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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don’t get it. Any court could determine the fact that my 30 year old naturalized citizen is not eligible. But no court may say that Trump is ineligible.

There is some hypocrisy here or a blatant double standard.

Any court can be wrong, just like Colorado's Supreme Court is wrong. SCOTUS will ultimately decide. Anyone would be stupid to try to get someone who is not eligible in the first place to be placed on the ballot, simply because they are unqualified. The issue in Colorado is they claim he is not qualified based on an improper application of the 14th Amendment. Many Democrats already see this and admit it will be overturned. What is wrong with you that you cannot?

 

[SavannahMann]

Any court can be wrong, just like Colorado's Supreme Court is wrong. SCOTUS will ultimately decide. Anyone would be stupid to try to get someone who is not eligible in the first place to be placed on the ballot, simply because they are unqualified. The issue in Colorado is they claim he is not qualified based on an improper application of the 14th Amendment. Many Democrats already see this and admit it will be overturned. What is wrong with you that you cannot?

They believe it will be overturned by partisans. Not based on law.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Neil Gorsuch said that Colorado was acting properly in removing someone who was ineligible from the ballot.

No he didn’t!!! The incorrect ruling referenced a Gorsuch ruling in 2012 regarding a no US citizen.

Id bet that Gorsuch will rule against CO

 

[Seymour Flops]

They believe it will be overturned by partisans. Not based on law.

Even the Democrats on the USSC will say, "get a conviction for "insurrection" and then we'll talk.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They believe it will be overturned by partisans. Not based on law.

They know it will be overturned because what they claim is not true. No partisanship at all.

 

[Markle]

I don’t get it. Any court could determine the fact that my 30 year old naturalized citizen is not eligible. But no court may say that Trump is ineligible.

There is some hypocrisy here or a blatant double standard.

 

[SavannahMann]

No he didn’t!!! The incorrect ruling referenced a Gorsuch ruling in 2012 regarding a no US citizen.

Id bet that Gorsuch will rule against CO

Even the Democrats on the USSC will say, "get a conviction for "insurrection" and then we'll talk.

They know it will be overturned because what they claim is not true. No partisanship at all.

You guys are making a mistake. The idea that anyone has a right to be President. Was the individual Hassan convicted of being a Naturalized Citizen? No. But he was ineligible.

Let me reiterate what I said at the beginning. I have no bloody idea what the SC will decide. I can see them going either way. My original question was what if the SC upholds the Colorado ruling? You guys won’t even consider it.

Cato is hardly a left wing mouthpiece. Cato is more Libertarian, but conservative. And Cato who actually read the decision said it was well argued that Trump should be removed.

https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial

They liked the legal arguments and they hope the SC makes similar good legal/constitutional arguments for their decision. No prediction or desire is stated.

I can see the SC going either way on this. And before you scoff. I have long ago given up on predicting any but the most obvious of cases. I have been surprised too many times to fall into that trap.

I would give examples, but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.

You guys are outraged at the result. But the decision, all 213 pages, which is a Novella length bit of writing, lays out some interesting arguments. That is why I don’t know how the SC will rule.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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).

Deprive them of their voting rights? Really? No, not really.

You don't have a right to vote or anyone. You want to vote for Kim Jong Un, let's see what SCOTUS says about that.

 

[Curried Goats]

Any court can be wrong, just like Colorado's Supreme Court is wrong. SCOTUS will ultimately decide. Anyone would be stupid to try to get someone who is not eligible in the first place to be placed on the ballot, simply because they are unqualified. The issue in Colorado is they claim he is not qualified based on an improper application of the 14th Amendment. Many Democrats already see this and admit it will be overturned. What is wrong with you that you cannot?

What part of Colorado's Supreme Court decision do you disagree with specially? Have you read it?

 

[Burgermeister]

I trust this Court as far as I can throw Roberts. Gives off never-Trumper RINO vibes.

 

[Curried Goats]

I trust this Court as far as I can throw Roberts. Gives off never-Trumper RINO vibes.

That he does but mostly because I think he's actually principled. Not that I agree with many of his conservative principles but he does seem to have them as well as a healthy respect for democracy. I don't know what about his rulings would give MAGAts confidence his court is going to side with Trump.

 

[Lisa558]

Deprive them of their voting rights? Really? No, not really.

You don't have a right to vote or anyone. You want to vote for Kim Jong Un, let's see what SCOTUS says about that.

You libs are nuts. Kim Jing Ung is not a citizen.

 

[Curried Goats]

You libs are nuts. Kim Jing Ung is not a citizen.

And? Freedom of association. Or so said Trumps legal team. Either States can decide who qualifies to be on the ballot or they can't. Which is it?

 

[SavannahMann]

I wonder. How many times has the RW been wrong in predicting an outcome from the SC? The most recent time that comes to mind was the case of Chauvin. I can’t remember how many times I read here that the SC would certainly overturn the conviction. The conviction was not overturned. In fact the Court refused to even consider the case.

I sometimes wonder if the RW Radical really believe what they write. Ever since Trump was indicted, we have heard endlessly how the SC would certainly find that Trump while serving as President was immune to prosecution. Any actions he took were not only legal, but justified, and you can’t prosecute a former President.

Yet these same RW Radicals are furious that Jack Smith asked the SC to rule on that question immediately. If they really believed that the question had an obvious answer they would sit back and say watch this. Jack Smith is about to be slapped down and all the cases against Trump are about to be thrown out.

So why are they so angry at Colorado? Wouldn’t they enjoy a real 9-0 decision if they honestly believed it would be the case?

I have maintained that I do not know how the SC will decide. I don’t know what arguments they will use to reach that decision. I don’t know how anyone will vote.

I do know that they will decide. And that like the Cato article I posted above, I hope the decision is well reasoned and good judicial arguments are used.

But in the end. None of us know. My question has been what if they don’t decide as you imagine they “should”? Will you read and consider their arguments? Or will you nearly denounce them as Traitors and such?

 

[Lisa558]

I wonder. How many times has the RW been wrong in predicting an outcome from the SC? The most recent time that comes to mind was the case of Chauvin. I can’t remember how many times I read here that the SC would certainly overturn the conviction. The conviction was not overturned. In fact the Court refused to even consider the case.

I sometimes wonder if the RW Radical really believe what they write. Ever since Trump was indicted, we have heard endlessly how the SC would certainly find that Trump while serving as President was immune to prosecution. Any actions he took were not only legal, but justified, and you can’t prosecute a former President.

Yet these same RW Radicals are furious that Jack Smith asked the SC to rule on that question immediately. If they really believed that the question had an obvious answer they would sit back and say watch this. Jack Smith is about to be slapped down and all the cases against Trump are about to be thrown out.

So why are they so angry at Colorado? Wouldn’t they enjoy a real 9-0 decision if they honestly believed it would be the case?

I have maintained that I do not know how the SC will decide. I don’t know what arguments they will use to reach that decision. I don’t know how anyone will vote.

I do know that they will decide. And that like the Cato article I posted above, I hope the decision is well reasoned and good judicial arguments are used.

But in the end. None of us know. My question has been what if they don’t decide as you imagine they “should”? Will you read and consider their arguments? Or will you nearly denounce them as Traitors and such?

If the SCOTUS upholds, which I am positive it will not, then I say every state with a Republican Suoreme Court should remove Biden from the ballot based on treason.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You guys are making a mistake. The idea that anyone has a right to be President. Was the individual Hassan convicted of being a Naturalized Citizen? No. But he was ineligible.

Let me reiterate what I said at the beginning. I have no bloody idea what the SC will decide. I can see them going either way. My original question was what if the SC upholds the Colorado ruling? You guys won’t even consider it.

Cato is hardly a left wing mouthpiece. Cato is more Libertarian, but conservative. And Cato who actually read the decision said it was well argued that Trump should be removed.

https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial

They liked the legal arguments and they hope the SC makes similar good legal/constitutional arguments for their decision. No prediction or desire is stated.

I can see the SC going either way on this. And before you scoff. I have long ago given up on predicting any but the most obvious of cases. I have been surprised too many times to fall into that trap.

I would give examples, but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.

You guys are outraged at the result. But the decision, all 213 pages, which is a Novella length bit of writing, lays out some interesting arguments. That is why I don’t know how the SC will rule.

Seriously, TDS has ruined you

 

[Lisa558]

Seriously, TDS has ruined you

It’s ruined a lot of people. They actually think that Trump, who was a very successful president with border control, a strong economy with low inflation, world peace, progress in the MidEast, etc., is more of a threat to our country than Biden, who has opened our border to a foreign army, instituted policies that increased inflation, helped fund Iran’s attacks against Israel, and has enriched himself and his family by the millions by taking money from Communist countries for no discernible purpose.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And? Freedom of association. Or so said Trumps legal team. Either States can decide who qualifies to be on the ballot or they can't. Which is it?

States don't get to decide, they have to follow the rules laid out in the Constitution

 

[Lisa558]

SavannahMann

Why was my post about Republican states removing Biden from the ballot due to his treason “funny”?

All we need is a state Court to say he is, and there’s plenty of evidence that he’s building a foreign invasion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You guys are making a mistake. The idea that anyone has a right to be President. Was the individual Hassan convicted of being a Naturalized Citizen? No. But he was ineligible.

Let me reiterate what I said at the beginning. I have no bloody idea what the SC will decide. I can see them going either way. My original question was what if the SC upholds the Colorado ruling? You guys won’t even consider it.

Cato is hardly a left wing mouthpiece. Cato is more Libertarian, but conservative. And Cato who actually read the decision said it was well argued that Trump should be removed.

https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial

They liked the legal arguments and they hope the SC makes similar good legal/constitutional arguments for their decision. No prediction or desire is stated.

I can see the SC going either way on this. And before you scoff. I have long ago given up on predicting any but the most obvious of cases. I have been surprised too many times to fall into that trap.

I would give examples, but it doesn’t matter for this discussion.

You guys are outraged at the result. But the decision, all 213 pages, which is a Novella length bit of writing, lays out some interesting arguments. That is why I don’t know how the SC will rule.

You used all those words to admit you are full of nothing but hot air. I have yet to see any media or government figure say that the decision has a prayer of standing. All of the discussion is how many SCOTUS judges will be brain-dead enough to violate their oath.