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

[Staidhup]

So what happens when they write in Trump? The leftists should want Trump on the ballot, they claim Joe, even in his diminished state, would win by an overwhelming margin.

 

[Edgetho]

At some point, the posters in here should realize that all our resident dimocrap scum posters are doing is -- Taunting you.

They got a cheap victory the way they get everything else -- By trick, by breaking the rules, by cheating.

And they're laughing about it. Laughing at you.

Time to walk

 

[SeaMajor7]

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

There was NO failed the insurrection, commie asshole!

 

[Marener]

So what happens when they write in Trump? The leftists should want Trump on the ballot, they claim Joe, even in his diminished state, would win by an overwhelming margin.

Trump was declared ineligible for the office, so I suppose the electors would be prevented from voting for Trump.

 

[bodecea]

So what happens when they write in Trump? The leftists should want Trump on the ballot, they claim Joe, even in his diminished state, would win by an overwhelming margin.

Then they write him in. Meh.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I’d love to debate the merits of the decision if anybody is up to it

Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

The Colorado supreme court overstepped for obvious political reasons. This is grounds for dismissal...that is if our politically/judicial system is still fair and unbiased. That seems dicey about now,

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[bodecea]

There was NO failed the insurrection, commie asshole!

Oh yes there was. You and your orange jesus FAILED. Again.

 

[bodecea]

Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

The Colorado supreme court overstepped for obvious political reasons. This is grounds for dismissal...that is if our politically/judicial system is still fair and unbiased. That seems dicey about now,

www.usmessageboard.com

MAGAts can't read.

 

[Slade3200]

I thought about this, “if someone is found to have committed insurrection…”, does that require a conviction. The short answer is..yes, it does, because without a charge and conviction, then it could simply be left up to the interpretation of any given court if someone has committed insurrection. That interpretation could change from person to person. Some would be much more lenient in their definition, some would be more harsh. Also, not charging with the relative statute means someone could charge with any statute they think they could get a conviction on, and just call it insurrection and force a disqual.

Without the relevant charge, a republican Supreme Court could just as easily say that Biden, by not securing the border, is preventing the laws of the U.S. from being carried out and thus assisting in overthrowing the laws of the country. Is this how we want law to work?

The question is always ask is, if insurrection is so cut and clear, then why is it that nobody has charged him with insurrection? There has to be a reason they are avoiding that. You’d think it would have been the first charge levied. Yet, they seem to be shying away from it. Could it be that they know they might not be able to get a conviction on 18 US 2383, so they are going with lesser charges, but, are painting this narrative that “it’s all the same and he should be disqualified”?

You make a great point with the border comparison. A few things to consider.

The state can’t convict for insurrection as it’s a federal law.

Trump was impeached for his part in the insurrection. The Senate acquitted him with the excuse that this issue was something for the courts to decide after Trumps presidency.

Lastly, the constitution does not state that a criminal conviction of insurrection is the necessary criteria, only that “engagement in”

Now ind agree with you that is dangerously vague and something that should be better defined through legislation and not just left up to the courts. As it stands it does appear that CO is not making an unreasonable argument.

I do think and hope this situation will lead to legislation that defines the parameters

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democrats OWN Colorado. I was shocked to learn Denver was a sanctuary city in the early 2000's WITHOUT asking, NO notifications nor did they ask our permission. Long story short, I found out by going to the local INS office. Not because I was informed by Democrats or the media. Democrats are like that. This is how democrats act, they are Machiavellian manipulative charming liars that usurp all power, and pretend its for the good. The Democratic party has to go.

Sovereign state. States are in charge of this stuff.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

200 pages can't paper over the fact that he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted.

Punish first, then let the law shake it all out, right uncle Josef?

House Imbecile Speaks

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democrats OWN Colorado. I was shocked to learn Denver was a sanctuary city in the early 2000's WITHOUT asking, NO notifications nor did they ask our permission. Long story short, I found out by going to the local INS office. Not because I was informed by Democrats or the media. Democrats are like that. This is how democrats act, they are Machiavellian manipulative charming liars that usurp all power, and pretend its for the good. The Democratic party has to go.

Anyone reading Mary Contrary -- she's for a one-state nation. Most likely a Theocracy.

 

[WEATHER53]

When you can’t compete and win genuinely, prohibit the competition from ever arriving

 

[Slade3200]

The Democratic controlled House impeached Trump, without evidence, for insurrection on purely partisan basis. The Republican controlled Senate acquitted Trump of impeachment as there was insufficient evidence to convict.

See how easy it is to spin things to sound better?

They had plenty of evidence. We all saw what happened that day on video. That evidence and more was also scrutinized in Colorado courts which lead to this recent decision to ban him

 

[Slade3200]

For it to have any merit -they had to assume multiple facts not in evidence.
Doesn't withstand an appellate challenge.

Well lay out your case then tonto. What were their assumptions?

 

[Meister]

Then they write him in. Meh.

They won't have to, his name will be there.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Nothing unconstitutional about faithless electors changing their EC votes. States can, and some do, required them by law abide by the popular vote. In fact...."In the 2016 United States presidential election, ten members of the Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate different from the ones to whom they were pledged.[1] Three of these votes were invalidated under the faithless elector laws of their respective states,.......As a result of the seven successfully cast faithless votes, the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two. "

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trying to persuade electors to switch is not participating in a rebellion against the Constitution.

 

[Meister]

When you can’t compete and win genuinely, prohibit the competition from ever arriving

Yup, that is what this is all about.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

I’d love to debate the merits of the decision if anybody is up to it

Answer these questions...

Is insurrection a crime?
Does a person accused of a crime have the right to defend oneself when accused of a crime?
Please provide a link showing where DJT was charged with insurrection.
Please provide a link to a conviction for DJT for insurrection after a jury trial where he presented his defense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I do think and hope this situation will lead to legislation that defines the parameters

No need. People disagreeing is no reason. Just because stupid people choose not to accept rulings.