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

[Jim H - VA USA]

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?

On the contrary, your answers have proven my points. Trump was denied due process and the unjust decision attacking the foundations of Democracy will be vacated.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

You have less than zero clue on the topic.

“Originalism” doesn’t mean what a moron like you imagines it means.

Since you have chosen to throw around a word which you obviously don’t understand, maybe you can explain how the original text and understanding of the original text somehow requires a Justice to agree with you that the 14th Amendment (a) applies to a President at all or (b) can be applied to him (even if it passes the first part) without a conviction?

 

[Synthaholic]

Section 3 says otherwise numbnuts

Nope. And since you refuse to post it, highlight what you are talking about, and explaining what they mean, you obviously have nothing.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

That's about impeachment, not insurrection.

FAIL

 

[Synthaholic]

When did it become law to not allow a person on a ballot even though said person has not been convicted?

Taylor Swift hasn't been convicted of anything, yet she still can't be on the ballot. Because she doesn't meet the Constitutional age requirement. Trump doesn't meet the "haven't engaged in insurrection" requirement.

 

[Synthaholic]

You just said the insurrection was “established.” So Democrats get to establish things that aren’t proven?

It was proven in a Colorado court of law. It was proven by the J6 Committee.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ben Shapiro...not the biggest Trump supporter...but here he is defending Donald Trump...

Yes, but he's an idiot who just talks fast.

 

[Synthaholic]

You mean the lying fucking scumbags who DESTROYED the "evidence" they created out of thin air?

The fuckers that doctored the audio, and the video?

And you wonder why no one watched the idiotic leftard clown parade?

Thanks for proving my point, retard.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We are told the original intent of this part of the 14th was to keep former members of the Confederacy from holding national office, yet those same people were never tried and found guilty

And this is no longer a civil war, which is what the 14th amendment was written for. The 14th amendment was written to quell and punish civil war activity and stop ACTUAL insurrection…as in, people with guns violently trying to take over the government.

The insurrection and rebellion act was written in 1948, long after the civil war.

In the legal sense, trump would have to be charged and comvicted of insurrection. We don’t want a court just “deeming” that someone committed insurrection because they just feel like they did.

And yet, nobody has actually been charged with insurrection…

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

The only thing I want from you is for you to back up your bullshit, with case law.

You won't because you can't, Shitty Lawyer.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Was there any doubt that Jeff Davis engaged in insurrection?

His membership in a government that was engaged in that act removes that doubt.

The same is true of those who fought in the Confederate armies.

As I have said, it is less clear in the case of Trump.

David was charged with treason, right? Because he led an actual rebellion against the United States.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

A conviction in a court of law is not the requirement!

Holy shit.

 

[Robert W]

Taylor Swift hasn't been convicted of anything, yet she still can't be on the ballot. Because she doesn't meet the Constitutional age requirement. Trump doesn't meet the "haven't engaged in insurrection" requirement.

Trump didn't do that.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

You've been here since 2017, so please show us one post from you decrying all the Trumpers who camped outside of Michigan SoS Jocelyn Benson. If you cannot, you can shut the fuck up right now about protesters outside people's residences.

Dozens of armed "stop the steal" protesters threaten Michigan Secretary of State outside her house​

 

[BackAgain]

The only thing I want from you is for you to back up your bullshit, with case law.

You won't because you can't, l

I don’t give a crap what a dimwit cocksucker like you wants. One thing or more.

Here’s my my precondition: admit to me right here on the open Board that you need to have the answer provided to you because you’re too ignorant to know it otherwise.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They followed the law and the constitution. IS that a crime now?

They didn’t follow the law. They twisted it out of all recognition making worst case assumptions to rule that a person who hasn’t even been charged with insurrection was guilty without even a trial. What they did was like executing someone for murder before charges were even levied. Not a single person has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of that crime.

 

[Synthaholic]

“Originalism” doesn’t mean what a moron like you imagines it means.

Originalism = what they meant at the time of writing.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump didn't do that.

In the dimwitted world of brain dead libturd hacks like Synthia, proof of his claim isn’t required.

In his limited tiny little ignorant brain, he has made the claim and “therefore”Trump is disqualified.

And no. He doesn’t grasp how retarded that is.

 

[Robert W]

Yes, but he's an idiot who just talks fast.

Well, so anti semitic. He is a lawyer. He is very good knowing the law. Many humans talk fast.
Celebrate the non event of course. It is not even in force yet. It will remain stayed while appealed. It is a nothing burger now.

 

[AZrailwhale]

There is no election interference. The election will be held. Republicans will be on the ballot.

Trump will be on the ballot in Colorado. The Republicans have already said if necessary they won’t even have a primary, they will go the caucus route and the court can’t regulate the internal decisions of a political party. These idiots have shot themselves in the foot AGAIN. Every time they do something stupid like this support grows for Trump among the independents who actually decide elections.