Former US Attorney says SCOTUS will overturn Trump Colorado decision 9-0. Guesses?

[EvilCat Breath]

9-0 . I bet $5 bucks.

You are correct.

 

[scruffy]

There does not have to be a trial.

Yes, there does.

Constitution 101

 

[Moonglow]

Yes, there does.

Constitution 101

Show me why it would need to be from a trial, that is not what it says in the Constitution, why, because the founder knew about Donald Trump from an old wizard who prognosticated his future actions.

Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment - FindLaw

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was originally intended to keep former Confederate officials from gaining power in the reconstructed government following the Civil War. Known as the "disqualification clause," this section was fairly obscure until January 6, 2021, when supporters of...

constitution.findlaw.com

 

[scruffy]

Show me why it would need to be from a trial, that is not what it says in the Constitution,

That is exactly and explicitly what it says in the Constitution.

Insurrection is a criminal offense, I posted the link to the US Code.

Therefore it requires a jury trial.

Our Constitution explicitly says so

why, because the founder knew about Donald Trump from an old wizard who prognosticated his future actions.

Our Constitution also says the accused has the right to face his accusers.

Leftards don't seem to know the first fucking thing about our Constitution.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It will be 9-0 or 7-2.

Ketanji will unlikely be the lone dissenter as a noob.

 

[task0778]

I would be totally shocked and extremely disappointed if any of the SCOTUS justices votes for this travesty. This is not a close call with any ambiguity, we are talking about denying a US citizen of his/her rights with no criminal proceeding that resulted in a conviction. How can anyone support the idea of saying, "well I think he's guilty but I can't prove it but let's screw him over anyway"?

 

[Markle]

Do you GOP people not know 'cause yer always askin'. That tells me you ain't got a clue.

It's hard to defend, so you have a smart Alec retort.

After all, when you have a female Progressive candidate for the United States Supreme Court who refuses to define what is a woman, That's just pathetic.

 

[Markle]

There does not have to be a trial.

 

[Lisa558]

You didn't know?

Actually, I didn’t. But if they were looking for a Jewish lesbian, I am Jewish and for a seat on the Supreme Court, I’d be willing to kiss a girl!

But nobody asked me.

 

[Lisa558]

It's hard to defend, so you have a smart Alec retort.

After all, when you have a female Progressive candidate for the United States Supreme Court who refuses to define what is a woman, That's just pathetic.

That should have been disqualifying right there. It showed she was so tied to the liberal agenda that she wasn’t even willing to state the obvious.

But there are VERY lenient standards for black females. That’s also why the president of Harvard can get away with plagiarizing 40 times and say it’s OK to call for the genocide of Jews.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Hate to tell you Lisa, but the "handful of unelected Democrats" aren't quite what you think. Yes, they are initially appointed by the sitting governor, but that is only for a 2 year term, after which, they must be elected by the people of the state of CO to get the full term. All of those who made the decision have been in their post OVER 2 years, meaning that they actually WERE elected. Quit listening to the bullshit of the far right.

How many judges are ever removed from office by voters? Nothing is known about them at the time of the election, so most people just vote yes. I do just the opposite since there is no way for me to vet their decisions or monitor their performance on the bench.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm looking forward to making complete asses out of all the Biden cultists who wet their pants with excitement over this unconstitutional attempt to deprive citizens of their voting rights.



I'll take bets on SCOTUS going:

9-0

8-1 (Jackson, the dumbest of them all dissenting)

7-2 (both Jackson and Sotomayor siding with the Nazis).

Hard to say. Barrett and Kavanaugh might side with the 2 Progressive AA picks

 

[Lisa558]

Hard to say. Barrett and Kavanaugh might side with the 2 Progressive AA picks

No way.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Make it easier. 6 billion to the Iranians is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"

Since Iran committed an act of war by invading and occupying our Embassy and not only haven't apologized or paid reparations, but continually scream "death to America" I can't see any way that they can't be considered to be an enemy who is at war with us.

 

[Lisa558]

Since Iran committed an act of war by invading and occupying our Embassy and not only haven't apologized or paid reparations, but continually scream "death to America" I can't see any way that they can't be considered to be an enemy who is at war with us.

Biden also knew he was providing $6 billion to America’s enemy to fund terrorist attacks against America’s ally.

That last transaction had Obama’s stink all over it.

 

[task0778]

There does not have to be a trial.

Don't you think there should be? The Left has been screaming about a threat to democracy, but yet here we are with the democrats trying to deny the Colorado votes a choice in the most important election that we have. Isn't that anti-democratic? Is this not the height of hypocrisy? Why are the democrats afraid to let the voters decide? Isn't that what democracy is all about, the people decide? Rather than a group of unelected people deciding who the people can and cannot vote for? I do not understand how anybody can support that position.

So, you believe it is okay to deny someone their right to run for president if they meet the constitutional req'ts but have been accused of insurrection but not convicted? Nothing has been proved against Trump in a court of law, right? It is truly amazing that anyone believes it's okay to do this without due process. Look at it objectively: it's been almost 3 years since the incident and there's been no trial, just an accusation. Justice delayed is justice denied, no? All this time goes by and now with less than a year to go this decision is made by a democratic state SC, and you don't think maybe this is bullshit political lawfare?

 

[my2¢]

I was surprised by Colorado's ruling. Could only imagine that Colorado being headquarters of Dominion Election Systems played some role of judges supporting the home team. I'll go with 9-0.

 

[SavannahMann]

No. You ask stupid questions because you already should know the answer.

So somebody in some sort of position of authority has to decide the question. Great. Who is that person who decides if someone is eligible?

 

[SavannahMann]

That is exactly and explicitly what it says in the Constitution.

Insurrection is a criminal offense, I posted the link to the US Code.

Therefore it requires a jury trial.

Our Constitution explicitly says so




Our Constitution also says the accused has the right to face his accusers.

Leftards don't seem to know the first fucking thing about our Constitution.

To deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Yes. But service as President is an honor. And that isn’t listed as a right in the Constitution is it?

 

[Moonglow]

Don't you think there should be? The Left has been screaming about a threat to democracy, but yet here we are with the democrats trying to deny the Colorado votes a choice in the most important election that we have. Isn't that anti-democratic? Is this not the height of hypocrisy? Why are the democrats afraid to let the voters decide? Isn't that what democracy is all about, the people decide? Rather than a group of unelected people deciding who the people can and cannot vote for? I do not understand how anybody can support that position.

So, you believe it is okay to deny someone their right to run for president if they meet the constitutional req'ts but have been accused of insurrection but not convicted? Nothing has been proved against Trump in a court of law, right? It is truly amazing that anyone believes it's okay to do this without due process. Look at it objectively: it's been almost 3 years since the incident and there's been no trial, just an accusation. Justice delayed is justice denied, no? All this time goes by and now with less than a year to go this decision is made by a democratic state SC, and you don't think maybe this is bullshit political lawfare?

No, I can see why the Amendment was written as it was.