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

[Robert W]

The Colorado Supremes just finished giving him due process. I just finished watching a clip of the courtroom proceedings, with Trump lawyers present and everything!

Now Trump will get due process when in the US Supreme court. Isn't our system great?

 

[Synthaholic]

The judge who said Trump was an insurrectionist did not afford the accused an opportunity to present a defense. That’s not how America works.

You're clearly an idiot. The proceedings were public, evidence was presented, Trump's lawyers argued his side.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Because the commences its next court session is, if I recall correctly, not until Jan. 4 or 5, 2024.

Presumably they will want it fully briefed and they may wish to hear oral arguments.

No need to rush as long as the Col Supreme Couet decision continues to be stayed. (It is presently stayed until 1/4).

Doubtful.
It’s an easy ruling.

 

[BackAgain]

I knew you were talking out your ass again.

When I make definitive statements I always back them up with links. You insult, then run and hide.

Nah. I asked you a question. You ran away.

I just like to highlight that because you’re a lying faggot.

Want a second chance?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Simp according to the 14th amendment section 3 it takes both the Congress and Senate to make the insurrection determination

it’s obvious that you’re trolling in the hopes of getting this thread turfed.
Loser play.

 

[Slade3200]

So back to the question. Show me where Trump was convicted of the crime of insurrection. As you said, it's a crime, and the defendant has a right to defend himself.

I answered that question. He wasn’t convicted of a crime involved with insurrection. That case is still pending.

Now I've given you nothing but straight and direct answers to you questions. Care to do the same in return? I had asked you about the reasoning the Senate gave for the acquittal... They said it should be settled in court after his term as president. This is an example of that, is it not?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Section 3 of the 14th amendment
You know that amendment you're trying to use and bastardize

You can stop spamming the board with New Shit You Just Learned about the constitution now. We get it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What a load of horse shit. You're gonna find out.

In what way?

 

[Synthaholic]

Thank you for your answers, but as you know, he was acquitted of "inciting an insurrection" by the Senate.

First, that was a political decision, not a legal one.

Second, Colorado is not excluding him for inciting an insurrection, and that is not the standard.

So your lame attempt at twisting words has failed.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Constitution...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

What does impeachment have to do with the court ruling?

 

[Lakhota]

Six Republicans? Hilarious!

 

[ThisIsMe]

If the left does it - and they do - then the other side will do it too

Sure, in most other things i say go for it. What’s good for the goose……

Just not at someone’s residence or on their private time..to me, that’s crossing a line.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're depriving people the right to vote for the person they want to. So what do you leftists call it now? Numbnuts

Yes, because he is ineligible. Holy shit.

If the people wanted to vote for Harry Styles for president they could not do that either. He's a foreign national and he's not yet 35 yrs old. Ineligible!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He's an idiot.

Sure.. but none of you have been able to make any sort of cogent argument.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

First, that was a political decision, not a legal one.

Second, Colorado is not excluding him for inciting an insurrection, and that is not the standard.

So your lame attempt at twisting words has failed.

Excuse me but I asked for a trial, and he mentioned the impeachment trial where Trump was acquitted and there is no conviction anywhere so you are the one with a great fail...

Trump is innocent of insurrection until proven guilty, and he's not even been charged with it.

 

[Synthaholic]

The SCOTUS is likely to at least grant an extended stay to prevent the enforcement of the Colorado Supreme Court decision beyond January 4, 2025.

And ultimately, by all means, I believe it almost a certainty that they will quash the manifestly lawless decision by the Colorado court.

The touted 'originalism' compels the conservative members of SCOTUS to uphold this decision. They have to look at what they meant at the time of writing.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Synthaholic]

Huh?! Where have you been this past year?! Trial was in Colorado and ended last month

No one in rightwing media told her!!!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Sorry but public spaces are public. Protest is allowed

Nope, outside someone’s home is disturbing the peace. Plus, you all completely misinterpret the constitution right to protest. It doesn’t say what you think it says.

It says nowhere that you have a right to harass people, or force them to listen to or be a part of your protest. It doesnt even say you have a right to protest “in general”. It says you have the right to PEACEABLY assemble to “PETITION THE GOVERNMENT” for the redress of grievances.


Now, that means your grievance should be directed toward the government, and, there’s some research to be done about the word “petition”, because, there are those who suggest that that doesn’t even mean you have the right to protest, but rather, “petition” meaning in the classical sense. You can gather people to create and sign an actual petition. A “protest” would be considered an unlawful and not “peaceable”.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, they shouldn’t. The proper place to petition your government, state, or federal, for the redress of grievances, is AT the government, not at their homes. In other words, picket the courthouse…but their homes should be off limits.

Besides, their neighbors shouldn’t have to suffer a mob shouting for hours on end because of something a judge did.

No, I think it should go through the appeals process and work through the system legally. Protesting outside of someone’s home isn’t killed going to have any affect other than to galvanize them.

I understand playing the lefts game the same as they do, but not at someone’s house…

If they follow the constitution, this should be overturned easily ..

For those lefty’s who upvoted this comment…would you also have the same opinion about people protesting outside McConnels house, or kavanaughs house ?