Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans brought the suit, for the Republican primary candidates running, who believe the candidates should not have to compete with a disqualified candidate....and their voters are harmed...And disenfranchising voters
Pretending that it's not your party is behind push to keep him off the ballot is disingenuous. CREW are full blown Dem loonsRepublicans brought the suit, for the Republican primary candidates running, who believe the candidates should not have to compete with a disqualified candidate....and their voters are harmed...
They are using a non profit legal eagle law team that leans liberal.
Democrats can not sue to keep a Republican candidate off the Republican primary ballot.
You charged him with insurrection, there was a trial, he was acquitted. Time for you get over it.Cellblock2429 in 604 said: “So what President Trump actually said is meaningless.” cllblck.23.22.20 #604
No. You are wrong. My argument in POSTS nf.23.12.20 #569 #603 are clear. The discernment of actual confirmed facts on J6 show that the the two tweets you submitted came well after the tear gas was used. The time for DJT to make things clears was during the lie laden speeches that angered the mob before DJT told them to march to the Capitol which was not in the Rally Permit in the first place. And Trump knew there were firearms in the mob in violation of DC Law. The knowledge about the weapons shows DJT had no regard for security service personnel’s life which to me us enough to disqualify the fat bastard on one count of endangering the lives of lawmakers, their families and the cops who we’re protecting them.
DJT should have shut down the march to the Joint Session the split second he heard that. That would’ve required human decency.
nf.23.12.20 #643
to cllblck.23.22.20 #604
Judges make mistakes. Just because they make a ruling doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Many courts get overturned all the time.They did abide. As it turns out, you did not read a blog and as a result outsmart the lifetime judges.
Get it through your head.
Not exactly the point. But I never expect a point from The Dainty.keeper colorado backagain
Really? And you've read the decision?
. It will be reversed.
www.documentcloud.org
Not exactly the point. But I never expect a point from The Dainty.
The 213 page decision is relatively easy to peruse, even for you. But the decision in a Nutshell maintains that the majority had determined that President Trump had engaged in an insurrection.
That’s why the decision must fall. The Colorado Supreme has absolutely no authority or legal basis to reach that idiotic conclusion especially under the facts of this case. There has been no legal judgment against Trump of insurrection.
That claim is widely made by lbtards like the Dainty. But mere claims are of no legal value.
It was nice of the Colorado Supreme Court to stay their moronic and unlawful decision until Jan. 4.
Even The Dainty can peruse the full decision via this link:
DocumentCloud
How so?Judges make mistakes. Just because they make a ruling doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Many courts get overturned all the time.
I dislike Trump, but this ruling is wrong. You hate Trump, so your emotions cloud your judgement.
In the dissent the three judges told the four idiot Moon Bat judges that they were using words that they didn't know the meaning of. They even quoted the movie "The Princess Bride" to illustrate their point.
3
procedures that must be followed to determine whether someone has engaged in
insurrection after taking the prerequisite oath. That is, it sheds no light on whether
a jury must be empaneled or a bench trial will suffice, the proper burdens of proof
and standards of review, the application of discovery and evidentiary rules, or
even whether civil or criminal proceedings are contemplated. This dearth of
procedural guidance is not surprising: Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment
specifically gives Congress absolute power to enact legislation to enforce Section
Three. My colleagues in the majority concede that there is currently no legislation
enacted by Congress to enforce Section Three. This is of no moment to them,
however, because they conclude that Section Three is self-executing, and that the
states are free to apply their own procedures (including compressed ones in an
election code) to enforce it.2 That is hard for me to swallow.
2 The majority repeatedly uses “self-executing” to describe Section Three, but then
reasons that this part of the Fourteenth Amendment is enforceable in Colorado
only because of the procedures our legislature has enacted as part of the state’s
Election Code. This strikes me as an oxymoron. If a constitutional provision is
truly self-executing, it needs no legislation to be enforced. See Self-executing,
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary
self-executing [Self-executing Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster] (defining “self-executing” as
“taking effect immediately without implementing legislation”); see also Self-
enforcing, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“self-enforcing” means “effective
and applicable without the need for any other action; self-executing”). Much like
Inigo Montoya advised Vizzini, “I do not think [self-executing] means what [my
colleagues in the majority] think it means.” The Princess Bride (20th Century Fox
1987) (“You keep using that word [inconceivable]. I do not think it means what
you think it means.”).
In the dissent the three judges told the four idiot Moon Bat judges that...
Yes. I know. I read the erroneous ruling.
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.
¶6 We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude
and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn
duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public
reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.
¶7 We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this
case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the
Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to
include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.
Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is
sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt
of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.
Now argue why it was a mistake this time.Judges make mistakes.
The DNC want him on the ballot....Pretending that it's not your party is behind push to keep him off the ballot is disingenuous. CREW are full blown Dem loons
/----/ Since you claim the videos were edited, you must have seen the unedited videos. Please post them, and if true, I'll retract my post. But we all know you're blowing smoke.
You don't care. We know. Next you'll be claiming everything is irrelevant.Yes. I know. I read the erroneous ruling.
Flash: "In the dissent the three judges told the four idiot Moon Bat judges that..."The Dainty should heed its own advice. Flash was correct.
No. Even by the lowly “standards” of The Dainty, that was retarded.You don't care. We know. Next you'll be claiming everything is irrelevant.
next
III. AnalysisNo. Even by the lowly “standards” of The Dainty, that was retarded.
The majority opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court rendered a lawless decision. That’s quite relevant, you moron
Not that The Dainty understands what the word means.
(2) whether Section Three requires implementing legislation
before its disqualification provision attaches
President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of
proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal,
claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a
constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a
preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the
Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because
President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it. See People v.
Eckley, 775 P.2d 566, 570 (Colo. 1989).
