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

[Nostra]

It's not lying you dumb Bingo. You fuckwits claiming it wasn't a violent insurrection or that the election was stolen is a lie. Not immediately understanding the nuance between insurrection and rebellion is minor to your massive stupidity.

Feel free to quote me saying the election was stolen, liar. See, that's all you clowns do..............lie.

 

[Nostra]

Ok(sigh)… I’ll ask YOU

How do you characterize the attack on the Capitol that happened on Jan 6?

Mostly peaceful demonstration.

 

[Doc7505]

Yielding to Temptation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Blocks Democracy to Bar Trump on the 2024 Ballot​

22 Dec 2023 ~~ By Jonathan Turley

(Excerpt)
January 6, 2021, was many things — and all of them bad. However, it was not an insurrection. I was critical of Trump’s speech to a mob of supporters that day, and I rejected his legal claims to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Congress. However, it was a protest that became a riot, not a rebellion.
Indeed, despite the unrelenting efforts of many in the media and Congress, a post-January 6 Harvard study found that most of the rioters were motivated by support for Trump or concerns about the election’s fairness, not by a desire to rebel.
~Snip~
There were a number of barriers facing advocates who have tried to stretch this provision to cover the January 6 riot. The four justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation possible on every one of those questions in order to support their decision.
The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment, where the four justices dismissed the free-speech implications of disqualifying presidential candidates based on political position and rhetoric.
The result is an opinion that lacks any limiting principles. It places the nation on a slippery slope where red and blue states could now engage in tit-for-tat disqualifications. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, those decisions do not need to be based on the specific comments made by figures like Trump. Instead, it ruled, courts can now include any statements made before or after a speech to establish a “true threat.”
It was inevitable that the Trump-ballot challengers would find four jurists in one state willing to follow something like the Wilde Doctrine. However, it is also important to note that a series of Democratic jurists previously refused to do so in various cases. They did so not out of any affinity to Trump but out of their affinity to the Constitution.
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. What is particularly galling is that these four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
The only good news is that this flawed theory can now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it is likely to be put to rest conclusively.


Commentary:
There are certain requirements that must be met to try a person in a court action. Witnesses, documents, exculpatory evidence and the privilege of the opportunity of the accused being faced by his accusers.
Judges cannot be accusers but are there to hear the case presented that never was and evaluate the evidence. The only evidence that was presented to the justices was hearsay from media outlets that have the ability of absence of malice (the opportunity to lie without fault) and not proven or even displayed. That’s not a hearing, that’s a Kangaroo court trials created for the purpose of not giving the accused any chance to be right or wrong. Justice? Not a chance. They’re no different than vigilantes with a rope.
The minute they added the words “legally convinced,” it went out the window. My opinion can be possibly based upon gut feeling. As a judge, sworn in, their opinion has to be based upon facts. That’s what they are paid and sworn in to do. That didn’t happen.”
In other words, “To protect Democracy, we need to ban the front-running opposition candidate from the ballot. Because we’re all about Democracy.”

 

[Lesh]

Mostly peaceful protest. Of course it's irrelevant, you fucking lousy nasty vermin. You're the enemy.

Well that’s obviously not accurate since 140 cops were injured and dozens were hospitalized and there were chants of Hang Mike Pence and MAGArats roaming through the Capitol searching for the Speaker of the House
Obviously NOT peaceful
Try again jackass

 

[Hollie]

Ok(sigh)… I’ll ask YOU

How do you characterize the attack on the Capitol that happened on Jan 6?

It's a softball. Take a swing.

How can you insist there was an insurrection, when there were no such charges brought against any individual and no court convictions of any individual for such a charge?

 

[Nostra]

The only ones lying are the ones denying hang Mike pence.

Not seeing that in the statute for insurrection, Simp.

 

[Lesh]

Yielding to Temptation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Blocks Democracy to Bar Trump on the 2024 Ballot​

22 Dec 2023 ~~ By Jonathan Turley

(Excerpt)
January 6, 2021, was many things — and all of them bad. However, it was not an insurrection. I was critical of Trump’s speech to a mob of supporters that day, and I rejected his legal claims to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Congress. However, it was a protest that became a riot, not a rebellion.
Indeed, despite the unrelenting efforts of many in the media and Congress, a post-January 6 Harvard study found that most of the rioters were motivated by support for Trump or concerns about the election’s fairness, not by a desire to rebel.
~Snip~
There were a number of barriers facing advocates who have tried to stretch this provision to cover the January 6 riot. The four justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation possible on every one of those questions in order to support their decision.
The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment, where the four justices dismissed the free-speech implications of disqualifying presidential candidates based on political position and rhetoric.
The result is an opinion that lacks any limiting principles. It places the nation on a slippery slope where red and blue states could now engage in tit-for-tat disqualifications. According to the Colorado Supreme Court, those decisions do not need to be based on the specific comments made by figures like Trump. Instead, it ruled, courts can now include any statements made before or after a speech to establish a “true threat.”
It was inevitable that the Trump-ballot challengers would find four jurists in one state willing to follow something like the Wilde Doctrine. However, it is also important to note that a series of Democratic jurists previously refused to do so in various cases. They did so not out of any affinity to Trump but out of their affinity to the Constitution.
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. What is particularly galling is that these four justices stripped away the right of millions of voters to choose their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
The only good news is that this flawed theory can now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it is likely to be put to rest conclusively.


Commentary:
There are certain requirements that must be met to try a person in a court action. Witnesses, documents, exculpatory evidence and the privilege of the opportunity of the accused being faced by his accusers.
Judges cannot be accusers but are there to hear the case presented that never was and evaluate the evidence. The only evidence that was presented to the justices was hearsay from media outlets that have the ability of absence of malice (the opportunity to lie without fault) and not proven or even displayed. That’s not a hearing, that’s a Kangaroo court trials created for the purpose of not giving the accused any chance to be right or wrong. Justice? Not a chance. They’re no different than vigilantes with a rope.
The minute they added the words “legally convinced,” it went out the window. My opinion can be possibly based upon gut feeling. As a judge, sworn in, their opinion has to be based upon facts. That’s what they are paid and sworn in to do. That didn’t happen.”
In other words, “To protect Democracy, we need to ban the front-running opposition candidate from the ballot. Because we’re all about Democracy.”

How does Turley manage to write opinions with his head stuck so far up Trump’s ass?

 

[Nostra]

Again, what a stupid line of reasoning. Let's say the police are looking at a crime scene looking at a murder victim. By your logic and reasoning they would have to conclude there is no murderer because no one has yet been convicted of it.

You analogy fails, because in this scenario there is no dead body, Dumbass.

 

[Hollie]

For the same reason others were barred from office despite not being charged with insurrection. Again, there's precedence, a word you don't understand in legal terms.

How are you still confused about the facts that there were no charges of insurrection brought against any individual and no court convictions of any individual for such a charge?

 

[Lesh]

It's a softball. Take a swing.

How can you insist there was an insurrection, when there were no such charges brought against any individual and no court convictions of any individual for such a charge?

So you refuse to respond

So far we’ve gotten claims that it was a peaceful protest (and that’s obviously not accurate)

And silence

I wonder why they can’t respond

 

[Nostra]

Ok. I’ll ask you since none of your idiot friends could answer

How would YOU characterize what those MAGArats did on Jan 6?

Mostly peaceful protest. If this qualifies, surely Jan 6 does...

 

[Lesh]

You analogy fails, because in this scenario there is no dead body, Dumbass.

That attack on the Capitol is the “dead body”

 

[Nostra]

Does someone have to be charged as an insurrectionists to be an insurrectionists?

In the real world, yes. In dimwingerland............who knows, the rules change daily.

 

[Hollie]

How does Turley manage to write opinions with his head stuck so far up Trump’s ass?

There's a reason why Turley is an attorney and no one is coming to you for advice on anything.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

You're going to regret shucking with that guy.

Yeah, sure.

I did warn you.

ohhhh i can shuck with the best........curried also has some humor to the equation.i have to give credit here when deserved.......if these libturds would adopt a sense of humor here, i'd be easier on the misfortunates

 

[Nostra]

I asked for YOUR characterization

And we all know it was not a peaceful protest.

So try again jackass

 

[Lesh]

Mostly peaceful protest. If this qualifies, surely Jan 6 does...


View attachment 877863

Nope. Not some other thing

THAT thing

How would YOU characterize that attack on the Capitol

Go for it

 

[BS Filter]

Actually, he currently does. Your vacuous denial doesn't actually wash that away.

What are they?

 

[Nostra]

How does Turley manage to write opinions with his head stuck so far up Trump’s ass?

Hey stupid, the guy is a Democrat who never voted for Trump.

 

[Robert W]

Handled wrongly? How so? What is your evidence to convince anyone that you’re not just fuckup bob.

The humper wanted to use J6 to install himself as president against an election that he lost.

So, you can stop lying bob. I’m not one of your old white sycophant buddies who accept your shit.

Part of my evidence is contained in the Dinesh D'Souza 2000 mules film.
Also, unlike the Democrats, I studied just the states that were part of the problem.
Some of the infected states took very few votes to tip the scale, to Biden or to Trump
Some took no more than some thousand votes and others were a lot closer.
I also took into account that every rejection of the Trump fan suits was based on them not having standing and the courts never studied the facts presented.
Trump was only involved in 2 of the suits and he had standing. But even his suits were not tried for facts, but were still rejected.
When a non trial happens, and trials are triers of fact, you know there has been a gigantic fuck up.
As it turns out all the infected states in sum total were no more than 200,000 votes and I mean every state contested.

Trump was president. What to you mean install himself?