- May 20, 2009
- 144,677
- 67,200
- 2,330
9-0 Woo Hoo
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
9-0 Woo Hoo
Boy, CNN and MS-LSD are all down in the mouth.....Good.
Great Call by SCOTUS.Reversed....Suck it CO.
After a quick read of the ruling, thanks for the link, it's not a ruling in favor of President Trump, it is a ruling overturning the CO state decision.
No where does the court acquit FPOTUS#45, what the court did was find a way to overturn CO based on the lack of law by Congress. Which wasn't really a surprise given the questioning during oral arguments.
What does that mean? It is Congresses responsibility to establish a law as it pertains to federals office holders that would be the process that states have to follow. The court didn't rule here that only Congress can designate an individual as an insurrectionist, but that Congress must establish the process. Those are two different things.
WW
SCOTUS is a real “THREAT TO DEMOCRACY”….an existential threat like evil heterosexual Whitey is.Democrat law fare is falling apart. Looks like Biden will have to beat Trump the old fashioned way.
Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in Colorado ballot disqualification dispute
The Supreme Court sided with former President Donald Trump in his challenge to the state of Colorado’s attempt to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot.www.foxnews.com
This ruling was not about acquitting Trump. It was a ruling that Trump could not be removed from the ballot by any individual state. So that is a HUGE victory for him.
After a quick read of the ruling, thanks for the link, it's not a ruling in favor of President Trump, it is a ruling overturning the CO state decision.
No where does the court acquit FPOTUS#45, what the court did was find a way to overturn CO based on the lack of law by Congress. Which wasn't really a surprise given the questioning during oral arguments.
What does that mean? It is Congresses responsibility to establish a law as it pertains to federals office holders that would be the process that states have to follow. The court didn't rule here that only Congress can designate an individual as an insurrectionist, but that Congress must establish the process. Those are two different things.
WW
This is going to come down the way I figured it would. Not an endorsement of Donald Trump
but instead a defensive of jurisdiction.
In short none of the justices are comfortable with state courts usurping Federal parameters.
WTF? You loons tried to keep him off the ballot and lost. Of course its a ruling in his favorAfter a quick read of the ruling, thanks for the link, it's not a ruling in favor of President Trump, it is a ruling overturning the CO state decision.
It’s official and unanimously so: Trump is no insurrectionist so he is fully eligible to be president again.