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

[citygator]

It requires Congress to make that call do come up to speed when you quote the 14th amendment

No it doesnt. It says congress can give a person a waiver.

 

[citygator]

/——/ Twitter took down this video. Why?

That was posted after the insurrection failed. Trump waited hours and hours and hours to see if they would succeed.

Trump watched Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot unfold on TV, ignored pleas to call for peace

Donald Trump sat for hours watching the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol unfold on live TV, ignoring pleas by his children and other close advisers to urge his supporters to stop the violence, witnesses told a congressional hearing on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Donald Trump sat for hours watching the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol unfold on live TV, ignoring pleas by his children and other close advisers to urge his supporters to stop the violence, witnesses told a congressional hearing on Thursday.

The House of Representatives Select Committee used its eighth hearing this summer to detail what members said was Trump's refusal to act for the 187 minutes between the end of his inflammatory speech at a rally urging supporters to march on the Capitol, and the release of a video telling them to go home.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

You expected more from MAGA?

 

[Hum Dinger]

No, the President isn't an officer. Again, it's a personal opinion that President Trump meant something different. You guys have screwed up again. Why not let the people decide. Your fear is plain for all to see. Don't you trust the American people? Democrats sure don't act like it.

I trust that there are a huge number of spoiled brats in America that are trying to install a dictator.

The 14th Amendment was created to override the Democratic process if a large number of Americans were going to vote for a traitorous asshole.

Remember - we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy!

You can deny Trump's intentions on Jan. 6, but I doubt SCOTUS will agree. 'Preponderance of the evidence' is all they need to bar Trump from holding office - and they have plenty of evidence!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

What importance do you place on a stay until Jan 5?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Uh… yeah it was held to give SCOTUS time to rule.

 

[BS Filter]

I trust that there are a huge number of spoiled brats in America that are trying to install a dictator.

The 14th Amendment was created to override the Democratic process if a large number of Americans were going to vote for a traitorous asshole.

Remember - we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy!

You can deny Trump's intentions on Jan. 6, but I doubt SCOTUS will agree. 'Preponderance of the evidence' is all they need to bar Trump from holding office - and they have plenty of evidence!

You better read that 14th amendment again. Nothing mentions a state Supreme Court banning anyone from running for President.

 

[kyzr]

He has been adjudicated as being such. All of your “nuh uhs“ or “nopes “ combined will not change that fact.

NUH-UH. NOPE. The CO Chief Justice says otherwise in his dissension.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."

 

[bodecea]

Uh… yeah it was held to give SCOTUS time to rule.

Actually in order to give the orange Jesus's minions...er...lawyers an opportunity to reply.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Hum Dinger]

You better read that 14th amendment again. Nothing mentions a state Supreme Court banning anyone from running for President.

State Supreme courts routinely rule on the Constitutionality of issues. That's a big part of their job.

According to the Constitution, the States Run Federal elections and have full authority over them. According to most State Constitutions, the Secretary of State for that state has absolute authority in determining if a person is qualified to be on the ballot.

However, Secretaries of State have asked for guidance from the State courts.

It's technically possible, but highly unlikely, that SCOTUS could decide that this is entirely a state's issue and leave it up to the 50 State Supreme Courts to each decide for their state.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You’re such a moron, and a sock, wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you are the “other” poster.

And nobody asked about the duration of a disqualification, you imbecile. Try to follow along with the actual conversation and there is a tiny hope you might not prove to be so singularly retarded every time you post.

And the ruling, so far, is limited tot the GOP primary ballot in Colorado

I’m not surprised you’re wrong. You usually are. I’m just wondering if you have any capability of ever being right.

Doubtful, Fakey.

The 14th amd dictates the penalty, dupe. The penalty is a lifetime disqualification unless he can get a 2/3 vote from both houses of Congress to override it.

There is nothing left to parse but you stupidly try anyway.

 

[1miseryindex]

Notice how the libs here flock to certain kinds of posts/threads

scrambling like cockroaches when the light comes on

 

[BS Filter]

State Supreme courts routinely rule on the Constitutionality of issues. That's a big part of their job.

According to the Constitution, the States Run Federal elections and have full authority over them. According to most State Constitutions, the Secretary of State for that state has absolute authority in determining if a person is qualified to be on the ballot.

However, Secretaries of State have asked for guidance from the State courts.

It's technically possible, but highly unlikely, that SCOTUS could decide that this is entirely a state's issue and leave it up to the 50 State Supreme Courts to each decide for their state.

This will be reversed simply because Trump hasn't had due process. He's never even been charged with insurrection.

 

[BS Filter]

The 14th amd dictates the penalty, dupe. The penalty is a lifetime disqualification unless he can get a 2/3 vote from both houses of Congress to override it.

There is nothing left to parse but you stupidly try anyway.

Trump has never been charged with insurrection.

 

[Hum Dinger]

This will be reversed simply because Trump hasn't had due process. He's never even been charged with insurrection.

Neither were any of the leaders on the Confederacy, yet the 14th amendment was directed at them.

Once again, this is not a criminal charge, it does not require 'Due Process', it only requires 'preponderance of the evidence'.

All SCOTUS needs is to consider the evidence and decide that it is more likely than not that Trump intended an insurrection.

 

[bodecea]

Notice how the libs here flock to certain kinds of posts/threads

scrambling like cockroaches when the light comes on

And? Here you are too.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you think? Should they be tormented outside their homes?

Based on heir treatment of Supreme Court justices, progs believe they should be.

 

[BS Filter]

Neither were any of the leaders on the Confederacy, yet the 14th amendment was directed at them.

Once again, this is not a criminal charge, it does not require 'Due Process', it only requires 'preponderance of the evidence'.

All SCOTUS needs is to consider the evidence and decide that it is more likely than not that Trump intended an insurrection.

Trump clearly stated to protest peacefully and patriotically. Those aren't the words of an insurrection.

 

[bripat9643]

Neither were any of the leaders on the Confederacy, yet the 14th amendment was directed at them.

Once again, this is not a criminal charge, it does not require 'Due Process', it only requires 'preponderance of the evidence'.

Says who?

All SCOTUS needs is to consider the evidence and decide that it is more likely than not that Trump intended an insurrection.

I haven's seen any legal expert make that claim.