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

[Nostra]

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.

It requires someone to have participated in an insurrection. The way to determine that in the US is thru a trial and conviction.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.......

 

[Slade3200]

Judges do NOT get to make that call. Only Congress can do so.

Otherwise, what’s to stop the Courts in Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, etc., etc., from looking at the evidence and making the ruling that Biden is an insurrectionist by inviting an invasion of foreigners in and thus is ineligible to run?

They are welcome to bring that case. It won’t withstand the letter of the law. But go for it

 

[Marener]

If they don't, it is officially the end of any fair elections in our country.

Since when do Republicans care about fair elections? Your party tried to change the rules of the 2020 election after people voted. Your red states asked the Supreme Court to take blue states out of the electoral college. Your president tried to have Mike Pence withhold votes.

 

[GLASNOST]

Because he should be on trial for treason and if found guilty should be put to death. So he should consider himself lucky. Two courts have said he is a insurrectionist and insurrectionist can't be candidate , its simple , If you are a criminal piece of shit like Trump you can't be a candidate , Just follow the constitution. We aren't the feeling nation like the MAGA maggots.

Combining this sort of superlative-wielding mentality with support for the geriatric zombie called Biden makes it obvious that Trump is the last defense against total madness.

 

[Faun]

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?

I think they'll agree with my position he had due process. Otherwise, they would have to ignore about a century and a half of precedence. I believe if they overturn this decision, it will be on grounds of the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the president. Not on grounds he was denied due process.

 

[Hollie]

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

You didn’t read what you copied and pasted.

There was no mention of suit for damages or for redress.

When was the trial date? You insist there was a trial yet you know that is a nonsense claim but you insist on spamming the thread with nonsense claims.

 

[Faun]

The definition you don’t understand.

Nope. You're the one who doesn't know Trump had a trial. You're literally arguing from a position of ignorance.

 

[Nostra]

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?

Insurrection has no well defined legal definition, so yes it could be insurrection.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I think they'll agree with my position he had due process. Otherwise, they would have to ignore about a century and a half of precedence. I believe if they overturn this decision, it will be on grounds of the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the president. Not on grounds he was denied due process.

What was Trump’s sentence for being convicted of sedition in a court of law and judged by a jury of his peers? I missed the trial.

 

[Hollie]

Nope. You're the one who doesn't know Trump had a trial. You're literally arguing from a position of ignorance.

You continue to spam the thread with claims there was a trial yet you can’t identify the date of the trial.

Did you fall down and bump your head before you heard voices telling you about a trial?

 

[Meathead]

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



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

Show me. I can't imagine.

 

[Nostra]

What's next? Civil trials for murder? Why can't someone bring a civil suit claiming someone is guilty of murder and locking him up for life using a much lower bar for proof than there is in a criminal court?

 

[Nostra]

I say we lock Tater up for being guilty of incestuous pedophilia based on his daughter's diary. Should be plenty of evidence for a civil trial.

LOCK HIM UP!

 

[Marener]

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.

Im not wrong, and have no problem believing the SC will reverse the ruling. It’s funny to see you guys get your panties all twisted over something that doesn’t matter.

 

[Marener]

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

No. Any other stupid questions?

 

[TheParser]

When the votes are counted next November, Republicans may thank those four Colorado justices.

 

[Hollie]

Im not wrong, and have no problem believing the SC will reverse the ruling. It’s funny to see you guys get your panties all twisted over something that doesn’t matter.

Of course it matters. It matters because the Dems / Socialists are willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to subvert the electoral process.

 

[Faun]

You didn’t read what you copied and pasted.

There was no mention of suit for damages or for redress.

Just how illiterate are you? There was no mention of damages because they weren't seeking damages. And their redress was clearly spelled out as they sought to have him disqualified to run against other Republicans for POTUS.

When was the trial date? You insist there was a trial yet you know that is a nonsense claim but you insist on spamming the thread with nonsense claims.

I was wrong about September. The trial began on October 30th...

Colorado Trial Considers Whether the 14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump

Some constitutional experts argue that a clause in the amendment should bar Donald J. Trump from becoming president again, but that view is far from universal among legal scholars.

www.nytimes.com

Something the nation has never seen before began playing out in a Denver courtroom Monday morning: a trial to determine whether a major party’s likely presidential nominee is eligible to be president at all.

[...]

Sarah B. Wallace, the state district court judge presiding over the case, rejected multiple requests from Mr. Trump and from the Colorado Republican State Central Committee in recent weeks to dismiss the case without a trial.​

And you'll note [hopefully], Trump submitted motions to dismiss the case. Which begs the question... how did Trump know to submit those motions if he wasn't notified about the trial???

 

[Marener]

Of course it matters. It matters because the Dems / Socialists are willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to subvert the electoral process.

No, that was Trump. He was willing to lie, cheat and steal to take the election in 2020.

Dems didnt lie in their case. They argued that Trump is responsible for the riot and that constituted insurrection. The court agreed.

 

[Lisa558]

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.

Again, biased state courts cannot accuse someone of insurrection, or any other crime he didn’t commit, and “judge” that he did, without due process, and use that to keep opponents they don’t want off the ballot.

And the only traitor is the one currently in office who swore to protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, and then is welcoming in millions of illegals who lower the caliber of the country and soak up resources needed by lawful citizens.