lost. Every independent recount proved it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Conviction is not the threshold. If it were, it would say so.

Congress said so when they passed a law to make it a federal crime. And the amendment say congress has the power to enforce it by legislation.

.