BREAKING: SCOTUS has granted cert in the case of Colorado attempting to remove Pres. Trump from the ballot.

[OKTexas]

He was in Colorado.

No he wasn't that was a civil court case, not criminal.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why, when that is not a condition spelled out in the 14th Amendment?

Amendments aren't just thrown into the Constitution willy-nilly.

It's a long process, and then passed in THREE FOURTHS of the states!

Are you going to tell me that no one said "Hey, shouldn't we say that there must be a conviction?"

I mean, seriously. We have had brilliant Constitutional scholars and brilliant statesmen and political minds throughout our 246 years. It's laughable to claim they meant something, but were incapable of expressing it in words.

The amendment says "Congress shall have the power to enforce...., not the States.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Orange Jesus' lawyer seems to think there will be a quid pro quo from the three justices he appointed.

What are you going to do when the three commie justices join?

.

 

[OKTexas]

You can't claim anyone is guilty of insurrection without a trial, regardless of what you say. You're about to get a reality slap upside your head. Of course, you're gonna blame the Supreme Court for being right wing fascists blah blah blah blah blah.

Commies don't think any republican is innocent until prove guilty. That only applies to commiecrats.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I sure hope the SCOTUS justices all have round the clock security to protect them from the violent lefties, especially after the threat from the democrat in the house who wears the bandanna scarf.

That would be raskin, he's always been a radical commie.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Because this insurrection attempt actually happened.

Not what the FBI said.

.

 

[OKTexas]

There was a trial, in Denver. They used evidence from the J6 Committee and the DoJ. Both sides - that includes Trump's, for the brain-dead here - presented their arguments and evidence. The District Court ruled against Trump, then the Supreme Court upheld it.

You can't convict a person of a crime in a civil court case, it doesn't work that way.

.

 

[MinTrut]

Colorado's highest court ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to appear on the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a state court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s primary ballot this year.

Oral arguments are scheduled to commence Feb. 8.

The court’s decision Friday to take up the case follows a Colorado Supreme Court ruling in December that Trump is ineligible for office because he violated the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the nation must be barred from state or federal office.

That decision cited Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He’s been charged with four federal crimes over the attempted coup to remain in the White House despite losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, and the trial is scheduled to start in March.

Following the Colorado ruling, Trump’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the state-level decision before the state nominating process begins this month.

More at the link below...

IT'S ON: SUPREMES TO DECIDE TRUMP BALLOT CASE

Will it be a fair hearing? Will it be tainted by partisanship? What do you think?

Anything other than a 9-0 victory for Trump signals the complete end of the illusion of a democratic republic.

 

[MinTrut]

As opposed to what?

If you think this is chaos...

 

[MinTrut]

It's pretty obvious what will happen. The 6 right wing justices will be like "oh, we've found that they can't do anything because.... because... oh, where did this bag of money come from? Better put it in my bank account to keep it safe until we can find out who left it here"

As many are saying, anything less than a 9-0 victory for Trump will be catastrophic.

But your belief that both criminal gangs aren't violently corrupt is cute - like thinking Santa is a thing.

 

[beautress]

None of that shit happened.

My experience was not a lie. It was what I experienced around 25 years ago, sometime between 1996 when I got my first computer, 2 years of posting poetry and reading political threads, and having to find a different board when NYTimes newspaper forums closed down due to angry political back and forth stuff (which I didn't enjoy reading, by the way.) Time Magazine had equally good forums, minus the genius poets I admired at NYT Forums, and after a while, Time threw in the towel too, because they had a magazine to operate, and their employees grew tired of trying to make peace between stubborn politicoes on their website. I don't remember all the details, except Time explained it as a real problem for cleaning up their boards with people who wrote articles for their magazine were likely not able to stop the way mean people were beating up on each other over politics, and their magazine readers who subscribed to their periodicals likely voiced their dis-enchantment.

 

[MinTrut]

My experience was not a lie. It was what I experienced around 25 years ago, sometime between 1996 when I got my first computer, 2 years of posting poetry and reading political threads, and having to find a different board when NYTimes newspaper forums closed down due to angry political back and forth stuff (which I didn't enjoy reading, by the way.) Time Magazine had equally good forums, minus the genius poets I admired at NYT Forums, and after a while, Time threw in the towel too, because they had a magazine to operate, and their employees grew tired of trying to make peace between stubborn politicoes on their website. I don't remember all the details, except Time explained it as a real problem for cleaning up their boards with people who wrote articles for their magazine were likely not able to stop the way mean people were beating up on each other over politics, and their magazine readers who subscribed to their periodicals likely voiced their dis-enchantment.

Thank you for sharing this; I find you credible, though some paragraph breaks would be nice.

 

[candycorn]

Conviction is not the threshold. If it were, it would say so.

Maybe. But by any modern standard, it has become one. Conviction=guilt. Indictment, judgment, widely reported circumstantial evidence, etc...

Thank you for sharing this; I find you credible, though some paragraph breaks would be nice.

Did she tell you what happened when she reported the felonies?

Oh wait...she didn't report the felonies?

Wow...and you find her credible?

 

[jknowgood]

And you're a dumbass in every one of your posts.

I'm not the one that supports Biden. The ultimate proof of stupidity. Only around 30% of you loons left.

 

[skews13]

Colorado's highest court ruled in December that Trump was ineligible to appear on the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a state court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s primary ballot this year.

Oral arguments are scheduled to commence Feb. 8.

The court’s decision Friday to take up the case follows a Colorado Supreme Court ruling in December that Trump is ineligible for office because he violated the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the nation must be barred from state or federal office.

That decision cited Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He’s been charged with four federal crimes over the attempted coup to remain in the White House despite losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, and the trial is scheduled to start in March.

Following the Colorado ruling, Trump’s attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the state-level decision before the state nominating process begins this month.

More at the link below...

IT'S ON: SUPREMES TO DECIDE TRUMP BALLOT CASE

Will it be a fair hearing? Will it be tainted by partisanship? What do you think?

The 14th Amendment requirements, are not predicated on the fact of due process.

That's the first question the they are going to have to deal with.

Trump was afforded due process at the trial, of which he had lawyers argue in his defense, and fact witnesses testify for the record. So he was afforded due process, there is a record of fact finding, and the judge didn't just make it up.

The second question they are going to have to deal with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The amendment says "Congress shall have the power to enforce...., not the States.

.

Correct, it does not say "exclusive" power though and the States have enumerated powers in two sections of the Constitution pertaining to selection of federal office.

WW

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

The 14th Amendment requirements, are not predicated on the fact of due process.

That's the first question the they are going to have to deal with.

Trump was afforded due process at the trial, of which he had lawyers argue in his defense, and fact witnesses testify for the record. So he was afforded due process, there is a record of fact finding, and the judge didn't just make it up.

The second question they are going to have to deal with.

8-1 with that box checking idiot being the dissenter.......................the dumbest one they could pick........equity

 

[kyzr]

Win-win for Democrats. Either they deny Trump or they prove to the country that they are captured by the Rightwing, making it easier to expand the number of Justices.

Good luck with that. You tried that already and Sinema and Manchin said no.

Next term will be a GOP majority senate.

 

[kyzr]

No doubt they will show their true colors on this issue. Either they are what they claimed, literalist, or they're not.

If the vote is 9-0 dems have no issue. If its 6-3 then the dems on the USSC are activists.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Next term will be a GOP majority senate.

that is what you said in 2022