Let's make something clear.

[SeaMajor7]

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!

There was no insurrection, you fucking PSYCHOPATH

 

[MagicMike]

There was no insurrection, you fucking PSYCHOPATH

The Colorado Supreme Court thought otherwise.
So...you lose!

 

[SeaMajor7]

The Colorado Supreme Court thought otherwise.
So...you lose!

The FBI said it WASN'T an insurrection, so CO and you can POUND SAND

 

[Nostra]

The Colorado Supreme Court thought otherwise.
So...you lose!

4 Dimtard hacks thought that, 3 said no.

 

[Lisa558]

The FBI said it WASN'T an insurrection, so CO and you can POUND SAND

When is the SCOTUS going to rule and put a stop to the leftists’ unconstituional attempt to block the people’s right to vote for the candidate they want?

 

[SeaMajor7]

When is the SCOTUS going to rule and put a stop to the leftists’ unconstituional attempt to block the people’s right to vote for the candidate they want?

They need to step up and slap these Stalinist morons down HARD!

 

[Lisa558]

They need to step up and slap these Stalinist morons down HARD!

In an ironic way, the longer it goes on, the better our side looks when the SCOTUS rules that the Dems, so desperate to keep Trump from winning, are violating Americans’ right to elect the president they want.

 

[berg80]

When is the SCOTUS going to rule and put a stop to the leftists’ unconstituional attempt to block the people’s right to vote for the candidate they want?

Following the guidelines established by the 14th A isn't unconstitutional. It's the enforcement of the Constitution. If you want to talk unconstitutional that would be the attempt to block the certification of the newly elected prez orchestrated by, and done in the name of, Trump

 

[MagicMike]

4 Dimtard hacks thought that, 3 said no.

So what was the final ruling?

 

[MagicMike]

The FBI said it WASN'T an insurrection, so CO and you can POUND SAND

It was an insurrection.
Only Trumptards can't see that.

 

[Rawley]

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.

The one that showered with his daughter? You find that more acceptable? Really?

 

[Rawley]

It was an insurrection.
Only Trumptards can't see that.

Be brave, answer the question: If it was an "insurrection" why, in over 3,000 charges filed by Biden's DOJ, was not a single person charged with insurrection? Particularly Trump.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Rawley]

Following the guidelines established by the 14th A isn't unconstitutional. It's the enforcement of the Constitution. If you want to talk unconstitutional that would be the attempt to block the certification of the newly elected prez orchestrated by, and done in the name of, Trump

So the Democrats are simply being patriotic by trying to disenfranchise half of the voter in the US?

 

[MagicMike]

The one that showered with his daughter? You find that more acceptable? Really?

How do you know this really happened?
Were you there...personally in that shower?
Or are you just parroting some right-wing, anti Biden, cult propaganda?

 

[BackAgain]

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?

Wrong again, bug.

Jurisdiction to entertain a ballot qualification matter isn’t the same as jurisdiction to determine that a candidate engaged in a crime. To invoke the former jurisdiction without acknowledging the latter lack of jurisdiction is completely disingenuous of you.

 

[BackAgain]

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!

You use a lot of words to say nothing. Nothing intelligent and nothing of value.

And don’t kid yourself. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you utterly fail to support you claims in any way.

Your always pathetic attempts at ad hominem are fails in themselves and clearly don’t add anything to your contentions.

Take two Midol and go to your gynecologist as quickly as you can.

 

[Nostra]

So what was the final ruling?

TBD by the US Supreme Court, Simp.

 

[Rawley]

How do you know this really happened?

Uh, his daughter's own words.

Were you there...personally in that shower?
Or are you just parroting some right-wing, anti Biden, cult propaganda?

Attaboy

 

[Nostra]

Following the guidelines established by the 14th A isn't unconstitutional.

That wasn't done because the guidelines of the 14th clearly states it give ONLY Congress the power to enforce it.

 

[MagicMike]

Be brave, answer the question: If it was an "insurrection" why, in over 3,000 charges filed by Biden's DOJ, was not a single person charged with insurrection? Particularly Trump.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Because that particular charge is very hard to prove. Intent has to be proven.
In the case against the Jan. 6th Capitol insurgents, even though the intent of the slimeball seditionists who stormed the Capitol in what was OBVIOUSLY an attempt to stop the certification of votes for the rightful winner of the election and help the loser candidate cling to power, was obvious, the job of a prosecutor is to secure convictions.
Why would prosecutors waste time on a charge that isn't necessarily a slam dunk and is really only a matter of semantics when there are other slam dunk charges involved in the insurrection in which guilt is undeniable?
In other words a sure thing?

We all watched the insurrection unfold on live TV.
We've all seen the evidence that an insurrection and attempted coup certainly DID occur.
The only people trying to deny and/or normalize what we saw and know are fringe-lunatic, idiot, conspiracy theorists who are frankly so far gone and brainwashed by the sick cult of Trump they wouldn't recognize an actual fact if it crawled up their ass and set up camp.

So, in a nut shell no one was charged with insurrection because that charge isn't really necessary.
All the other charges and convictions serve as proof enough that crimes were committed in the service of the attempted insurrection/coup.

Anymore dumb questions?