Let's make something clear.

[berg80]

Yep. Lawless.

The Supreme Court now faces a test. The Constitution says what it says, and the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled as it has ruled: that Trump may not appear on ballots in the state. In its ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court relied precisely on the arguments that conservative Supreme Court justices claim to accept, arising from the plain language of the Constitution and the intentions of those who wrote its provisions.

Because of the clarity of the language and the explicit commitments of the justices, a failure to affirm the Colorado ruling will be seen as extra-legal, by pretty much everyone.

The advocates of a pitchfork ruling, who can be found all over the political spectrum, will nod their heads: yes, the justices of the Supreme Court are just like us; no better and no worse; just people with human failings and fears; ultimately all that matters in life is convenience. This position, while it seems friendly to the Court, removes all dignity from its justices, and kicks away the foundations of the rule of law.

The Pitchfork Ruling

The Trap the Commentariat Sets for the Court

snyder.substack.com

 

[BackAgain]

The Supreme Court now faces a test. The Constitution says what it says, and the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled as it has ruled: that Trump may not appear on ballots in the state. In its ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court relied precisely on the arguments that conservative Supreme Court justices claim to accept, arising from the plain language of the Constitution and the intentions of those who wrote its provisions.

Because of the clarity of the language and the explicit commitments of the justices, a failure to affirm the Colorado ruling will be seen as extra-legal, by pretty much everyone.

The advocates of a pitchfork ruling, who can be found all over the political spectrum, will nod their heads: yes, the justices of the Supreme Court are just like us; no better and no worse; just people with human failings and fears; ultimately all that matters in life is convenience. This position, while it seems friendly to the Court, removes all dignity from its justices, and kicks away the foundations of the rule of law.

The Pitchfork Ruling

The Trap the Commentariat Sets for the Court

snyder.substack.com

Nah. Reversing that shit decision will be the vindication of law and logic and legal reasoning and basic justice.

 

[Hum Dinger]

There's no doubt that any sane reading of A. 14 S. 3 will conclude that Trump should be barred from office.

But I think that SCOTUS will also do a risk analysis and determine that if they bar Trump from running no harm is done. Running for President is not a constitutional or inalienable right. The GOP has plenty of qualified candidates.

However, if Trump is allowed to run, and if he gets elected, it most likely would mean irreparable harm to democracy and the country as a whole. He is a fascist and SCOTUS knows it.

History has shown that whenever people like Trump get in control, it's only a matter of time before they destroy the independence of the judiciary. You can bet that SCOTUS values the independence of the judiciary and will do whatever it takes to preserve it.

 

[BackAgain]

There's no doubt that any sane reading of A. 14 S. 3 will conclude that Trump should be barred from office.

Wrong. You wouldn’t know anything about sanity, anyway.

The 14th Amendment, per section 3, serves only to disqualify a candidate under specific circumstances. Those circumstances have not been met.

You’re a hack.

 

[berg80]

Nah. Reversing that shit decision will be the vindication of law and logic and legal reasoning and basic justice.

It will be vindication of McTreason's unethical, hypocritical treachery by allowing Trump to steal two SC appointments and nothing more.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Worth reading.

Donald Trump cannot be a candidate for any state or federal office in the United States of America. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution makes this plain. No office-holding insurrectionist can return to office. The language is clear, and the facts of his case are not in dispute.

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled to this effect, and the United States Supreme Court is now called upon to review its finding (in Anderson vs. Griswold). In my last post, I addressed arguments against the Constitution that I heard or read in the Midwest over the holidays. In this essay, I address the anti-Constitutional discourse that appears in the media: that the Constitution should be displaced by the fears of people who appear on television.

This form of opposition to the Constitution poses as expertise. It takes the form of advice to the Court: find some way to allow Trump to be on the ballot, because otherwise people will be upset. Because we are used to hearing endless conversations about politics on television, where everyone seems to be a political advisor, it can seem normal to reduce sections of the Constitution to talking points. But we must pause and consider.
The Pitchfork Ruling

/——-/

 

[BackAgain]

It will be vindication of McTreason's unethical, hypocritical treachery by allowing Trump to steal two SC appointments and nothing more.

Nope. He didn’t steal anything.

Your commentary remains mindless. Like you.

What really burns you is the likelihood that SCOTUS is now more likely to engage in actual legal and Constitutional analyses.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Biden beat Trump handily the last time and he would beat them again this time.

Nobody will vote for a second Donald Trump term regardless of what your polls are telling you at the moment.

/——/ Watch these CNN reports and tell us how confident you still are.

 

[Blisterfinger]

Do you recognize requests to enforce the constitutionally provided provision of ballot disqualification are coming from both Dems and Repubs?

So? That makes it okay to ignore due process?

 

[berg80]

Nope. He didn’t steal anything.

Your commentary remains mindless. Like you.

What really burns you is the likelihood that SCOTUS is now more likely to engage in actual legal and Constitutional analyses.

If they do Trump is off the ballot.

 

[berg80]

So? That makes it okay to ignore due process?

Due process has not been ignored. When will you stop parroting this lie and think for yourself?

 

[Rawley]

Due process has not been ignored. When will you stop parroting this lie and think for yourself?

Irony not your strong suit, huh?

 

[Blisterfinger]

Due process has not been ignored. When will you stop parroting this lie and think for yourself?

Yes it has been ignored, you are the one who's lying. Just stop and use your brain. I know it's a more difficult way to operate, but you'll be benefited in ways you don't even realize. This is a country where accusations have to be backed up by due process and they have not been in this instance. Time to wake up!

 

[hadit]

I can't wait til Red States do this to Biden and you all howl down the moon.

I mean, we can do that on the Hunter business alone. Or for no reason at all. Maybe the Open Borders are an insurrection, huh?


Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

And that is the inevitable reaction that democrats never account for. They gleefully grab onto whatever new tactic they think will give them power while forgetting that once a door is open, it stays open. Maybe they haven't gotten the memo that this isn't your grandpa's Republican party, full of statesmen who didn't want to get in the much with democrats. This one is learning how to fight dirty.

 

[BackAgain]

If they do Trump is off the ballot.

Nope. If they logically and fairly interpret the law and the Constitution, they will void the idiotic Colorado Supreme Court decision.

 

[berg80]

Irony not your strong suit, huh?

Thinking for yourself too difficult? Imagine my surprise.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

 

[berg80]

Nope. If they logically and fairly interpret the law and the Constitution, they will void the idiotic Colorado Supreme Court decision.

Their decision is based on sound legal reasoning, the intent of the authors who wrote the amendment, precedent, and the evidence regarding the plot to keep Don in power after he lost the election and his participation in it.

 

[berg80]

View attachment 882877

GOP dishonestly misuses Clinton quote about Benghazi - MinnPost

It is simply impossible to view her “What difference at this point does it make?” outburst as reflecting in any way a cavalier lack of concern about the four deaths.

www.minnpost.com

Got any other memes?

 

[BackAgain]

Their decision is based on sound legal reasoning, the intent of the authors who wrote the amendment, precedent, and the evidence regarding the plot to keep Don in power after he lost the election and his participation in it.

You’re a snore fest.

You can’t handle the most obvious challenge to your ignorant mutterings:

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 (assuming it applies to the President at all, which is not at all clear), disqualifies such a candidate if that candidate has engaged in (among other things) an “insurrection.”

That’s a criminal allegation. To make use of the disqualification provision, therefore, requires a criminal conviction for that crime in a federal criminal court.

You can continue to mindlessly deny it. I don’t expect any hint of logic out of you, bug. But I believe you will see that the SCOTUS is not nearly as narrow minded and biased as you are.