Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot

[Slade3200]

Never used against a presidential candidate.

I’m curious… do you now stipulate that the 14th can be used on officials without the need of a criminal conviction? It just can’t be used on ex presidents?

 

[Faun]

How does one quote someone not saying something? You are a raving lunatic.

I quoted you not answering my question. That's how, Dumbfuck.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I thought you and I were having a good exchange. When you stop backing up your points and tell me to go research thats giving up on the argument. Are you done?

No matter what I said, I wasn't there. I did not see what the justices who were there saw. I did not hear what they heard.
There is a group behind this action in Colorado. It's the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The justices who decided to remove Trump were heavily involved with this democratic group and all have been generous financial contributors to democratic causes. The four justices are ideologues who didn't want to be confused by facts.
Can you find something different.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I’m curious… do you now stipulate that the 14th can be used on officials without the need of a criminal conviction? It just can’t be used on ex presidents?

I have no idea. Nazi hunters dug out war criminals who committed terrible crimes. Every one had a trial. To imagine that there could be a provision of punishment without a finding of wrongdoing goes against everything I was ever taught. If allowed, such opinion based punishment could completely end the right to vote.

 

[Faun]

No matter what I said, I wasn't there. I did not see what the justices who were there saw. I did not hear what they heard.
There is a group behind this action in Colorado. It's the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The justices who decided to remove Trump were heavily involved with this democratic group and all have been generous financial contributors to democratic causes. The four justices are ideologues who didn't want to be confused by facts.
Can you find something different.

Yeah, the actual ideologues were the judges dissenting on the ban because it lacks due process. Which of course, as I showed, is not the case as due process is not required to ban an insurrectionist.

 

[Slade3200]

No matter what I said, I wasn't there. I did not see what the justices who were there saw. I did not hear what they heard.
There is a group behind this action in Colorado. It's the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The justices who decided to remove Trump were heavily involved with this democratic group and all have been generous financial contributors to democratic causes. The four justices are ideologues who didn't want to be confused by facts.
Can you find something different.

You say you don’t know because you weren’t there but then you claim all these things about the justices… did you hear that stuff on right wing hate media? That’s pretty selective belief.

Aside from pretending to know the hearts and minds of judges we always have the law and the facts to rely on. Let’s just stick to discussing that stuff shall we?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I thought you and I were having a good exchange. When you stop backing up your points and tell me to go research thats giving up on the argument. Are you done?

No matter what I said, I wasn't there. I did not see what the justices who were there saw. I did not hear what they heard.
There is a group behind this action in Colorado. It's the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The justices who decided to remove Trump were heavily involved with this democratic group and all have been generous financial contributors to democratic causes. The four justices are ideologues who didn't want to be confused by facts.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You say you don’t know because you weren’t there but then you claim all these things about the justices… did you hear that stuff on right wing hate media? That’s pretty selective belief.

Aside from pretending to know the hearts and minds of judges we always have the law and the facts to rely on. Let’s just stick to discussing that stuff shall we?

I went by the dissenting justices.

Yeah, the actual ideologues were the judges dissenting on the ban because it lacks due process. Which of course, as I showed, is not the case as due process is not required to ban an insurrectionist.

An opinion will do.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We are having a furious thunderstorm here playing hell with my internet. If I disappear that's why,

 

[forkup]

No matter what I said, I wasn't there. I did not see what the justices who were there saw. I did not hear what they heard.
There is a group behind this action in Colorado. It's the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The justices who decided to remove Trump were heavily involved with this democratic group and all have been generous financial contributors to democratic causes. The four justices are ideologues who didn't want to be confused by facts.

Can I ask. Does being politically active prevent a judge from actually arguing the law?

What about a personal dislike of the person they judge?

My point is this. Even IF you can establish that those judges are politically active, you still need to establish that they ruled because of bias.

As I understand it, all the judges in the Colorado Supreme Court are Democrats. All of them. Yet of those 7 only 4 decided that Trump was ineligible. Doesn't that mean that regardless of political affiliation at least some ruled for Trump? And if that's the case how do you determine that bias and not their reading of the law informed the decision of the other ones.

In my view the only way you do that is by going by the outcome. And if that's how you do it, the entire premise is unfalsifiable.

 

[Slade3200]

I went by the dissenting justices.

An opinion will do.

The dissenting justices objected to the fact that Trump didn’t have a jury trial and conviction for his part in the insurrection. You and I started our conversation with you backing up the fact that the amendment applies to confederate officials who also did not have a jury trial and conviction.

So you proved my point for me. The amendment can be applicable without a jury trial and conviction

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The dissenting justices objected to the fact that Trump didn’t have a jury trial and conviction for his part in the insurrection. You and I started our conversation with you backing up the fact that the amendment applies to confederate officials who also did not have a jury trial and conviction.

So you proved my point for me. The amendment can be applicable without a jury trial and conviction

I hope not because if that is true, or believed to be true, candidates up and down the line will be accused just to stop people from voting.

 

[Faun]

I hope not because if that is true, or believed to be true, candidates up and down the line will be accused just to stop people from voting.

And like Trump, they'll have their day in court.

 

[forkup]

I hope not because if that is true, or believed to be true, candidates up and down the line will be accused just to stop people from voting.

It's not really a hope if it already happened before... over 150 years ago. And since it happened so long ago. And Trump is the ONLY one so far to be deemed ineligible in modern times the idea that this is going to be used as a tactic to remove people from the ballot seems incorrect.

And since insurrection has a clearly established legal definition one can presume that judges will need to follow that definition.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Texas and Florida have already started the process of removing Biden from the primary and he already won't be on the ballot in New Hampshire. It may just get interesting.

 

[Faun]

It's not really a hope if it already happened before... over 150 years ago. And since it happened so long ago. And Trump is the ONLY one so far to be deemed ineligible in modern times the idea that this is going to be used as a tactic to remove people from the ballot seems incorrect.

And since insurrection has a clearly established legal definition one can presume that judges will need to follow that definition.

Insurrection actually doesn't have a clearly legal definition established.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It's not really a hope if it already happened before... over 150 years ago. And since it happened so long ago. And Trump is the ONLY one so far to be deemed ineligible in modern times the idea that this is going to be used as a tactic to remove people from the ballot seems incorrect.

And since insurrection has a clearly established legal definition one can presume that judges will need to follow that definition.

Were those elected officials or appointed officials?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Insurrection actually doesn't have a clearly legal definition established.

So it could be as easily misused by Republicans as democrats.

 

[forkup]

Insurrection actually doesn't have a clearly legal definition established.

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/insurrection.html

I think this is clear enough to not include some random BS.

 

[Faun]

So it could be as easily misused by Republicans as democrats.

Of course it could be. But some evidence supporting the definition of insurrection will be needed in a court of law. I've heard idiotic claims that Biden's position on the southern border constitutes insurrection. When in fact, no groups of migrants, legal or illegal, have violently attacked government.