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

[Robert W]

Lazy argument… were all of the confederate officials during the civil war charged with insurrection in court?

Give a straight answer as I’ve done for you with your leading questions

You are attempting to change the facts for what purpose?

 

[Slade3200]

Fortunately as of now, that decision is stayed and the next we will hear is the USSC invalidated the decision currently stayed. It is strange the Democrats think this nothing burger matters.

Oh I think the commentators are playing the same gotchya games that the right plays on a daily basis.

 

[WEATHER53]

View attachment 876700 ...worst "insurrection" ever...

Look at that half dozen real scary people that were taking over the government
Lib 101

 

[Slade3200]

You are attempting to change the facts for what purpose?

I was just asking a question. What facts do you think I’m trying to change?

 

[BackAgain]

Yes it is. What’s your point

Possibly that a state court isn’t a proper judicial forum to charge federal crimes.

This is especially true when the state doesn’t even bother to charge the crime.

We know you’re retarded. But still, you and your fellow shallow libturd hacks can never quite answer the obvious question:

If the 14th Amendment says a candidate is disqualified when he has engaged in an insurrection, what is required to legally and properly establish that the challenged candidate did ever “engage” in an insurrection?

Some random judge after considering some alleged “evidence” in a mere hearing? Morons like you are presently contending exactly that. That our U.S. Constitution allows a one mere state lower court judge to make a call affecting the possible disqualification of a major federal office candidate based on dubious “evidence” in a mere hearing.

Sure. That’s what the framers of the 14th had in mind.

 

[Robert W]

Oh I think the commentators are playing the same gotchya games that the right plays on a daily basis.

Over an order that for all practical purposes does not exist? It is in a hold position. It simply is noise now.

 

[bodecea]

Should Democrats be pleased they got a ruling that is stayed?

Wouldn't be happy...but wouldn't encourage threats either like the OP is doing.

 

[Robert W]

I was just asking a question. What facts do you think I’m trying to change?

Dragging in a distant past event as were it like that ruling. I could illustrate if you do not know what I mean.

 

[Robert W]

Wouldn't be happy...but wouldn't encourage threats either like the OP is doing.

There is nothing to threaten. I am not concerned as I believe the ruling at CO will be overturned in DC.

 

[Slade3200]

Possibly that a state court isn’t a proper judicial forum to charge federal crimes

Nobody was trying to charge a federal crime in a state court

 

[Slade3200]

If the 14th Amendment says a candidate is disqualified when he has engaged in an insurrection, what is required to legally and properly establish that the challenged candidate did ever “engage” in an insurrection?

Some random judge after considering some alleged “evidence” in a mere hearing? Morons like you are presently contending exactly that. That our U.S. Constitution allows a one mere state lower court judge to make a call affecting the possible disqualification of a major federal office candidate based on dubious “evidence” in a mere hearing.

Sure. That’s what the framers of the 14th had in mind.

Yes, exactly that. A court case where arguments are made, evidence collected and deliberations made. That’s exactly what the framers have in mind.

Dress it up with whatever belittling insults you want. In the end it’s our legal system. That’s how it works

 

[BackAgain]

Nobody was trying to charge a federal crime in a state court

Right. No criminal charges were filed.

So without the benefit of even the protections accorded to actual criminal defendants, a state court has now ruled that Trump engaged in an “insurrection.”

Not even after a trial. After a mere civil case pre trial hearing.

And you’re fine with that. We all know why. You’re a hack.

 

[Slade3200]

Dragging in a distant past event as were it like that ruling. I could illustrate if you do not know what I mean.

It’s the foundation of the constitutional amendments are you saying that isn’t relevant in how it’s applied in todays courtrooms??

 

[BS Filter]

Of course it was a trial. It was a court case which is literally the definition of a trial. You're trying way to hard to play word games for gotchya cause you can’t make any real arguments

You really need to study the dictionary cause your confuse in basic definitions. Start with insurrection and then look up trial.

Trial by jury.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, exactly that. A court case where arguments are made, evidence collected and deliberations made. That’s exactly what the framers have in mind.

Nope. For people other than confederate soldiers and leaders, they likely don’t have any of this crap in mind. But, still, if they had even contemplated such a use of the 14h, they wouldn’t have imagined that such a determination could be made in a State court at all for a federal office. And they absolutely would have envisioned a trial. Here, as you’ve been informed, there was no trial. Just a pre-trial “hearing.”

Dress it up with whatever belittling insults you want. In the end it’s our legal system. That’s how it works

Wrong. That is not how our legal system works nornianithow it is supposed to work.

Your spin is based on your fantasy and on your ignorance.

What happened in Colorado is a disgrace to the name of the American judicial system. Thank God we have a SCOTUS to overturn that abomination of a ruling.

 

[otto105]

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

When they reject our founding principle of peaceful transfer of power bob.

 

[Robert W]

When they reject our founding principle of peaceful transfer of power bob.

Are you selling the con job that on January 6 power changes? Why then have the change happen 2 weeks later? Who believes that Biden got in by his minions fighting anybody else?

 

[Robert W]

It’s the foundation of the constitutional amendments are you saying that isn’t relevant in how it’s applied in todays courtrooms??

You changed the topic to being about Confederates. So now lets hear why you did that.
If you want to tie in the SC decision known as Dred Scott v Sandford case, be my guest. This case nailed the lid on the notion that slavery was then legal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Suction 3"....

Section 3 numbnuts but you knew what I was saying

 

[Robert W]

When they reject our founding principle of peaceful transfer of power bob.

Let's discuss that should it ever happen.