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

[Billiejeens]

I laugh

 

[bodecea]

I didn't know that Trump was convicted of Sedition, or even charged for Sedition for that matter.
Could you link me to either of those?
Thanks in advance.

The 14th doesn't require that....same with those members of the federal government who went over to the con-federacy in 1860. They were never charged with insurrection but were never allowed to run for federal office again after the North crushed the South.

 

[Marener]

I didn't know that Trump was convicted of Sedition, or even charged for Sedition for that matter.
Could you link me to either of those?
Thanks in advance.

Can you link to the section of the constitution that says that he must first be charged and convicted of sedition?

Thanks in advance.

 

[BlindBoo]

I didn't know that Trump was convicted of Sedition, or even charged for Sedition for that matter.
Could you link me to either of those?
Thanks in advance.

The leaders of the Confederate States were not convicted of Sedition and were not allowed to run for public office. Jefferson Davis was never convicted and he was not allowed to run for President was he? The 14th Amendment does not require a conviction does it?

 

[Billiejeens]

"Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed Arizona lawmakers after the 2020 election to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory and choose “a clean slate of Electors,” according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.

The emails, sent by Ginni Thomas to a pair of lawmakers on Nov. 9, 2020, argued that legislators needed to intervene because the vote had been marred by fraud. Though she did not mention either candidate by name, the context was clear.

Just days after media organizations called the race for Biden in Arizona and nationwide, Thomas urged the lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure.” She told the lawmakers that the responsibility to choose electors was “yours and yours alone” and said they had “power to fight back against fraud.”

Ginni Thomas was telling the state legislature to take away the votes of the citizens of Arizona. That's some Banana Republic shit.

It's not.
Unless you are actually talking about unverifiable mail in ballots from all of the states that were used to diminish the voting rights of legal votes, in that case, the answer would be, yes.

 

[SeaMajor7]

His wife participated in the insurrection.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/06/10/ginni-thomas-election-arizona-lawmakers/

There was no The Insurrection you communist piece of SHIT!!!!!!

 

[Marener]

It's not.
Unless you are actually talking about unverifiable mail in ballots from all of the states that were used to diminish the voting rights of legal votes, in that case, the answer would be, yes.

That's exactly what it is.

Ginni Thomas didn't care what the voters said. She wanted the legislature to disregard it and put in their own electors.

Why even vote when the Republicans are just going to decide they won anyway?

 

[Marener]

There was no The Insurrection you communist piece of SHIT!!!!!!

Supreme Court of Colorado said there was.

4-3.

That's a bummer for you guys.

 

[marvin martian]

Why do you think it will go down?

Did you read the ruling? They're disqualifying Trump based on a crime he was neither charged with nor convicted of.

If that's going to be a new legal precedent, there's nothing stopping any state from removing any candidate they want. Red states (and even blue states with conservative courts, like Louisiana) will be lined up to eliminate DemoKKKrat candidates from their ballots.

This is what you wanted...

 

[Meister]

Can you link to the section of the constitution that says that he must first be charged and convicted of sedition?

Thanks in advance.

So, it's just politics, they say it's because of insurrection, but, you just don't need insurrection.
How about insurrection, was Trump charged or convicted?
You know it's bullshit, but it's your party's bullshit, so it's all good.
Let's face it and get to the meat of all this, your party is scared of losing
to Trump, so they want to remove him. That is what is going on.
You don't need to respond as you wouldn't be honest enough to admit it.

 

[Meister]

Did you read the ruling? They're disqualifying Trump based on a crime he was neither charged with nor convicted of.

If that's going to be a new legal precedent, there's nothing stopping any state from removing any candidate they want. Red states will be lined up to eliminate DemoKKKrat candidates from their ballots.

This is what you wanted...

Texas is kicking around the idea as to remove Biden from their ballot, probably for treason.

 

[Slade3200]

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)

Petitioners also challenged the Act under the Appointments Clause, which requires “Officers of the United States” to be appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent.

[...]

The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2.

Article II, Section 2, clause 2

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law

Couple points to that….

Article 2.2.2 refers to appointments. It does not define the meaning of Officers for the entire constitution or the English language.

The argument that the CO courts are making, ironically, is an originalist argument using the language and understanding and intent of the founders.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s impossible. Conservatives don’t have blue haired losers with nose rings that live with their parents.

So what?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Supreme Court of Colorado said there was.

4-3.

That's a bummer for you guys.

Fuck you commie, the SCOTUS will shoot that SHIT down in FLAMES!!!!!

 

[Billiejeens]

That's exactly what it is.

Ginni Thomas didn't care what the voters said. She wanted the legislature to disregard it and put in their own electors.

Why even vote when the Republicans are just going to decide they won anyway?

I understand that you are really deep in your Cult.
But-
Voters don't vote to select a President; they vote for the electors who will then pick a President.
This is really pretty standard stuff.
If you had paid any attention in 2016, you would be aware of this, as The Clinton campaign and her surrogates used immense political and public pressure to try to void Candidate Trump electors.

See "faithless electors".

Learn something(s) today.

 

[bodecea]

There was no The Insurrection you communist piece of SHIT!!!!!!

There was your FAILED insurrection. MAGAts and their orange jesus FAILED. Losers all.

 

[Marener]

Voters don't vote to select a President; they vote for the electors who will then pick a President.

Well, if Ginni Thomas had her way, they wouldn't get to vote for the electors. Ginni wanted a bunch of Republicans in the State Legislature to disregard the voters and choose their own electors for Trump.

 

[bodecea]

Texas is kicking around the idea as to remove Biden from their ballot, probably for treason.

Sure they are.....just like they are kicking around the idea of seceding.

 

[bodecea]

Fuck you commie, the SCOTUS will shoot that SHIT down in FLAMES!!!!!

You sound upset....as if you are very uncomfortable and nervous about the SCOTUS following your orange jesus.

 

[Marener]

So, it's just politics, they say it's because of insurrection, but, you just don't need insurrection.
How about insurrection, was Trump charged or convicted?
You know it's bullshit, but it's your party's bullshit, so it's all good.
Let's face it and get to the meat of all this, your party is scared of losing
to Trump, so they want to remove him. That is what is going on.
You don't need to respond as you wouldn't be honest enough to admit it.

It's jurisprudence. The judges say Trump's actions qualified as an insurrection.

Of course we are scared to losing to Trump, he's the guy who tried to take away our ability to vote him out of office in 2020. Conservatives should be scared about it too, but they aren't because they place party before the country.