Let's make something clear.

[SeaMajor7]

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.

PROJECTION MONKEY SAYS WHAT?????????
Damn, you subverted zombies have no SELF-AWARENESS at all.

 

[konradv]

.If he’s so flawed, what are you so scared of?

Because of the millions that will vote for him despite his flaws. I’m going to go for the guy that isn’t on Epstein’s list.

 

[Lisa558]

Because of the millions that will vote for him despite his flaws. I’m going to go for the guy that isn’t on Epstein’s list.

I’m going for the guy who will stop the importation of millions of illegals and doesn’t fund Islamic terrorism against Israel.

 

[Nostra]

Read it and report back, dupe.

So. None.

Got it.

 

[Nostra]

It is if that determines one’s eligibility to be on the ballot, dupe.

Lies. The 14th Amendment specifically lists one entity in charge of enforcing it.........Congress.

Not the Maine SOS. Not some civil court judge in CO, vermin.

 

[Nostra]

No, dope.

Why do you continue to ignore that clause, Simp?

 

[Nostra]

If Trump wins his case, it proves the court ISN’T conservative, but fascist.

See.

Dimtards know they have no case and are already starting with the excuses.

Gonna be hilarious watching you clowns meltdown.

 

[Nostra]

Republicans/Trumpers talk about a lot of shit. Don’t mean any of it is even close to reality.

The 14th has no provision to block a person because you don’t like them.
So what legal authority would you be using here?

Irony.

 

[Nostra]

Using what legal authority??

More irony.

 

[Nostra]

I’m going for the guy who will stop the importation of millions of illegals and doesn’t fund Islamic terrorism against Israel.

Or let his handler Xi fly a spy balloon over our most sensitive military installations for a week gathering intel.

 

[Mac-7]

I’m going for the guy who will stop the importation of millions of illegals and doesn’t fund Islamic terrorism against Israel.

In another words - dont vote for biden

 

[Lisa558]

Or let his handler Xi fly a spy balloon over our most sensitive military installations for a week gathering intel.

China sure got their money’s worth by investing in the Biden Crime Family.

 

[Lisa558]

In another words - dont vote for biden

Obviously, but I understand why you’d have to spell it out for the progressives. They’re pretty ignorant.

 

[Mac-7]

Obviously, but I understand why you’d have to spell it out for the progressives. They’re pretty ignorant.

Even drawing pictures or feature length animations are not enough in most cases

Libs willfully dont get it

 

[berg80]

No. It was determined to be an insurrection by a judge and a state Supreme Court each lacking jurisdiction.

A determination made based on the facts presented in court in accordance with CO state law regarding ballot qualifications for CO's Repub primary ballot. If CO's SC doesn't have jurisdiction over who qualifies to appear on the state's ballots according to state law who does? Weren't Repubs up in arms over HR-1, which created national uniformity to some aspects of election procedures, because it supposedly usurped the right's of the states to run elections as they saw fit?

 

[Nostra]

A determination made based on the facts presented in court in accordance with CO state law regarding ballot qualifications for CO's Repub primary ballot. If CO's SC doesn't have jurisdiction over who qualifies to appear on the state's ballots according to state law who does? Weren't Repubs up in arms over HR-1, which created national uniformity to some aspects of election procedures, because it supposedly usurped the right's of the states to run elections as they saw fit?

Which specific state law did they cite?

I have asked several this question. Not a single answer.

 

[Lisa558]

Which specific state law did they cite?

I have asked several this question. Not a single answer.

The law of “I don’t like Trump and don’t want Americans to have a chance to vote for him.”

 

[eagle1462010]

Impeachment, dupe.

Aquited Dupe

 

[eagle1462010]

No, I said she is the SOS.

And she has the right to throw him out as she pleases.

 

[MagicMike]

No. It was determined to be an insurrection by a judge and a state Supreme Court each lacking jurisdiction.

And do you know what they call a decision from a court that lacks jurisdiction?

A nullity. They say it is void ab initio.
And yep. That’s the actual law.

Wow intheButtAgain!
I can see that mail order law degree from Trump University is really serving you well!
Unfortunately you are mistaken in your lack of jurisdiction assumption, although your use of archaic, Latin, legal terminology you pulled up on google is impressive.
You're kind of like a trained monkey.....without the training of course.
As far as jurisdiction goes, that is now up to The SCOTUS to decide.
IF the high court decides to hear the case.
If it doesn't then the Colorado SC decision will stand.....and that, of course will set a precedent for other states to be able to legally run their elections at the state level autonomously without federal interference.
Which....is basically how The Constitution says it should be anyway.
Now if The SCOTUS does decide to hear the case, which it probably will given the importance of this issue at this particular juncture in our history, and the court rules in favor of Colorado's right to manage it's election at the state level, then the result will be the same. The Colorado SC ruling stands and other states will now have the right to remove a known insurrectionist from their ballots without every single instance being challenged up to The SCOTUS.

It is interesting to note when considering the issue of state's rights in managing elections vs. federal, that Democrats have been pushing for more streamlined, federally administered protocols for elections for quite some time.
Republicans have been resisting that though claiming that giving the fed a bigger role in national elections is "a violation of The U.S. Constitution."
They say it should be "100% up to the states how elections are conducted in their own jurisdictions."
Interesting now that The SCOTUS is hearing the opposite arguments from both sides.
So yeah, your argument about "no jurisdiction" (as usual) is pure caca.
The SCOTUS may (or may not) overturn The CO Supreme Court ruling, but for the time being that ruling is the law of the land in Colorado.
NO insurrectionists will be allowed on the ballot next November!