Former US Attorney says SCOTUS will overturn Trump Colorado decision 9-0. Guesses?

[marvin martian]

I keep reading how the Supreme Court will certainly overturn the decision. But I have asked the question several times. So I’ll ask it again.

What if the Supreme’s don’t overturn the decision?



There is limited precedent on this issue. It just hasn’t come up before. One of those tangential precedents is a case from Colorado which pulled a guy from the ballot. An appeals court judge said it was right to do so under the Constitution. That judge was Neil Gorsuch. That man is now a Supreme Court Justice. Appointed by Donald Trump.

The Colorado Secretary of State is out of office now. He has a private practice. And he is currently representing Donald Trump trying to argue the precedent he set doesn’t apply.

I’m being honest. I don’t know. The text of the 14th seems clear. In arguing against it Conservatives today sound like the apologists of Bill Clinton. It depends on your definition of the word “is”. Those hair splitting legal arguments were denounced by Conservatives at the time who argued that the plain and simple truth was that Clinton lied under oath.

I don’t know how the Supremes will rule. I don’t know if they will overturn or uphold. There are arguments for and against both actions. I don’t know how they will rule. I’ve written that to insure it meets the approval of the Department of Redundancy Department.

Earlier I posted this in another thread.

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind

The strongest argument for throwing Trump off the ballot is the weakness of the counterarguments.

www.theatlantic.com

The lawyer writing that argues the dissents were specious. They lacked any decent arguments. One gets the impression that the argument against excluding Trump was in essence. I don’t want to do that.

So I don’t know. I’m curious as to how it turns out. I’m still listening to the arguments. They seem to be reaching the point of diminishing returns.

My question still stands. What if the Supremes uphold?

Texas is planning for this outcome. If the SCOTUS declines or upholds, the Texas AG will be petitioning the state supreme court to remove Joe Biden from the ballot. I assume many other red states (and blue states with conservative courts) will follow.

This is what you wanted.

 

[SavannahMann]

Notice how NO ONE can actually link to documents, rulings, videos, or transcripts of this "trial" they all insist took place?

That's a cult for you.

I can. Here is the first. You can watch all five days of the trial.

Former President Trump 14th Amendment Hearing in Colorado, Day 1, Part 1

Washington, D.C., police officer Danny Hodges testified in this portion of the Second Judicial District Court trial determining former President Trump's eligibility to be on the ballot in Colorado. The petitioners argued the 14th Amendment disqualifies him because of his perceived role in the...

www.c-span.org

Amazing that you couldn’t find it on Google. I assume it will take at least a day and a half for you to watch all five days. I would hate to think you wouldn’t watch it all after deriding people for not handing it to you on a silver platter.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is either due process of law or there is no law. You seem to be advocating no law. No law is the end of this country. While it can , and is being triggered by one man, it is not about one man.

That is just it. The 14th says people involved in an insurrection are barred from holding office.

No one has a right to high office. You can’t argue it’s my turn.

 

[marvin martian]

I can. Here is the first. You can watch all five days of the trial.

Former President Trump 14th Amendment Hearing in Colorado, Day 1, Part 1

Washington, D.C., police officer Danny Hodges testified in this portion of the Second Judicial District Court trial determining former President Trump's eligibility to be on the ballot in Colorado. The petitioners argued the 14th Amendment disqualifies him because of his perceived role in the...

www.c-span.org

Amazing that you couldn’t find it on Google. I assume it will take at least a day and a half for you to watch all five days. I would hate to think you wouldn’t watch it all after deriding people for not handing it to you on a silver platter.

That's not a trial, it's a hearing. A trial includes the defendant and their representation being allowed to testify and present evidence in their defense (a.k.a. due process). Do you understand the difference?

What you provided is simply the opinions of a few government representatives.

 

[ozro]

I can. Here is the first. You can watch all five days of the trial.

Former President Trump 14th Amendment Hearing in Colorado, Day 1, Part 1

Washington, D.C., police officer Danny Hodges testified in this portion of the Second Judicial District Court trial determining former President Trump's eligibility to be on the ballot in Colorado. The petitioners argued the 14th Amendment disqualifies him because of his perceived role in the...

www.c-span.org

Amazing that you couldn’t find it on Google. I assume it will take at least a day and a half for you to watch all five days. I would hate to think you wouldn’t watch it all after deriding people for not handing it to you on a silver platter.

A trial is something where the accused has the right to confront his accusers. This was a hearing, and that right was denied the accused. Hell, he was not even present.. ...
That's why this will not stand.

 

[ozro]

That is just it. The 14th says people involved in an insurrection are barred from holding office.

No one has a right to high office. You can’t argue it’s my turn.

Holding someone responsible for a crime they were never convicted of is not constitutional.

 

[Lisa558]

Notice how NO ONE can actually link to documents, rulings, videos, or transcripts of this "trial" they all insist took place?

That's a cult for you.

They’re running in circles. They’re saying that the judges in CO used the “trial“ to establish that Trump was an insurrectionist, and then when you ask what trial, they say the trial the CO judges had - which of course was not a trial.

 

[Lisa558]

A trial is something where the accused has the right to confront his accusers. This was a hearing, and that right was denied the accused. Hell, he was not even present.. ...
That's why this will not stand.

Exactly! When you go to the link, it’s even labeled a hearing.

There are a number of words libtards don’t understand: trial, insurrection, racist, apartheid, and Zionist. The sad thing is they’re so blinded by their ignorance and so close-minded by their arrogance that they won’t even listen to anyone outside their echo chamber.

I repeat: there was no trial.

 

[marvin martian]

They’re running in circles. They’re saying that the judges in CO used the trial to establish that Trump was an insurrectionist, and then when you ask what trial, they say the trial the CO judges had - which of course was not a trial.

All they have is a unilateral "hearing", which has nothing to do with a trial, it's just a different version of the due process-free "decision" the court issued.

It's a joke.

 

[Lisa558]

That is just it. The 14th says people involved in an insurrection are barred from holding office.

No one has a right to high office. You can’t argue it’s my turn.

But there was never a trial that established that Trump was an insurrectionist. A handful of Democrats can’t just say so.

 

[Lisa558]

All they have is a unilateral "hearing", which has nothing to do with a trial, it's just a different version of the due process-free "decision" the court issued.

It's a joke.

They’re nuts.

 

[BlueGin]

6-3, with the dumb liberal bitches voting with their emotions instead of the facts.

Speaking of dumb bitches, let’s see which ones laugh at this post.

Clearly it’s the dumb bitch that can’t spell Starsky right.

 

[marvin martian]

But there was never a trial that established that Trump was an insurrectionist. A handful of Democrats can’t just say so.

They can, but the SCOTUS is going to show them why that's idiotic.

 

[SavannahMann]

That's not a trial, it's a hearing. A trial includes the defendant and their representation being allowed to testify and present evidence in their defense (a.k.a. due process). Do you understand the difference?

What you provided is simply the opinions of a few government representatives.

Due process is guaranteed when the subject or defendant is deprived of life, liberty, or property.

There is no constitutional guarantee that anyone has a right to be President. Service is an honor not is an honor to serve. Not a right. We are not honored to have them serve in office. They are honored to serve.

And if you are so interested in due process why is everyone trying to prevent a trial, any criminal trial, from taking place?

No one has a right to be President. Due process is mandated when rights are restricted or removed. There is no right to be President. It is an honor to serve.

 

[SavannahMann]

But there was never a trial that established that Trump was an insurrectionist. A handful of Democrats can’t just say so.

Point to the part of the constitution that says someone, anyone, has a right to be President. Show me what right is being restricted or removed.

 

[ozro]

Due process is guaranteed when the subject or defendant is deprived of life, liberty, or property.

There is no constitutional guarantee that anyone has a right to be President. Service is an honor not is an honor to serve. Not a right. We are not honored to have them serve in office. They are honored to serve.

And if you are so interested in due process why is everyone trying to prevent a trial, any criminal trial, from taking place?

No one has a right to be President. Due process is mandated when rights are restricted or removed. There is no right to be President. It is an honor to serve.

Due process is the right of anyone accused of a crime under US law.
While nobody has the right to be president, as you say, nobody has the right to deny anyone the right to run for office unless they have been convicted of a crime by due process.

 

[marvin martian]

Due process is guaranteed when the subject or defendant is deprived of life, liberty, or property.

There is no constitutional guarantee that anyone has a right to be President. Service is an honor not is an honor to serve. Not a right. We are not honored to have them serve in office. They are honored to serve.

And if you are so interested in due process why is everyone trying to prevent a trial, any criminal trial, from taking place?

No one has a right to be President. Due process is mandated when rights are restricted or removed. There is no right to be President. It is an honor to serve.

So you admit the Star Chamber sham you linked to isn't a trial?

Stop lying about it.

 

[Lisa558]

Point to the part of the constitution that says someone, anyone, has a right to be President. Show me what right is being restricted or removed.

Oh please. A handful of Democrat judges can’t just claim that Trump is an insurrectionist and remove him from the ballot without his due process.

Otherwise, every red state could claim Biden is an insurrectionist and remove him from THEIR ballots.

And all American citizens would be disenfranchised, and the president no longer elected by the people.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It should be 9-0. It will probably by 7-2.

I have no faith in a Justice who is too stupid to know what a woman is.

My 6 year old niece knows what a WOMAN is…but not Ketanji Brown. She is not a biologist.

Someone that fucking stupid will not likely pass reasonable judgements from the bench.

 

[marvin martian]

Otherwise, every red state could claim Biden is an insurrectionist and remove him from THEIR ballots.

If SCOTUS declines to rule on this, or upholds Colorado's ruling, that is exactly what's going to happen.