Let's make something clear.

[MagicMike]

Horseshit.

If we're going with the preponderance of opinion then you fucktard lefties are TOAST.

You will be held financially and morally responsible for STEALING AN ELECTION.

2/3 of the country believes it. MORE than enough for any civil jury.

Leftards are really very, very stupid. Not to mention completely lacking in moral fiber.

Quit your whining snowflake.

 

[berg80]

See post 831.

I did. I also saw and read this.

Trump Files for Supreme Court Review of Colorado Ballot Disqualification

Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to take him off the state’s primary ballot.

www.lawfaremedia.org

I think the plaintiffs have a superior legal argument as I stated previously. I also acknowledged the superiority of the plaintiff's argument will likely prove unpersuasive to the Court's conservatives who, I predict, will find Sec. 3 of the 14th does not apply to a prez despite historical references to the author's intent showing it does. That is the easiest and least controversial way for the conservatives to thwart the rule of law which they have a track record of doing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Separate law, sedition is not insurrection and insurrection is not sedition.

Two sides of the same coin.

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

CSIS security experts define acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluate the seriousness of both charges.

www.csis.org

Q1: What is “sedition” and “insurrection”?

A1: Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion. In a monarchy, sedition might refer to actions instigating the removal of a king or queen. In a constitutional democracy, sedition and insurrection refer to inciting or participating in rebellion against the constitutionally established government, its processes and institutions, or the rule of law. In other words, in the United States’ democracy, violently overthrowing the government or its institutions is overthrowing the Constitution itself. One cannot commit sedition or insurrection to “overthrow a government” while still claiming to uphold and defend the Constitution. The U.S. government, the rule of law, and the Constitution are inextricably linked, and violent attacks on any of the three are not protected actions.

 

[Rawley]

Two sides of the same coin.

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

CSIS security experts define acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluate the seriousness of both charges.

www.csis.org

Q1: What is “sedition” and “insurrection”?

A1: Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion. In a monarchy, sedition might refer to actions instigating the removal of a king or queen. In a constitutional democracy, sedition and insurrection refer to inciting or participating in rebellion against the constitutionally established government, its processes and institutions, or the rule of law. In other words, in the United States’ democracy, violently overthrowing the government or its institutions is overthrowing the Constitution itself. One cannot commit sedition or insurrection to “overthrow a government” while still claiming to uphold and defend the Constitution. The U.S. government, the rule of law, and the Constitution are inextricably linked, and violent attacks on any of the three are not protected actions.

Nope. That's we we have two different laws in the US code.

 

[BackAgain]

I did. I also saw and read this.

Trump Files for Supreme Court Review of Colorado Ballot Disqualification

Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to take him off the state’s primary ballot.

www.lawfaremedia.org

I think the plaintiffs have a superior legal argument as I stated previously. I also acknowledged the superiority of the plaintiff's argument will likely prove unpersuasive to the Court's conservatives who, I predict, will find Sec. 3 of the 14th does not apply to a prez despite historical references to the author's intent showing it does. That is the easiest and least controversial way for the conservatives to thwart the rule of law which they have a track record of doing.

You are entitled to you opinion. But your “belief” isn’t controlling.

The SCOTUS is far more likely to say (1) that Presidential immunity for official acts made within the “outer boundaries” of his official duties will now be extended to “criminal” proceedings; and (2) that the 14th Amendment, Section 3 isn’t applicable to the office of the President and that, even if it were, due process demands a federal indictment, a full fair trial and a conviction for it to be imposed to disqualify any candidate.

 

[BackAgain]

Two sides of the same coin.

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

CSIS security experts define acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluate the seriousness of both charges.

www.csis.org

Q1: What is “sedition” and “insurrection”?

A1: Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion. In a monarchy, sedition might refer to actions instigating the removal of a king or queen. In a constitutional democracy, sedition and insurrection refer to inciting or participating in rebellion against the constitutionally established government, its processes and institutions, or the rule of law. In other words, in the United States’ democracy, violently overthrowing the government or its institutions is overthrowing the Constitution itself. One cannot commit sedition or insurrection to “overthrow a government” while still claiming to uphold and defend the Constitution. The U.S. government, the rule of law, and the Constitution are inextricably linked, and violent attacks on any of the three are not protected actions.

No. That’s just one spin on it. But it’s not the law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

oh gawd yes, they've got to keep us angry LBT,,,,~S~

Your own cynicism keeps you angry.

 

[Nostra]

Bullshit.
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.

They have no jurisdiction over the 14th Amendment, punk.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I have no faith in our kangaroo courts and neither do many Americans.

That’s a YOU problem.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Brought by the Republican party? The DOJ, FBI?

American citizenship for a president is pretty important, don't you think?

As is whether or not a candidate engaged in insurrection. Don’t you think?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The courts are ideologically corrupt....

Or your view of what they ought to be is ideologically corrupt anyway.

 

[berg80]

You are entitled to you opinion. But your “belief” isn’t controlling.

And neither is yours. A point I was trying to make earlier by explaining it appears you have not considered the possibility your opinion (belief) is in error.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a bald faced lie. If it had been adjudicated, the CO supreme court would not have rescinded their own ruling. Please educate yourself.

They didn’t rescind anything. Its effective date was delayed in order for Trump to decide if he was going to escalate it to SCOTUS.

 

[MagicMike]

They have no jurisdiction over the 14th Amendment, punk.

What the fuck is that statement even supposed to mean you dolt?
The decision now goes to The SCOTUS.
How about that court?
Would you say IT has some "juridiction" over The 14A?

 

[berg80]

The courts are ideologically corrupt....

Can I quote you on that when the conservative majority rules Trump can be allowed on the ballot?

 

[Concerned American]

They didn’t rescind anything. Its effective date was delayed in order for Trump to decide if he was going to escalate it to SCOTUS.

Read the entire thread before you run your uninformed mouth, moron.

 

[MagicMike]

The courts are ideologically corrupt....

I see Trump and Vladimir have succeeded marvelously with you.
One of the objectives Fascist (and Communist) regimes must accomplish in order to take control of the sheeple is to erode their trust in democratic institutions like the free and indendent press, academia, and the court system.
I see it has worked on you.
Putin must be very proud.

 

[BackAgain]

And neither is yours. A point I was trying to make earlier by explaining it appears you have not considered the possibility your opinion (belief) is in error.

And you were wrong. It is precisely because I was questioning this whole thing that I looked it up. Unlike you, I have an open mind. Yours is firmly shut.

 

[Rawley]

Can I quote you on that when the conservative majority rules Trump can be allowed on the ballot?

And what will you say when at least one, if not all of Associate Justices Sotomayor, Kagan. and/or Brown Jackson join the majority?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You've explained NOTHING but LIES and GASLIGHTING, you wretched POS!!!

Can’t gaslight someone who knows nothing about it and doesn’t want to in the first place.