Trump removed from Colorado ballot

[BackAgain]

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.

They did reach their conclusions far too lightly and based on at least two bullshit erroneous premises. Actually more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well I believe Joe Biden is guilty of selling us out to the Chinese and other potentially enemy nations for cash, so he should not be allowed on the Florida ballot.

It doesn't matter what fantasies you believe. Courts decide matters on fact, not fantasy.

 

[Blaster]

Judges engaging in election interference is bad for our democracy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They did reach their conclusions far too lightly and based on at least two bullshit erroneous premises. Actually more.

OKAY

Let's test the supposed knowledge of the Liability-man:

What exactly were Trump's arguments in this case (The Electors and President Trump)? Which ones do you support, that you believe the court erred on?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Judges engaging in election interference is bad for our democracy.

Bush v Gore?

couldn't help it. And I rarely mention that one

 

[Rawley]

Yes he did. So what?

Don't know. You were the one that brought it up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They did reach their conclusions far too lightly and based on at least two bullshit erroneous premises. Actually more.

There we go again, with the childish style of...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Don't know. You were the one that brought it up.

and?

OK Kavanaugh went through a bipartisan nomination process too.

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

never mind

 

[0311]

Former Federal Judge: Colorado's Trump Disqualification Not 'Anti-Democratic'.

Former federal judge: Colorado’s Trump disqualification not ‘anti-democratic’

Former federal judge Michael Luttig argued Wednesday that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling disqualifying former President Trump from the state’s ballot is not “anti-democratic,…

thehill.com

Former federal judge Michael Luttig argued Wednesday that the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling disqualifying former President Trump from the state’s ballot is not “anti-democratic,” but rather the conduct that prompted the disqualification was anti-democratic.

Responding to former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson’s comments arguing all eligibility requirements are anti-democratic “in a sense,” Luttig said, “It is not the former president’s disqualification that is anti-democratic.”

“The Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic,” Luttig added during an appearance on CNN’s “This Morning.”

 

[Zincwarrior]

Per Drudge, Michigan may be next, and California looking at as well.

 

[Rawley]

You mean the arguments about voter fraud?

Nope Your party's bullshit about the 14th amendment.

 

[BackAgain]

OKAY

Let's test the supposed knowledge of the Liability-man:

What exactly were Trump's arguments in this case (The Electors and President Trump)? Which ones do you support that you believe the court erred on?

Or: two possibilities.

1.
You could try to rebut what I posted — despite your insistence that I couldn’t present an argument. (In reality, it’s you who can present no argument or any coherent rebuttal).

2.
You could perhaps consider putting your next deflection effort in the form of an English language sentence.

 

[0311]

Per Drudge, Michigan may be next, and California looking at as well.

California Lieutenant-Governor Eleni Kounalakis is looking into keeping P01135809 off the ballot.

 

[dblack]

This logic should be used to disqualify ALL Democrats and Republicans, for being members of criminal organizations. Clean slate. Let's do this!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That means it is a relic of a different time and place. It was designed to prevent Confederates from regaining power.

​

Which kind of takes away the argument that one must be convicted for it to apply

 

[BackAgain]

There we go again, with the childish style of...

There the dainty always goes. Petty deflection efforts to avoid the substance.

Yet despite all the abundant proof to the contrary, the dainty will continue to pretend that he has any argument to offer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Or: two possibilities.

1.
You could try to rebut what I posted — despite your insistence that I couldn’t present an argument. (In reality, it’s you who can present no argument or any coherent rebuttal).

2.
You could perhaps consider putting your next deflection effort in the form of an English language sentence.

again...



Liability-man's deflection from this:

Let's test the supposed knowledge of the Liability-man:

What exactly were Trump's arguments in this case (The Electors and President Trump)? Which ones do you support, that you believe the court erred on?

 

[BackAgain]

again...

Thanks for the graphic underscoring your admission of your endless cowardice.

I guess when you’re unable to debate (as you are), running away and deflecting is all you have left.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Thanks for the graphic underscoring your admission of your endless cowardice.

I guess when you’re unable to debate (as you are), running away and deflecting is all you have left.

You're listening to imaginary sounds, while dancing alone, with no partner. You've become the Timothy Leary of USMB Legal Scholars.

It's obvious that the USMB, Timothy Leary Legal Scholars like you are posting during your episodic trips and delusions.

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.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Especially since he has never been convicted of insurrection.

Only stupid idiot Liberals think they won. Watch what happens. Lets laugh now and make some popcorn