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

[Hang on Sloopy]

That's because I hit you for real shit instead of fan ficking about humping dogs or Michelle Obama's package. Maybe one day you'll all realize that only reveals to us what you think about.

lol....christ man.i'm giving you people more slack of what you had to endure growing up and how troubled you people are

Children with liberal parents more likely to suffer mental health problems: Study

Mental Health Children with liberal parents more likely to suffer mental health problems: Study By Breccan F. Thies, Investigative Reporter December 01,

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You make these claims that don’t fit the reality that I saw that day so when you also say it seems like democracy is being chopped at the neck I can’t really take that seriously. The case was presented in court. Evidence reviewed. Both sides were able to make arguments. A judge ruled, it was appealed to the state Supreme Court, they ruled. That’s how our legal system works. Sorry you don’t like it. I’m sure this will now go to SCOTUs where it will be upheld or not.

Yall call yourselves patriots but are so quick to demean and rip apart our system when it produces results you don’t like.

You do know that judges decisions are constantly smacked down by higher courts if they are unconstitutional, right?

It appears you don’t know that, it appears you think a ruling is made and thus is engraved forever.

What’s shocking about this is how such a radical activist narrative can be acted on by actual judges, who are supposed to resist activism and apply constitutional principles/law as is, blind.

The bottom line here is, the radical judges are saying Trump being an “insurrectionist” disqualifies him when he’s not been convicted as one, they simply have decided to call him one. They are using JUST their assumptions and hopes as “evidence”, writing their own fiction. What if Ohio decided to take Joe Biden off the ballot because they view his grabbing and sniffing of children to be of a pedophile nature? He hasn’t been convicted, but that wouldn’t matter. The judges would simply say he is one, and that would be enough “evidence to act, and completely ruin democracy by keeping Biden off.. which is what these raging, activist Colorado judges are trying to do.

This will likely get struck down handily in the SCOTUS, dont you agree? Or do you think this is blind justice? And if so.. how? Should states just start making it so the candidate they don’t want to be president can’t be voted for? That would be an ultimate attack on democracy. You want that?

 

[Crepitus]

They protested on his property, asshole. Having violent progs on your property is a threat.

What violent gangs did that? I heard nothing about any violence.

 

[Crepitus]

Didn't an assassin show up at his house to kill him?

Assassins rarely turn themselves in. Expecially before they've killed anyone.

 

[GLASNOST]

lol............for some reason old curried has grown on me ..................

You're going to regret shucking with that guy.

That's because I hit you for real shit ...

Yeah, sure.

lol....christ man.i'm giving you people more slack of what you had to endure growing up and how troubled you people are

I did warn you.

 

[otto105]

Also the insurrection law was a law. And provides for a fine up to $10,000

Trump did not storm the capitol as the term is used by Democrats.
To use insurrection as a claim, this first must be proven in courts of law.

Did have too to be its leader.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I thought he cant win the general.

Why are Dems trying so hard to remove Trump from the ballot?

Why are Dems trying so hard to disenfranchise voters?

 

[Curried Goats]

lol....christ man.i'm giving you people more slack of what you had to endure growing up and how troubled you people are

Children with liberal parents more likely to suffer mental health problems: Study

Mental Health Children with liberal parents more likely to suffer mental health problems: Study By Breccan F. Thies, Investigative Reporter December 01,

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I'm not the uneducated Bingo who has confused correlation with causation.

 

[Slade3200]

You do know that judges decisions are constantly smacked down by higher courts if they are unconstitutional, right?

Yep, that’s how our system works

 

[Curried Goats]

I can see that you cannot differentiate cats from *****.

My fetish (as you call it) for dogs is purely platonic. However, the veterinary proctologist has recommended that Fido lodge a complaint against you to the authorities. So, we may not hear from you here on the forum for a while unless the warden allows you access to internet service.

You claim it's platonic but then you express beastiality fantasies.... maybe you should try acceptance.

 

[Curried Goats]

You do know that judges decisions are constantly smacked down by higher courts if they are unconstitutional, right?

It appears you don’t know that, it appears you think a ruling is made and thus is engraved forever.

What’s shocking about this is how such a radical activist narrative can be acted on by actual judges, who are supposed to resist activism and apply constitutional principles/law as is, blind.

The bottom line here is, the radical judges are saying Trump being an “insurrectionist” disqualifies him when he’s not been convicted as one, they simply have decided to call him one. They are using JUST their assumptions and hopes as “evidence”, writing their own fiction. What if Ohio decided to take Joe Biden off the ballot because they view his grabbing and sniffing of children to be of a pedophile nature? He hasn’t been convicted, but that wouldn’t matter. The judges would simply say he is one, and that would be enough “evidence to act, and completely ruin democracy by keeping Biden off.. which is what these raging, activist Colorado judges are trying to do.

This will likely get struck down handily in the SCOTUS, dont you agree? Or do you think this is blind justice? And if so.. how? Should states just start making it so the candidate they don’t want to be president can’t be voted for? That would be an ultimate attack on democracy. You want that?

What's radical about their decision? I don't think a single one of you Bingos has even bothered to read the ruling.

 

[Slade3200]

It appears you don’t know that, it appears you think a ruling is made and thus is engraved forever.

The way things appear to you are not rooted in reality

 

[Slade3200]

The bottom line here is, the radical judges are saying Trump being an “insurrectionist” disqualifies him when he’s not been convicted as one, they simply have decided to call him one. They are using JUST their assumptions and hopes as “evidence”, writing their own fiction. What if Ohio decided to take Joe Biden off the ballot because they view his grabbing and sniffing of children to be of a pedophile nature? He hasn’t been convicted, but that wouldn’t matter. The judges would simply say he is one, and that would be enough “evidence to act, and completely ruin democracy by keeping Biden off.. which is what these raging, activist Colorado judges are trying to do.

A judge and Supreme Court adjudicated the case and made a decision. That’s how our system works. The constitution says nothing about needing a conviction if insurrection. Historical precedent backs that up.

 

[Lisa558]

A judge and Supreme Court adjudicated the case and made a decision. That’s how our system works. The constitution says nothing about needing a conviction if insurrection. Historical precedent backs that up.

Then let’s just decide Biden is guilty of insurrection. What he’s done to destroy this country, while enriching his family with unexplained payoffs from Communists, is worse.

 

[Nostra]

View attachment 877399

The Dimwinger judges disqualified him stupid.

 

[Lisa558]

The Dimwinger judges disqualified him stupid.

That Dimwinger doesn’t understand that judges and juries make the decisions, not the plaintiffs.

 

[Curried Goats]

Then let’s just decide Biden is guilty of insurrection. What he’s done to destroy this country, while enriching his family with unexplained payoffs from Communists, is worse.

When you can find a court to rule that Lisa. Have at it.

 

[Nostra]

For those actually interested, i.e. everyone not a MAGAt moron, here's the courts definition of an insurrection. I also appreciate how they took the time to explain why things like the BLM riots were not an insurrection.

2. Insurrection​

Dictionaries (both old and new), the district court's order, and the briefing by the parties and the amici curiae suggest several definitions of the word "insurrection".

For example, Noah Webster's dictionary from 1860 defined insurrection
as:

​

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law ina city or state. Itis equivalent to SEDITION, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from REBELLION, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one, or to place the country under another jurisdiction​

Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines insurrection as “an act or instance of revolting against civil or political authority or against an established government" or "an act or instance of rising up physically." In light of these and other proffered definitions, the district court concluded that "an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States".

Finally, we note that at oral argument, President Trump's counsel, while not
providing a specific definition , argued that an insurrection is more than a riot but
less than a rebellion. We agree that an insurrection falls along a spectrum of
related conduct. But we part company with him when he goes one step further . No authority supports the position taken by
President Trump's counsel at oral argument that insurrectionary conduct must involve a particular length of time or geographic location.

Although we acknowledge that these definitions vary and some are arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word insurrection . Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of insurrection for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.

The required force or threat of force need not involve bloodshed, nor must the
dimensions of the effort be so substantial as to ensure probable success. Moreover, although those involved must act in a concerted way, they need not be highly organized at the insurrection's inception.

The question thus becomes whether the evidence before the district court
sufficiently established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and
public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the
U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful
transfer of power in this country. We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection. It is undisputed that a large group of people forcibly entered the Capitol and that this action was so formidable that the law enforcement officers on site could not control it. Moreover, contrary to President Trump's assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons. The court also found that many in the mob stole objects from the Capitol's premises or from law enforcement officers to use as weapons, including metal bars from the police barricades and officers batons and riot shields and that throughout the day, the mob repeatedly and violently assaulted police officers who were trying to defend the Capitol. The fact that actual and threatened force was used that day cannot reasonably be denied.

Substantial evidence in the record further established that this use of force was concerted and public. As the district court found, with ample record support, "The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose... They marched through the [Capitol] building chanting in a manner that made clear they were seeking to inflict violence against members of Congress and Vice President Pence". And upon breaching the Capitol, the mob immediately pursued its intended target the certification of the presidential election and reached the House and Senate chambers within minutes of entering the building.

Finally, substantial evidence in the record showed that the unified purpose was to hinder or prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes as required by the Twelfth Amendment and from certifying the 2020 presidential election; that is, to preclude Congress from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer ofpower. As noted above, soon after breaching the Capitol, the mob reached the House and Senate chambers, where the certification process was ongoing. This breach caused both the House and the Senate to adjourn, halting the electoral certification process. In addition, much of the mob's
ire - which included threats of physical violence - was directed at Vice President
Pence, who, in his role as President of the Senate, was constitutionally tasked with
carrying out the electoral count. As discussed more fully below,these actions were the product of President Trump's conduct in singling out Vice President Pence for refusing President Trump's demand that the Vice President decline to carry out his constitutional duties.

In short, the record amply established that the events of January 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection, and thus we will proceed to consider whether President Trump "engaged in" this insurrection.

So they were not trying to overthrow the government.

Got it.

 

[Slade3200]

This will likely get struck down handily in the SCOTUS, dont you agree? Or do you think this is blind justice? And if so.. how? Should states just start making it so the candidate they don’t want to be president can’t be voted for? That would be an ultimate attack on democracy. You want that?

It’s hard to think that it wouldn’t be overturned. I’m having a hard time seeing the constitutional argument for it. Can you present one without emotion and insults?

 

[Nostra]

That Dimwinger doesn’t understand that judges and juries make the decisions, not the plaintiffs.

The idiot lets Occupydemocrats tell him what to think. Enough said.