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

[Lesh]

I would be forced to accept it, just saying that it would be a horrible decision for the future of our country.

Glad to hear that you aren’t going to storm the Court ala Jan 6

 

[DBA]

So basically land area gets to vote rather than people get to vote

People outside of large urban areas have different concerns and should be represented as well. It isn't as if CA doesn't get more electoral votes than Wyoming. The huge populous areas still have have a more meaningful vote.

 

[Faun]

Cutting and pasting cartoons is not an argument.

See post #1499.

 

[DBA]

Glad to hear that you aren’t going to storm the Court ala Jan 6

Everyone should be appalled if that is their decision. Storming the capital shouldn't be necessary, but completely overhauling the system should be in order.

 

[Faun]

LOL. According to who?

According to the definition of due process.

 

[ColonelAngus]

He was sued. His lawyers represented him at trial. Who knows how you think he had lawyers at a trial unless he was notified he was being sued?

As far as when was the trial... if I'm not mistaken, it started in September. And it wasn't for insurrection, it was over ineligibility to hold public office.

You think SCOTUS will agree with you?

Why do you want Trump off the ballot so much? You have said he cannot win a general election. You were lying, huh?

 

[Hollie]

He was sued. His lawyers represented him at trial. Who knows how you think he had lawyers at a trial unless he was notified he was being sued?

As far as when was the trial... if I'm not mistaken, it started in September.

Was Trump sued and no one told him? That’s strange, that would mean due process was not met. You’re having difficulty understanding the requirement for notice which is a fundamental component of due process. What was Trump sued for?

We’re still left with you making specious, nonsense claims about some trial you claim occurred yet you can’t identify any evidence for this trial happening.

That makes for a really buffoonish attempt at argument.

Maybe stick with cutting and pasting cartoons?

 

[Hollie]

According to the definition of due process.

The definition you don’t understand.

 

[Faun]

People who have been convicted. Accusations are not tantamount to conviction.

Nope, there were people who were NOT convicted of insurrection who were banned from holding public office.

Sorry, you're the kind of idiot who is inviting a civil war.

I've been hearing that threat from you tards for years now. What's holding you back?

 

[kyzr]

According to the definition of due process.

According to your interpretation of the definition of due process.

According to the CO Chief Justice's interpretation you are wrong.
"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."

We'll soon see what the USSC says on the matter.

 

[ColonelAngus]

So basically land area gets to vote rather than people get to vote

So your vision of democracy has fewer choices.

Biden is a foreign asset. Should he be pulled of the ballot?

 

[Care4all]

Trump has not been found guilty of any of those things. It’s not up to a state court to determine he has without a trial giving him his rights to due process.

There’s no way the SCOTUS will allow a presidential nominee to be stripped of his Constitutional rights and kicked off the ballot. At worst, it will be 6-3.

As stated many times, the precise wording in the 14th, with no additions or subtractions, DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONVICTION, of inciting, aiding the enemy, a rebellion or insurrection....

AND those prevented from holding office again, were given no trial or due process, it was self evident.

There is an allotment in the section 3 that gives an objector their due process for his objection...

The Congress can reverse the decision to keep the traitorous previous oath pledger from holding office again, thru 2/3s on the U.S. Congress voting to override the section 3 provisions from the candidate....and allowing him to run.

 

[Faun]

True. However the CO Chief Justice said that "due process" was not adequate. We'll soon see if the USSC agrees.

"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."

He had to ignore the precedence set to reach that conclusion.

 

[Coyote]

Okay my fellow MAGAs and law abiding citizens. Should they be given the treatment like Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett got outside their homes by radical leftists? They've been identified. They've committed treachery!

Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

The unelected justices of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the people of Colorado cannot vote for former President Donald Trump on the ballot for the 2024 presidential election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Is that like the treachery the courts committed in Florida…Gore v Bush…hanging chads…? Like that? Seems to me that you LIKED that one.

 

[Hollie]

See post #1499.

Your best contributions are cut and paste cartoons.

“A man’s got to know his limitations “

Clint Eastwood

 

[ColonelAngus]

Glad to hear that you aren’t going to storm the Court ala Jan 6

But you are not concerned about 5/29. Why?

 

[kyzr]

He had to ignore the precedence set to reach that conclusion.

He didn't have to ignore anything. He knows that the sham "trial" was not adequate regarding "due process".
The USSC will clarify.

 

[Faun]

Was Trump sued and no one told him? That’s strange, that would mean due process was not met. You’re having difficulty understanding the requirement for notice which is a fundamental component of due process. What was Trump sued for?

We’re still left with you making specious, nonsense claims about some trial you claim occurred yet you can’t identify any evidence for this trial happening.

That makes for a really buffoonish attempt at argument.

Maybe stick with cutting and pasting cartoons?

If no one told him he was being sued, how'd he know to have lawyers present at his trial?

If you want to know what he was sued for, read the lawsuit...

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-06-08-43-07-Anderson-v-Griswold-Verified-Petition-2023.09.06.pdf

 

[gipper]

As stated many times, the precise wording in the 14th, with no additions or subtractions, DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONVICTION, of inciting, aiding the enemy, a rebellion or insurrection....

AND those prevented from holding office again, were given no trial of due process, it was self evident.

There is an allotment in the section 3 that gives an objector their due process for his objection...

The Congress can reverse the decision to keep the traitorous previous oath pledger from holding office again, thru 2/3s on the U.S. Congress voting to override the section 3 provisions from the candidate....and allowing him to run.

This ruling could have usual consequences. A court in the future could rule a D potus candidate said or did something they consider insurrectionist, and remove that candidate from the ballot.

Could not Joe‘s speech attacking Americans be considered insurrectionist?

 

[Coyote]

You will find out soon enough just how wrong you are when the SC knocks this ruling down.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary to keep large cities from running the show as they see fit. God only knows that I don't want to live like people in those areas.

Unfortunately it has led to a tyranny of a minority of people that no longer represent the majority of America. I am not sure that is a good thing either in states or the nation.