SCOTUS TO BITCH SLAP COLORADO SUPREME COURT
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
Not what they'll be ruling on. They will be deciding if that keeps him off the ballot in Colorado.
Okay, I'll play along. How about publicly demanding the firing of a govt official in return for financial aid. How about every decision beneficial to china he has made. The ev mandate is a tremendous benefit to their economy. See articles below. I'm not saying I agree with everything in them- I barely scanned them to be honest. However, that is not the point. The point is that there are clearly some who think biden is giving them preferential treatment. The argument can be made. Heck, I could argue giving iran billions of dollars constitutes giving aide to an enemy.
Why is Biden appeasing China?
Mixed messages from Washington could lead Xi to believe that Biden lacks the strategic vision and political will to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
thehill.com
Biden’s failed foreign policy with China is based on a disastrous idea
Biden’s failed China policy is based on a disastrous idea that has failed before. But instead of standing up to our rival, the administration hurts ordinary Americans.
All of that is secondary, though. The main point is who gets to decide that and what that process entails.
You have zero clue. That is NOT what they will be deciding. They will be deciding if Colorado can determine that trump engaged in insurrection, not if that can keep him off the ballot. CLEARLY, if he were convicted of insurrection, he would be off every ballot and would not be allowed to run for potus. This is 100% about the fact that they can not arbitrarily determine he engaged in insurrection.
But the premise for keeping him off the ballot is that he committed insurrection, correct?
Your first sentence is completely misleading and out of context as most Republicans and the entire Western world wanted that prosecutor removed because he would NOT prosecute corruption. Not playing along with the rest of your derpity OPINIONS. it's a waste of time because we all know you'll find a thousand convoluted ways to falsely claim it's the same thing.Okay, I'll play along. How about publicly demanding the firing of a govt official in return for financial aid. How about every decision beneficial to china he has made. The ev mandate is a tremendous benefit to their economy. See articles below. I'm not saying I agree with everything in them- I barely scanned them to be honest. However, that is not the point. The point is that there are clearly some who think biden is giving them preferential treatment. The argument can be made. Heck, I could argue giving iran billions of dollars constitutes giving aide to an enemy.
Why is Biden appeasing China?
Mixed messages from Washington could lead Xi to believe that Biden lacks the strategic vision and political will to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
Biden’s failed foreign policy with China is based on a disastrous idea
Biden’s failed China policy is based on a disastrous idea that has failed before. But instead of standing up to our rival, the administration hurts ordinary Americans.www.foxnews.com
All of that is secondary, though. The main point is who gets to decide that and what that process entails.
You think we're dumb enough to believe YOU KNOW what you're talking about? LOLOL
Were you one of the ones who claimed the Supreme Court was right in the Dobbs decision by returning it to the states to decide? If so, then of course you'll agree that a state can absolutely decide that he engaged in insurrection, if you're a believer in states rights that is.... so my point stands.
Again, you just completely miss the main point. I don't actually think Biden did that bc hunter was being paid off. It is not about why or even if, biden or trump did any of those things. It is about the process by which those determinations are made, ie. can those 4 judges arbitrarily determine trump engaged in insurrection and could another state supreme court determine biden engaged in a similar unconstitutional behavior.
It may be possible they could, but not probable. You're really reaching to an absurd length to draw a comparison of the two.
You are literally too stupid to have logical arguments with. The supreme court is the ultimate authority on if something violates the united states (federal) constitution. The fact you can not grasp that is astonishingly moronic. Whether or not something violates the united states constitution is not a states right issue. Dobbs and the colorodo decision have nothing in common.
Also, you may not have noticed, but you are the only one defending this decision. Not even your other liberal friends are agreeing with you.
That is my point. I am not advocating whether either is true, or not. I am saying that those 4 judges can not make that determination.
Do you agree the Colorado ruling is legally correct?
Dude, just stfu because you do not know what you're talking about. Way back in this thread, I already stated that the Supreme Court will be using one of two off-ramps, neither being whether a state can decide if he engaged in insurrection. His old lawyer Ty Cobb agrees.
“The real key issue in this case is — is Trump an officer in the United States in the context in which that term is used in the Article 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.”
Cobb went on to reference multiple Supreme Court decisions that do not conclude officers include the president or vice president in this context."
Ex-White House lawyer says Supreme Court could rule ‘9-0’ in possible Trump 14th Amendment case
Former White House lawyer Ty Cobb predicted Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court could rule “9-0” in favor of former President Trump in a potential appeal of Colorado Supreme Court’…
thehill.com
I expect you to apologize if/when they decide this case.
It doesn't matter if other liberals agree with me because I'm only arguing that they have the right to make this decision, not that I like it. Personally, I wish they hadn't decided to keep him off the ballot because this will only fuel his supporters, but they are constitutionally enabled to make this decision, period.
So how do you think the 14th is applicable here on a legal basis Mr High IQ? Interested to hear.
The judicial branch has been weaponized. Its past the point of reclamation if we are being honest. The judges on the left and right cannot even agree on what is right and/or wrong on a lot of important stuff at this point.
we have a woman judge on SCOTUS who cannot define what a woman is
how in the hell can she define what an insurrection is ?
So one vote is a joke to start
how in the hell can she define what an insurrection is ?
So one vote is a joke to start
You can't cuck the Tuck
Tucker:
Whatever else January 6 was, and in some ways, we still don't know exactly what it was, it was not a Trump-led insurrection. The crowd had no guns. They had no plan to overthrow the government. Nothing like that has ever emerged. And above all, Trump was not leading it. He was miles away at the White House at the time, where he issued a public statement calling for calm and nonviolence.
“So why were the people on television telling us that Trump led an insurrection? This was, of course, a lie, but it was also a very obvious lie. So, clearly, we were watching the rollout of a talking point, words crafted for a specific purpose. But what was the purpose?
“We got an answer to that question yesterday when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that because he led an insurrection, Donald Trump's name cannot appear on the state's ballot next fall. The four liberal judges who concluded this cited as their justification Article three of the 14th Amendment, which was written in 1868 to keep former Confederate officials from holding office. That was the sum total of their reasoning, despite the fact Donald Trump has never been convicted by any court of insurrection. And although the 14th Amendment specifically does not apply to the presidency, Donald Trump cannot run for president because he's an ‘insurrectionist.
Tucker:
Whatever else January 6 was, and in some ways, we still don't know exactly what it was, it was not a Trump-led insurrection. The crowd had no guns. They had no plan to overthrow the government. Nothing like that has ever emerged. And above all, Trump was not leading it. He was miles away at the White House at the time, where he issued a public statement calling for calm and nonviolence.
“So why were the people on television telling us that Trump led an insurrection? This was, of course, a lie, but it was also a very obvious lie. So, clearly, we were watching the rollout of a talking point, words crafted for a specific purpose. But what was the purpose?
“We got an answer to that question yesterday when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that because he led an insurrection, Donald Trump's name cannot appear on the state's ballot next fall. The four liberal judges who concluded this cited as their justification Article three of the 14th Amendment, which was written in 1868 to keep former Confederate officials from holding office. That was the sum total of their reasoning, despite the fact Donald Trump has never been convicted by any court of insurrection. And although the 14th Amendment specifically does not apply to the presidency, Donald Trump cannot run for president because he's an ‘insurrectionist.
Not a single insurrection charge or indictment has been given to any J6'ers nor Trump. So how does the 14th amendment apply as it relates to insurrection, if he isn't being accused of an insurrection?
Mutilated children? What the f*ck are you talking about?
I'm sure your purple haired, nose ringed friends all love it when you get all worked up recycling what CNN pumps into your oatmeal brain but the 14th amendment doesnt work for this. They would have been better off just saying that they don't like him and don't want him to run, which in reality is what they just did.
Damn, I keep forgetting that you're a Constitutional scholar and you know more than the framers and the four judges! How do I keep forgetting that?
Your talking points and your opinions DON'T MATTER here....it's the facts dumbass...read up on them or stfu. You don't make the rules!
It gets overturned faster than one of your barista co-workers changes their haircolor.
What If GOP states start removing Biden from the ballot? I mean, clearly would be a favor for the left but do you think that might cause some backlash?
A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
I'll answer when you take me up on my challenge. Something tells me I'll be waiting a while.
If he did the same shit that Trump has done, he would have never been on the ballot in the first place because Democrats wouldn't support him. But if he did the things that Trump did, we'd kick him off the ballot before the states ever got around to it.
Why is that ONE MAN more important to you than our country is what I want to know?
This tells me your viewpoint is not logic and reason based and you know it. I do think you are a smart guy.
Have you read the 14th amendment, section 3, instead of accepting what Catturd had to say about it? If not, do it and argue why it doesn't apply to him.
I could agree IF we do the same with Congress and the Senate...
Should Biden be disqualified for getting kickbacks from China & Other countries ?
A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
Has Trump been charged,put on trial, and found guilty of insurrection? This is not so just because dpic says so.
Quit being so desperate and triggered.
This is not what the amendment says. The Constitution doesn't allow you to make up your own rules so again, read it before trying to apply your comic understanding of it.
A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
It wouldn't matter to you if he were, so this "objection" is meaningless.
A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
Mmhmm, when there is a trial it's rigged, and when there's not a trial it's not fair to Donny boy either. How about that. The amendment doesn't use the word trial anyway. Again, a meaningless "objection"
The bold is the exact reason I will vote for whoever the pub nominee is. Precisely bc I will not let my feelings about trump- who I do not like- override the impact not voting for him will have on the country.
My main priority is what results will come from the election- ie what legislation will be passed, judicial appointments, executive regulation (or lack thereof), govt spending, etc. Would I prefer to pick a candidate the I like and approve of? Sure, but in the end, I am going to hold my nose and vote for whoever has an R beside their name 99% of the time, bc whoever that is will result in lower spending, lower taxes, less govt.
Your priorities don't mean shit to him because his goals aren't aligned with what you or I want, only what he wants and he keeps telling us that what he wants is bad for this country. Heck, he's already told you this will be about "Retribution." That should be enough for a person with a moral compass to say he should not be president but oh no, there's more! He also wants to:
- Give Ukraine to Putin
- Pull us out of NATO
- Fire 50,000 govt. employess and replace them with loyalists, no matter what their credentials are.
- Round up immigrants and put them in concentration camps
- Root out the vermin(i.e anyone who doesn't agree with him)
- Destroy media that he doesn't like.
- Fill his cabinet with only ghouls who will do his bidding - people like Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, Stephen Miller, Kari Lake and Mike Lindell
You know this because he doesn't hide his intentions, he proudly announces them because he knows you'll accept ANYTHING he does without a second thought. So if you vote for him while knowing the worst, then FU, you don't give a damn about this country and you are not a patriot.
We are headed into a unrest country. States will file for secession. Red States Vs Blue States . I have always said we will be destroyed from within . jmo
Latest posts
-
-
What are your overall impressions of North Carolina's basketball program?- Latest: TigerRag1053
-
-
