Trump removed from Colorado ballot

[BackAgain]

Evidently, the Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with your supposedly legal argument. You're listening to imaginary sounds, while dancing alone, with no partner. You've become the Timothy Leary of USMB Legal Scholars.

The Dainty once again shows that he has no argument at all.

Tell ya what, you idiot.

Show me one trial held accusing Trump of anything along the lines of “insurrection.” And, of course, also show me that there was any conviction of President Trump.

Obviously, you won’t because you can’t and you can’t because it’s never taken place.

Also, your mistake. Reliance on the self-effectuating nature of the 14th Amendment does not support your position. A trial wouldn’t be needed to show that a confederate soldier had engaged in war against the United States.

But given the American legal principle — enshrined in our Constitution — that a person is presumed innocent in the eyes of the LAW of any crime until and unless his guilt is proved in a court of law via a fair trial, much more is required to invoke the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment than the blather you have relied upon.

The Dainty continues his persistent and endless fail.

 

[toobfreak]

Way to show us you don't know the US Constitution without telling us you don't know the US Constitution.

Why you stupid dipshit, if there is anyone here who doesn't know the constitution, it is YOU and those four clowns in Colorado financed by George Soros. This removal of Trump from the ballot is going to blow up in your faces for these simple reasons:

1. Trump is not even charged with much less been convicted as an insurrectionist.
2. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it stipulate that removal applies to the presidency. It mentions lower offices only.
3. Trump was CLEARED of the charges already by the second impeachment committee.
4. The 14th Amendment was written to apply to the U.S. Congress. It accords no such power to the states themselves.
5. The entire argument that Colorado hangs its hat on for doing this is a totally arbitrary, factless decision made by the all-democrat J6 Committee where all republicans were excluded from joining except by their invitation a la Lez Cheney because she was hostile to Trump (per-arranged bias).
6. The Colorado court EXCLUDED any evidence of Trump's innocence in their decision including the signed letter by Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC to NOT take Trump's advice and recommendation of increased security for the day of J6.
7. Removal of a candidate (much less an ex-president) from the ballot based on one party's opinion they don't like him would be election tampering disenfranchising voters.

You'll be doing well just to not get a 9-0 SCOTUS decision to rescind this absurd Colorado decision. Four justices in Colorado just finished their careers.

If this isn't rescinded, the GOP will do a total end-around you.

Not only will Trump be on the ballot, but this action to try to subvert democracy is only going to result in further boosting Trump's popularity!

THANK YOU!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Dainty once again shows that he has no argument at all.

Tell ya what, you idiot.

Show me one trial held accusing Trump of anything along the lines of “insurrection.” And, of course, also show me that there was any conviction of President Trump.

Obviously, you won’t because you can’t and you can’t because it’s never taken place.

Also, your mistake. Reliance on the self-effectuating nature of the 14th Amendment does not support your position. A trial wouldn’t be needed to show that a confederate soldier had engaged in war against the United States.

But given the American legal principle — enshrined in our Constitution — that a person is presumed innocent in the eyes of the LAW of any crime until and unless his guilt is proved in a court of law via a fair trial, much more is required to invoke the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment than the blather you have relied upon.

The Dainty continues his persistent and endless fail.

You're dancing around the ruling. The court addressed:

1. Standard of Review

2. Presidential Primaries Under the Election Code

3. The District Court Had Jurisdiction to Adjudicate the
Electors’ Claim Under the Election Code

4. States Have the Authority to Assess Presidential
Candidates’ Qualifications

5. The Electors Have Stated a Proper Claim That Is Not
Precluded by Frazier and Kuhn

6. Limiting Presidential Primary Ballot Access to
Constitutionally Qualified Candidates Does Not
Interfere with CRSCC’s First Amendment Rights

7. Section 1-1-113 Proceedings Provide Adequate Due
Process for Litigants

C. The Disqualification Provision of Section Three Attaches
Without Congressional Action

D. Section Three Is Justiciable

What part(s) of the above are you refuting with a legal argument?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Dainty once again shows that he has no argument at all.

Tell ya what, you idiot.

Show me one trial held accusing Trump of anything along the lines of “insurrection.” And, of course, also show me that there was any conviction of President Trump.

Obviously, you won’t because you can’t and you can’t because it’s never taken place.

Also, your mistake. Reliance on the self-effectuating nature of the 14th Amendment does not support your position. A trial wouldn’t be needed to show that a confederate soldier had engaged in war against the United States.

But given the American legal principle — enshrined in our Constitution — that a person is presumed innocent in the eyes of the LAW of any crime until and unless his guilt is proved in a court of law via a fair trial, much more is required to invoke the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment than the blather you have relied upon.

The Dainty continues his persistent and endless fail.

Show what you disagree with:


The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.

The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding
the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be
a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate
on the presidential primary ballot.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's obvious that the USMB, Timothy Leary Legal Scholars are speaking during their episodic trips and delusions.

 

[Flash]

please refrain all postings from the grade school playground.

grow the fuck up

a public service announcement

That ruling was as stupid as it gets from a court with judges that suppose to be adults and who allegedly graduated from law school. The premise for the ruling was flawed and filled with TDS bullshit.

It was an uneducated hateful partisan ruling by shitheads that are helping the Leftest assholes turn this country into a Banana Republic, complete with stolen elections and persecution of opponents.

Our country is having the Democracy destroyed by selfish Leftest pricks and assholes like those Leftest judges are helping to make it happen.

There are a lot villains to the Leftest attack on Trump going back to the attempted coup against him with the Russia bullshit. When that didn't work the assholes tried impeachment and when that failed they used the Pandemic as a cover to steal the 2020 election. This ruling by Judges that should know better is just a continuation of the extreme Left destruction of our country.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OK Kavanaugh went through a bipartisan nomination process too.

Yes he did. So what? Merrick Garland did too.. Oh wait!

never mind

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Or he could have been listening the eight other courts, so far, that said 'Get this shit out of our court, are you nutz?'

You mean the arguments about voter fraud?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That ruling was as stupid as it gets from a court with judges that suppose to be adults and who allegedly graduated from law school...

again:

please refrain all postings from the grade school playground.

grow the fuck up

a public service announcement

 

[BackAgain]

You're dancing around the ruling. The court addressed:

1. Standard of Review

2. Presidential Primaries Under the Election Code

3. The District Court Had Jurisdiction to Adjudicate the
Electors’ Claim Under the Election Code

4. States Have the Authority to Assess Presidential
Candidates’ Qualifications

5. The Electors Have Stated a Proper Claim That Is Not
Precluded by Frazier and Kuhn

6. Limiting Presidential Primary Ballot Access to
Constitutionally Qualified Candidates Does Not
Interfere with CRSCC’s First Amendment Rights

7. Section 1-1-113 Proceedings Provide Adequate Due
Process for Litigants

C. The Disqualification Provision of Section Three Attaches
Without Congressional Action

D. Section Three Is Justiciable

What part(s) of the above are you refuting with a legal argument?

The Dainty, you moron. You are dancing around the debate itself.

You are using the very ruling under discussion as the “basis” for your support of that contested ruling.

Your many errors include obvious fallacies. But your argument is fallacious.

Example: you read a syllogism that says the following:

1. All dogs are fish.
2. My dog is a dog.
Therefore, my dog is a fish.

It takes a perfectly valid form of argument BUT it is still appropriately mocked. This bothers the tiny little mind of The Dainty.

So, the Dainty resorts to quoting the entire syllogism (endlessly) as its way of defending it. But in doing so, The Dainty misses the point.

The point is that the first premise is simply false. It inexorably leads to the wrong conclusion. This is why you cannot simply quote the very decision which is challenged as the foundation for your argument that “it is correct.”

Meanwhile, on a very related note, I await your citation to the case which has found President Trump guilty of anything akin to “insurrection.”

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Dainty, you moron. You are dancing around the debate itself.

You are using the very ruling under discussion as the “basis” for your support of that contested ruling.

Your many errors include obvious fallacies. But your argument is fallacious.

Example: you read a syllogism that says the following:

1. All dogs are fish.
2. My dog is a dog.
Therefore, my dog is a fish.

It takes a perfectly valid form of argument BUT it is still appropriately mocked. This bothers the tiny little mind of The Dainty.

So, the Dainty resorts to quoting the entire syllogism (endlessly) as its way of defending it. But in doing so, The Dainty misses the point.

The point is that the first premise is simply false. It inexorably leads to the wrong conclusion. This is why you cannot simply quote the very decision which is challenged as the foundation for your argument that “it is correct.”

Meanwhile, on a very related note, I await your citation to the case which has found President Trump guilty of anything akin to “insurrection.”

Ignoring the court ruling does not make it go away. You can't or won't address anything in the ruling. You just attack and spew word salads that you believe make you look intelligent.

you keep forgetting how that dance ended last time. What happened? You had to change your name here.

true story Liability/Ilar Meilyr/ BackAgain

Zone1 - Maybe a name change?

I want to change my name also. Change it to 'Dudley Smith, Again!' Thanks in advance. I refuse to use ersatz lawyer talk, so I should get mine first.

www.usmessageboard.com

ty Synthaholic

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Somewhere I read:

As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate
interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process”

...that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are
constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

and the Colorado Supreme Court ruling addresses this:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

Show what you disagree with:


The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.

The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding
the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be
a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate
on the presidential primary ballot.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly.

You are tiresome, The Dainty.

I don’t care if the Colorado Supreme Court finds a legal basis to decide that the matter is “justiciable.” It’s a start, but it’s not sufficient.

I also don’t care that it s highly debatable that the events of 1/6 were found by some lower court to be an “insurrection.” That itself is bullshit, but let’s play along. Say it was.

There is absolutely no legal basis to “find” that President Trump “was engaged” in that alleged “insurrection.” So, the Colorado Supreme Court decision is premised on an error. (The fact that a lower court made such a determination doesn’t support the Supreme Court’s finding that the lower court hadn’t erred.)

This is perhaps the primary basis upon which it is all but certain that the majority decision of the Colorado Supreme Court is going to have its decision shitcanned by the SCOTUS.

 

[BackAgain]

Ignoring the court ruling does not make it go away. You can't or won't address anything in the ruling. You just attack and spew word salads that you believe make you look intelligent.

you keep forgetting how that dance ended last time. What happened? You had to change your name here.

true story Liability/Ilar Meilyr/ BackAgain

Zone1 - Maybe a name change?

I want to change my name also. Change it to 'Dudley Smith, Again!' Thanks in advance. I refuse to use ersatz lawyer talk, so I should get mine first.

www.usmessageboard.com

ty Synthaholic

Wrong. As usual. But that’s just you being you.

You cannot refute the arguments I’ve made. Nor even the analogies.

You suck at this job of yours, The Dainty.

Just for clarity, your stubborn and ignorant reliance on the very opinion under debate doesn’t qualify as a supporting argument FOR that decision.

Thought a moron such as you should know. You’re welcome.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are tiresome, The Dainty.

I don’t care if the Colorado Supreme Court finds...

Like I've said before. The great Timothy Leary Legal Scholar @ usmb (Liability), will say he doesn't care.

Next up -- it's all irrelevant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You cannot refute the arguments I’ve made.

You've made legal arguments?

You've avoided numerous attempts I gave you here to refute or debate the court's ruling.

 

[BackAgain]

Like I've said before. The great Timothy Leary Legal Scholar @ usmb (Liability), will say he doesn't care.

Next up -- it's all irrelevant.

Your intentional misuse of the quote snip doesn’t negate what I actually wrote.

You remain fundamentally dishonest, the dainty.

 

[BackAgain]

You've made legal arguments?

Yes. As always, you missed them because words confuse you.

You've avoided numerous attempts I gave you here to refute or debate the court's ruling.

Wrong. Try reading. I swear, it could theoretically even help you see something.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Trump must necessarily be culpable for insurrection or treason?

Trump caused J6 to happen in an attempt to be exempt from the results of fifty certified state elections because he lost.

If the USSC says a one term loser can try that and run to try it again they become enemies of the Constitution themselves. I am optimistic none but Ginny’s soulmate will vote to overturn the Colorado decision.

MAGA will be forced to pick a new enemy of the Constitution to lead the cult.


nf.23.12.20
to bckvgn.23.12.20 #716

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes. As always, you missed them because words confuse you.

Wrong. Try reading. I swear, it could theoretically even help you see something.

The sum of these parts is this:

President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly.