Jonathan Turley on the Unsigned 4-3 Colorado Decison Regarding President Trump.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nope. That's not it.

Ask Admiral Rockwall why Kerry beat his ass up in the O mess.

 

[Godboy]

What's so obvious about it?

Your instincts are always wrong. Whats with that? The Supreme Court will obviously rule against this VERY soon. What the fuck are you going to say THEN?

 

[task0778]

What's so obvious about it?

In this country no one is presumed guilty of anything, I thought that was obvious. So, no one should be denied their civil rights until proven guilty in a court of law, I thought that was obvious too. Since Trump has not been found guilty in a court of law of insurrection, the SCOTUS has to rule that he cannot be denied the opportunity to run for president. Hell, no one has been convicted of insurrection yet, so until that happens there was no insurrection; it's like saying someone is guilty of murder but there's no dead body.

I thought the Left was sot hot and heavy about the threat to democracy, and yet here they are trying to deny the voters the choice that they and not the Supreme Court of any state wants to deny them. That is anti-democratic and their hypocrisy is blatantly obvious.

 

[drudge X]

The Constitution gives the states control over the elections and to remove those who have been insurgents against the country. SCOTUS will uphold this,

Remove those who are proven guilty, not supposition of guilt. What you're advocating is the state can remove any candidate the party in control doesn't like. Saddam Hussein would make you his VP if he is still alive.

 

[otto105]

With critical states changing their election laws DURING THE ELECTION CYCLE in ways that broke their own laws,

Nope, move and clean the crap out of your BVDs.

 

[Nostra]

Trump's attorneys are engaging lawfare in trying to appeal the court decision.

Congrats....you just took First Place in the Dumbest Post of the Year competition. And right here at the end.

 

[tahuyaman]

The Constitution gives the states control over the elections and to remove those who have been insurgents against the country. SCOTUS will uphold this,

State legislatures, not state courts. The SCOTUS will strike this down.

 

[tahuyaman]

Actually, the states have every right to determine who can appear on a federal ballot.

In the 1860 election, Abraham Lincoln didn't appear on the ballot in most of the Southern States. He won anyway.

In this case, however, there are certain federal standards to be president. You have to be born here. You have to be at least 35 years old. And you have to have not participated in an open insurrection against the US Government.

The legislature create state election laws, not courts.

 

[task0778]

State legislatures, not state courts. The SCOTUS will strike this down.

IMHO, whether the state courts or legislatures do this doesn't matter cuz it's unconstitutional either way. Hey, I'm all for state's rights and federalism, but you cannot deny someone's rights without just cause based on a guilty verdict in a court of law. Whether or not there ever was an insurrection in the 1st place has never been adjudicated and no one has ever been convicted of that. The Illinois SC issued a decision based purely on opinion; a Supreme Court at the state or national level is supposed to review and decide cases based on lower court rulings. Where is the lower court ruling that found Trump guilty of insurrection? Charges and indictments don't mean shit, it has been said that a baloney sandwich can be indicted in some places.

What we have here is obviously political activism by a democrat court, and that is both despicable and unfortunate. Almost 3 effing years have passed, and yet no conviction, not even a trial yet. And the Left wants to deny this is a political attack rather than actual justice? Now all of a sudden they gotta weaponize the judicial system to go after their political rival? And that is not anti-democratic? Bull effing shit.

 

[task0778]

In this case, however, there are certain federal standards to be president. You have to be born here. You have to be at least 35 years old. And you have to have not participated in an open insurrection against the US Government.

Prove it. A nation of laws requires proof of guilt, in this country we do not decide guilt or deny anyone their rights prior to a conviction. When the day comes that Trump is convicted of insurrection and his appeal is denied, THEN you can talk about denying his name on the ballot in any state. Until then, STFU.

 

[tahuyaman]

IMHO, whether the state courts or legislatures do this doesn't matter cuz it's unconstitutional either way. Hey, I'm all for state's rights and federalism, but you cannot deny someone's rights without just cause based on a guilty verdict in a court of law. Whether or not there ever was an insurrection in the 1st place has never been adjudicated and no one has ever been convicted of that. The Illinois SC issued a decision based purely on opinion; a Supreme Court at the state or national level is supposed to review and decide cases based on lower court rulings. Where is the lower court ruling that found Trump guilty of insurrection? Charges and indictments don't mean shit, it has been said that a baloney sandwich can be indicted in some places.

What we have here is obviously political activism by a democrat court, and that is both despicable and unfortunate. Almost 3 effing years have passed, and yet no conviction, not even a trial yet. And the Left wants to deny this is a political attack rather than actual justice? Now all of a sudden they gotta weaponize the judicial system to go after their political rival? And that is not anti-democratic? Bull effing shit.

This decision was political hackery of the highest order. Their hate for Trump is greater than their respect for the US Constitution or the rule of law.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

State legislatures, not state courts. The SCOTUS will strike this down.

The states, buddy, which includes the executive, the legislative, and their judiciary. Show me where is states only the legislatures. You can't, because it does not.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Prove it. A nation of laws requires proof of guilt, in this country we do not decide guilt or deny anyone their rights prior to a conviction. When the day comes that Trump is convicted of insurrection and his appeal is denied, THEN you can talk about denying his name on the ballot in any state. Until then, STFU.

The 14th does not state a conviction is required. Sit down and eat your gruel.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The 14th does not state a conviction is required. Sit down and eat your gruel.

It does not need to. Common sense is also part of the law.

Which is why YOU should NOT be talking about it all.

 

[task0778]

This decision was political hackery of the highest order. Their hate for Trump is greater than their respect for the US Constitution or the rule of law.

Or fear of Trump.

The 14th does not state a conviction is required. Sit down and eat your gruel.

It really is amazing that anybody would want to deny a candidate for any office including the presidency to any person who has not been tried and convicted. Much less by an unelected group of partisan politicians that have no grounds whatsoever to base their evaluation on. You realize that this is pure judicial activism, the legislature in any state could have passed a law at any point during the last almost 3 years that provides some legal basis, but did not. In fact, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides that 'The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.' So, it's clear that this measure was never intended to turn the enforcement mechanisms over to individual states and their courts.

So, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Sit on a tack, Task. The only fact is that a conviction (only a ruling) is required by the 14th.

 

[JoeB131]

The legislature create state election laws, not courts.

WHich the courts have to interpret.

It really is amazing that anybody would want to deny a candidate for any office including the presidency to any person who has not been tried and convicted. Much less by an unelected group of partisan politicians that have no grounds whatsoever to base their evaluation on. You realize that this is pure judicial activism, the legislature in any state could have passed a law at any point during the last almost 3 years that provides some legal basis, but did not. In fact, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides that 'The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.' So, it's clear that this measure was never intended to turn the enforcement mechanisms over to individual states and their courts.

A couple of points.

First, if a DC Jury convicts him of charges related to 1/6, you would still oppose removing him from the ballot. He could still run for president even if convicted, as Eugene Debbs did in 1916 from prison.

Secondly, the clause in the 14th Amendment is meant to protect the country from EXACTLY this situation.

Or fear of Trump.

The man is channelling Hilter... we probably should be afraid.

 

[excalibur]

PROFILES: A Gay Hispanic, A Watergate Prosecutor's Granddaughter, & Links to Clinton & Obama: Colorado's Supreme Court Justices Who Kicked Trump off the Ballot.

Yesterday, four of Colorado's seven state Supreme Court justices ruled to remove former President Donald Trump from the Rocky Mountain state's 2024

thenationalpulse.com

 

[task0778]

Sit on a tack, Task. The only fact is that a conviction (only a ruling) is required by the 14th.

Uh, whut? Are you are justifying the Colorado SC ruling based on it's own ruling? WTF? Trump has not been convicted of insurrection, THAT is a fact. Which means the Colorado SC has absolutely no basis for their ruling except accusations that are unproven in a court of law.

 

[Hollie]

The man is channelling Hilter... we probably should be afraid.

Lordy, man. You cut and paste these goofy slogans from the hacks at MSNBC.