Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I rightly don't know. Neither is it really relevant to my argument. Your fear is that the precedent set will lead to abuse. I'm pointing out that the amendment has been on the books for quite a long time and hasn't been invoked until now in modern times.Were those elected officials or appointed officials?
As my personal opinion, I think those judges are right. I also think SCOTUS is likely to overturn. Finding a way to interpret the text in another way than how it was set up. That's something I'm fine with. Because I'm uncomfortable with the notion of using a statute in the Constitution, put in in response to the Civil War to now prevent Trump from running. I have a problem with the amendment not the interpretation of those judges
They can be accused all day. But a case would have to make it through court to be validated. Like with most everything else in our legal justice systemI hope not because if that is true, or believed to be true, candidates up and down the line will be accused just to stop people from voting.
I think this is clear enough to not include some random BS.
That is the opinion of FindLaw, it's not a legal definition.
www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com
That's a matter of opinion, I suppose? The 4 justices, reviewed all the live video from that day, and all of the evidence gathered from the 1/6 House investigation, and all of Trump's tweets prior to and including that day, and the Republican Congress critters plan for that day, and the FAKE elector scheme for that day, and the trump phone calls made to Raffensberger etc...and determined the preponderance of EVIDENCE documented, lead them to believe that there was a multi faceted, attempted insurrection or Rebellion, to illegally install the loser candidate, in to power.Except there’s no insurrectionist. There was never an insurrection.
It includes all who have taken an oath of office.The word president is not contained in that section 3. If you see it, please inform all of us.
Of course it could be.
It includes all who have taken an oath of office.
Well, this is interesting.But like with the civil war and insurrection, like you said in the beginning. It’s all pretty obvious
www.businessinsider.com
Judges do NOT get to make that call. Only Congress can do so.Judges get to make that call, BackAgain , just as judges are making calls every day about whether someone is guilty or not guilty.
They looked at the evidence, which is abundant, and made a ruling based on the evidence, and based on the law.
Even a Shitty Lawyer should know this simple fact.
No surprise. There are Republicans who hate Trump.Well, this is interesting.
Turns out the lawsuit that opened the Colorado case was filed by six people: Two unaffiliated voters, four Republican voters.
Go figure.
Why 4 GOP voters filed the lawsuit that eventually disqualified Trump from the Colorado 2024 primary ballot
Some of the petitioners in the lawsuit that threatens Donald Trump's placement on the ballots have played prominent roles in Colorado politics.
The lead plaintiff, Anderson, 91, is a former state legislator who served as a Republican in Colorado's House of Representatives and state Senate.
"As Norma likes to say, she has been a Republican for longer than most of her lawyers have been alive," Sherman said.
What we see is how Democrats violate the constituion to keep Trump from winning.Lisa, Lisa and the cult jam.
That song is tired, honey
Yes, there are quite a few Republicans who hate what he has done to their party.No surprise. There are Republicans who hate Trump.
Or what about that he took bribes from China and thus allowed them to fly their spy balloon across the entire country?Exactly. Meanwhile, other states will be removing Biden from their ballots over the border issue.
And Democrats who hate what Biden has done to their country.Yes, there are quite a few Republicans who hate what he has done to their party.
The SCOTUS will determine that….not some anonymous leftist on a message board.“Election Interference”
That’s a lie.
The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling is perfectly warranted and Constitutional.
And the law states that Congress decides who is an insurrectionist. Not a biased Democrat state court.You say you don’t know because you weren’t there but then you claim all these things about the justices… did you hear that stuff on right wing hate media? That’s pretty selective belief.
Aside from pretending to know the hearts and minds of judges we always have the law and the facts to rely on. Let’s just stick to discussing that stuff shall we?
That's a matter of opinion, I suppose? The 4 justices, reviewed all the live video from that day, and all of the evidence gathered from the 1/6 House investigation, and all of Trump's tweets prior to and including that day, and the Republican Congress critters plan for that day, and the FAKE elector scheme for that day, and the trump phone calls made to Raffensberger etc...and determined the preponderance of EVIDENCE documented, lead them to believe that there was a multi faceted, attempted insurrection or Rebellion, to illegally install the loser candidate, in to power.
That’s the problem - it’s a matter of OPINION.That's a matter of opinion, I suppose? The 4 justices, reviewed all the live video from that day, and all of the evidence gathered from the 1/6 House investigation, and all of Trump's tweets prior to and including that day, and the Republican Congress critters plan for that day, and the FAKE elector scheme for that day, and the trump phone calls made to Raffensberger etc...and determined the preponderance of EVIDENCE documented, lead them to believe that there was a multi faceted, attempted insurrection or Rebellion, to illegally install the loser candidate, in to power.
It’s impossible to PROVE someone voted because of bias, but that isn’t necessary here. All that’s necessary is that they voted in violation of the U.S. Constitution. And it’s obvious they did.Can I ask. Does being politically active prevent a judge from actually arguing the law?
What about a personal dislike of the person they judge?
My point is this. Even IF you can establish that those judges are politically active, you still need to establish that they ruled because of bias.
As I understand it, all the judges in the Colorado Supreme Court are Democrats. All of them. Yet of those 7 only 4 decided that Trump was ineligible. Doesn't that mean that regardless of political affiliation at least some ruled for Trump? And if that's the case how do you determine that bias and not their reading of the law informed the decision of the other ones.
In my view the only way you do that is by going by the outcome. And if that's how you do it, the entire premise is unfalsifiable.
I see a lot of opinions in this post stated as assertions.It’s impossible to PROVE someone voted because of bias, but that isn’t necessary here. All that’s necessary is that they voted in violation of the U.S. Constitution. And it’s obvious they did.
The only reason the SCOTUS isn’t ruling this down today, rather than a couple of weeks from now, is that it’s Christmas and New Year time, and they need a few days in there somewhere to write their opinions. If this happened during a non-holiday time, it would be knocked down almost immediately.
How is it ridiculous? They voted on the grounds that Trump is an insurrectionist, when there was never an insurrection.I see a lot of opinions in this post stated as assertions.
I don't know how SCOTUS will rule on this. As I stated before I suspect they will shoot it down. Having said that how the statute is written in my opinion Trump indeed committed an insurrection and the question truly will be hanging on the interpretation of the word "officer."
However stating that it's obvious they voted in violation of the Constitution is nonsense.
