Colorado, the state of Patriots

[djohn2oo8]

1737249455311565308

[Ef-man]

Let the MAGAtard mental gymnastics begin. :lol

[Spurs Homer]

Scotus will side with their cult leader unfortunately

[djohn2oo8]

Scotus will side with their cult leader unfortunately
Not so sure about that.

[Thread]

Scotus will side with their cult leader unfortunately

Homer

[Thread]

Not so sure about that.

You had your chance to put RBG on life support but you thought you couldn't hurt.

You got hurt.

[Thread]

1737249455311565308

Shoulda put RBG on life support.

tee, hee.

[djohn2oo8]

You had your chance to put RBG on life support but you thought you couldn't hurt.

You got hurt.
States’ issue. Happy hunting.

[djohn2oo8]

1737268986306244725

[Thread]

States’ issue. Happy hunting.

The SC will decide it.

[djohn2oo8]

The SC will decide it.


1737268986306244725
Wow. The parrot is shitting himself.

[Thread]

Wow. The parrot is shitting himself.

Just checkin' assholes.

[djohn2oo8]

Just checkin' assholes.
Colorado just checked Trump’s.

[djohn2oo8]

1737255007269830743

[Thread]

Colorado just checked Trump’s.

Sure, ever since he made President.

[Thread]

1737255007269830743

And if the SC doesn't take it, or, takes it and refuses Trump I'll accept it, as I always do. It's my religion.

But, if the SC sides with the old mam, don't make this old man come lookin' for ya, son. Savvy?

[MultiTroll]

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/10/21/world/21abroad1/21abroad1-jumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp

[Ef-man]

Let the MAGAtard mental gymnastics begin. :lol


Wow. The parrot is shitting himself.

Yam Tits loves the poorly educated. :lol

[djohn2oo8]

Yam Tits loves the poorly educated. :lol
Yep :lol

[Spurs Homer]

Those champions of “states rights” …

those “constitutional originalists” on the SCOTUS….

Will twist themselves into hypocrite pretzels and overturn the colorado supreme ct…and clarence thomas will refuse to recuse even though his pig kunt whore wife is an insurrectionist herself

and the 14th amendment will somehow be a very vague and unclear jumble of confusing outdated early american legalese
and will give SCOTUS no room to deny trump his rights

ZERO doubts on this- just watch

[djohn2oo8]

1737258996556317171

[djohn2oo8]

Those champions of “states rights” …

those “constitutional originalists” on the SCOTUS….

Will twist themselves into hypocrite pretzels and overturn the colorado supreme ct…and clarence thomas will refuse to recuse even though his pig kunt whore wife is an insurrectionist herself

and the 14th amendment will somehow be a very vague and unclear jumble of confusing outdated early american legalese
and will give SCOTUS no room to deny trump his rights

ZERO doubts on this- just watch
They’re backed into a corner on this one, because then Biden could just do the same thing and forcibly attempt to stay in office.

[Spurs Homer]

They’re backed into a corner on this one, because then Biden could just do the same thing and forcibly attempt to stay in office.

possibly on the “absolute immunity” question…

but on the “disqualified from running”

the hypocrites on the scotus will rule on “let the voters decide” garbage

as if the traitor coup plotter will respect the voters decision and not try to steal another election

but here we are…

[Thread]

Yep :lol

dj & Effy sittin' in a fuckin' tree. Look at ya's!!!

[Thread]

They’re backed into a corner on this one, because then Biden could just do the same thing and forcibly attempt to stay in office.

I got nary problem with it. Anything to keep the country tore up & apart.

[Thread]

Those champions of “states rights” …

those “constitutional originalists” on the SCOTUS….

Will twist themselves into hypocrite pretzels and overturn the colorado supreme ct…and clarence thomas will refuse to recuse even though his pig kunt whore wife is an insurrectionist herself

and the 14th amendment will somehow be a very vague and unclear jumble of confusing outdated early american legalese
and will give SCOTUS no room to deny trump his rights

ZERO doubts on this- just watch

I pray with all me might that you're correct here, Homer. I need it and daddy, I need it bad.

[ElNono]

How’s the Nikki Haley vs Biden poll looking like in Colorado, tbh?

[ElNono]

Srsly, the fact that there’s been no conviction (neither via impeachment or criminal, to this point) is likely the crutch the SCOTUS can use. However, if he does get convicted afterwards, this is gonna fall on their laps again.

[Ef-man]

They’re backed into a corner on this one, because then Biden could just do the same thing and forcibly attempt to stay in office.

I am waiting to see Ole Joe exercise his SC approved superpower to stay in office by any means as he cannot be held accountable.

Ala Andrew Jackson, Ole Joe can do what he wants as Roberts “has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

[Thread]

Srsly, the fact that there’s been no conviction (neither via impeachment or criminal, to this point) is likely the crutch the SCOTUS can use. However, if he does get convicted afterwards, this is gonna fall on their laps again.

At least Homer can stand up straight once in-a-while and act like somebody. Not you, El. Never, it's your religion.

[Thread]

I am waiting to see Ole Joe exercise his SC approved superpower to stay in office by any means as he cannot be held accountable.

Ala Andrew Jackson, Ole Joe can do what he wants as Roberts “has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Me too, Effy.

[Thread]

How’s the Nikki Haley vs Biden poll looking like in Colorado, tbh?

Ask your mother, she has it jammed up his ass.

[djohn2oo8]

Srsly, the fact that there’s been no conviction (neither via impeachment or criminal, to this point) is likely the crutch the SCOTUS can use. However, if he does get convicted afterwards, this is gonna fall on their laps again.
Except per the Constitution there doesn’t need to be a conviction for inciting an insurrection

[z0sa]

Srsly, the fact that there’s been no conviction (neither via impeachment or criminal, to this point) is likely the crutch the SCOTUS can use. However, if he does get convicted afterwards, this is gonna fall on their laps again.

You’re right, because the SCOTUS is highly conservative. So pragmatically speaking you’re 100%

In reality the rebels in 1865 needed no court date to be inherently guilty. Just sayin’

[baseline bum]

1737268986306244725

LOL thinking the 6 supreme court clerics won't play Calvinball again.

[ElNono]

Except per the Constitution there doesn’t need to be a conviction for inciting an insurrection

It’s implicit in the fact that insurrection is a crime. There’s also no mention of incitement on the Amendment.
When this was enacted, the relevant Confederacy losers were already pardoned.

[ElNono]

That said, it is a crutch because Alito and Uncle Thomas will have to do some gross mental gymnastics to reconcile textual reading and historical context with the action that did take place, which was indeed an insurrection.

[ElNono]

Context on the pardons: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardons_for_ex-Confederates#:~:text=Both%20during%20and%20after%2 0the,power%20under%20the%20Confederate%20governmen t.

[Thread]

That said, it is a crutch because Alito and Uncle Thomas will have to do some gross mental gymnastics to reconcile textual reading and historical context with the action that did take place, which was indeed an insurrection.

All you had to do was put RBG on life support.

ha, ha.

[Winehole23]

we've seen this dynamic play out many times

1737528440239083904

[Thread]

we've seen this dynamic play out many times

1737528440239083904

"All of Trump's opponents make the same mistake: they rely on external events to stop him."

Sure, absolutely, like blowing him up, cutting his head off, shooting him to death. Now they're back in the courts trying mightily to put a stopper in that bottle.

But that old man made President. And nothing, motherfuckers, will erase that fact from the annals.

Let us proceed...

[djohn2oo8]

we've seen this dynamic play out many times

1737528440239083904
Except the optics of this ruling if they were to reverse it, throws out the window anything regarding leaving shit up to the states

[djohn2oo8]

And by and large Biden can then forcibly refuse to leave office.

[Thread]

Except the optics of this ruling if they were to reverse it, throws out the window anything regarding leaving shit up to the states


All you had to do, dj, was put RBG on life support.

ha, ha.

[Thread]

And by and large Biden can then forcibly refuse to leave office.

I got nary problem with it. Whatever it takes to keep this country tore up & apart.

Let us proceed...

[Spurs Homer]

Lets not lie to ourselves…

the ruling by colorado is 100 percent correct and in a country that is a true democracy- should stand…

however

the SCOTUS is as corrupt as corrupt gets -and the GOP/Trump/Russia traitors have polluted our former democracy and this will 100 percent be overturned as i said before

not because the colorado decision is wrong
but
because the corruption has already infected the traitors on the right

[Thread]

Lets not lie to ourselves…

the ruling by colorado is 100 percent correct and in a country that is a true democracy- should stand…

however

the SCOTUS is as corrupt as corrupt gets -and the GOP/Trump/Russia traitors have polluted our former democracy and this will 100 percent be overturned as i said before

not because the colorado decision is wrong
but
because the corruption has already infected the traitors on the right

But only when we control it, Homer. When you control the SC it's august, clean as a whistle from the Kresge's.

You all had your chance, you mooks, but you let RBG die on the vine. Your regrets are your own. I've nary sympathy for you.

[djohn2oo8]

Those champions of “states rights” …

those “constitutional originalists” on the SCOTUS….

Will twist themselves into hypocrite pretzels and overturn the colorado supreme ct…and clarence thomas will refuse to recuse even though his pig kunt whore wife is an insurrectionist herself

and the 14th amendment will somehow be a very vague and unclear jumble of confusing outdated early american legalese
and will give SCOTUS no room to deny trump his rights

ZERO doubts on this- just watch
Still a risk for Trump, because he is taking his sweet time to appeal It to the SCOTUS.

[Thread]

Still a risk for Trump, because he is taking his sweet time to appeal It to the SCOTUS.

Shit, please, dj, making President was the biggest risk for Trump as it turns out. He's been threatened with bombs, decapitation, being shot by Black & White men alike, even General Milley threatened to shoot him to death on his final day in office before Biden commenced ta squattin' in there.

This, this CO., thing you're gonna compare that to the above?

Let us proceed...

[Thread]

Still a risk for Trump, because he is taking his sweet time to appeal It to the SCOTUS.

Perhaps he's fucking with you and even with me and will refuse to appeal leaving it sit there to see if he's righteous in the daylight, daring the SC to stand down, or, come up...and a bit secure in the knowledge as one of (us) reasoned just this morning on this thread that he can't win Colorado regardless.

What do you think, dj, or, has old Dale made your Ignore List at the last?

[koriwhat]

The one thing the most dumbest of dumb in Spurs Homer leaves out of the mix... The fact that Trump isn't some officer, he's in fact a past POTUS, and that he's not been found guilty of an insurrection so yes the SC in Colorado skewed the law to include a past POTUS so they can further push their lunacy onto those who want nothing of it.

Spurs Homer, do us all a favor and X yourself from this world already. You're worthless!

[Thread]

The one thing the most dumbest of dumb in Spurs Homer leaves out of the mix... The fact that Trump isn't some officer, he's in fact a past POTUS, and that he's not been found guilty of an insurrection so yes the SC in Colorado skewed the law to include a past POTUS so they can further push their lunacy onto those who want nothing of it.

Spurs Homer, do us all a favor and X yourself from this world already. You're worthless!

Damn, first Lumps takes Dumps to the Tree of Woe.
Now, kori takes Homer to another Tree of Woe.

kori

[djohn2oo8]

Perhaps he's fucking with you and even with me and will refuse to appeal leaving it sit there to see if he's righteous in the daylight, daring the SC to stand down, or, come up...and a bit secure in the knowledge as one of (us) reasoned just this morning on this thread that he can't win Colorado regardless.

What do you think, dj, or, has old Dale made your Ignore List at the last?
Well, if he stands down other states will still follow suit and look to keep him from being on the ballot. The problem comes is if he appeals any one of the rulings he risks the SCOTUS making a binding decision that could keep him off multiple ballots.

[djohn2oo8]

The one thing the most dumbest of dumb in Spurs Homer leaves out of the mix... The fact that Trump isn't some officer, he's in fact a past POTUS, and that he's not been found guilty of an insurrection so yes the SC in Colorado skewed the law to include a past POTUS so they can further push their lunacy onto those who want nothing of it.

Spurs Homer, do us all a favor and X yourself from this world already. You're worthless!
The ruling was made based on him being POTUS at the time of the insurrection. You have maggots eating the shit out of your brain.

[koriwhat]

The ruling was made based on him being POTUS at the time of the insurrection. You have maggots eating the shit out of your brain.

LMAO You have no clue what the 14th amendment entails by the looks of your low info/low IQ response you dumb mother fucker. :tu

[weebo]

LMAO You have no clue what the 14th amendment entails by the looks of your low info/low IQ response you dumb mother fucker. :tu

This stupid inbred loser barely made it to adulthood with a special education G.E.D and he's calling other people dumb? FOH :lol

[Thread]

Well, if he stands down other states will still follow suit and look to keep him from being on the ballot. The problem comes is if he appeals any one of the rulings he risks the SCOTUS making a binding decision that could keep him off multiple ballots.

...and...you're not going to call me everything but a White man?

Thanks for a regular answer. Food for thought. He's a gambler though...I can see him brazening it out.

[Thread]

This stupid inbred loser barely made it to adulthood with a special education G.E.D and he's calling other people dumb? FOH :lol

You'd have to go thru me first, weebs. You really want to do that at my age?

[Ef-man]

This stupid inbred loser barely made it to adulthood with a special education G.E.D and he's calling other people dumb? FOH :lol

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

The one thing the most dumbest of dumb in Spurs Homer leaves out of the mix... The fact that Trump isn't some officer, he's in fact a past POTUS, and that he's not been found guilty of an insurrection so yes the SC in Colorado skewed the law to include a past POTUS so they can further push their lunacy onto those who want nothing of it.

Spurs Homer, do us all a favor and X yourself from this world already. You're worthless!

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Nothing about a conviction tbh.

[Spurs Homer]

The one thing the most dumbest of dumb in Spurs Homer leaves out of the mix... The fact that Trump isn't some officer, he's in fact a past POTUS, and that he's not been found guilty of an insurrection so yes the SC in Colorado skewed the law to include a past POTUS so they can further push their lunacy onto those who want nothing of it.

Spurs Homer, do us all a favor and X yourself from this world already. You're worthless!


there is absolutely ZERO mentions of convicted or not in the 14 th amendment;


Section 3 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/) of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”



for you pretzels to twist yourselves a little more to defend your cult traitor leader

[Spurs Homer]

Oops

had not seen chumps post- beat me to it

[Blake]

Tats will now homerdisappearintobushes.gif

[Thread]

Tats will now homerdisappearintobushes.gif

Or, get heeled and wait for ben show up over there.

tee, hee.

[Spurs Homer]

Tats will now homerdisappearintobushes.gif

lol

stop following tat boy he might wish death upon you...

[koriwhat]

lol

stop following tat boy he might wish death upon you...

lol

You still crying that IDGAF about you you fucking loon? Got anything of substance to add because you're nothing but utter bullshit...

[koriwhat]

there is absolutely ZERO mentions of convicted or not in the 14 th amendment;


Section 3 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/)[COLOR=#2A2A2A][FONT=PublicoText] of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Do yourself a favor and research the above dumbfuck. :lmao

Btw, the other glaring misconception that you're trying to plant into people's minds.... Has Trump been convicted of such an insurrection? You're one dumb mother fucker SH and you know it.

[Monostradamus]

lol

You still crying that IDGAF about you you fucking loon? Got anything of substance to add because you're nothing but utter bullshit...
Spoken like a true totally-not-a-Trump-fan person.

[Monostradamus]

:lmao Joey mass posting about this, he is big mad.

[koriwhat]

Poor sad Weebo and his many alts all up in my notifications like the gay that he is but little does he know that he's totally fucking irrelevant to me, my notifications, and ST as a whole. Bro I don't see one motherfucking post from you thanks to El Nono and some basic coding on my part.

You putos can eat shit!

[Monostradamus]

Poor sad Weebo and his many alts all up in my notifications like the gay that he is but little does he know that he's totally fucking irrelevant to me, my notifications, and ST as a whole. Bro I don't see one motherfucking post from you thanks to El Nono and some basic coding on my part.

You putos can eat shit!

And yet you will still indirectly reply to everything I say, because you’re a sad, depressed little man-child who resents getting a paycheck from mommy.

[ElNono]

The one thing the most dumbest of dumb in Spurs Homer leaves out of the mix... The fact that Trump isn't some officer, he's in fact a past POTUS, and that he's not been found guilty of an insurrection so yes the SC in Colorado skewed the law to include a past POTUS so they can further push their lunacy onto those who want nothing of it.

Spurs Homer, do us all a favor and X yourself from this world already. You're worthless!

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected…

So the argument that he’s not an officer of the government is probably the weakest to make. There are much better ones, like this being a non-justiciable, political question. Or who determines what rises to an insurrection.

[Spurs Homer]

Do yourself a favor and research the above dumbfuck. :lmao

Btw, the other glaring misconception that you're trying to plant into people's minds.... Has Trump been convicted of such an insurrection? You're one dumb mother fucker SH and you know it.

again...read the 14th amendment sec 3 -
no mention of needing a conviction...

The Office of the Presidency of the United States....

even on FOX lying liars channel they refer to the president as holding the office of the presidency...

sorry tat kunt - your treasonous kunt hero traitor is going down


bwahahahahahahahaha!

cry moar faggot!

[weebo]

Poor sad Weebo and his many alts all up in my notifications like the gay that he is but little does he know that he's totally fucking irrelevant to me, my notifications, and ST as a whole. Bro I don't see one motherfucking post from you thanks to El Nono and some basic coding on my part.

You putos can eat shit!

I'll totally rage-hate on you but you're fucking irrelevant to me :lol. You must have been the biggest retard to graduate out of your special education G.E.D class homie. You know, that one retard that wears the 1920's throwback style football helmet. :lol

[daboom1]

Spoken like a true totally-not-a-Trump-fan person.

How bout them Rangers?

[Winehole23]

1737673618119630849

[Monostradamus]

How bout them Rangers?
Still so surreal :lol I rewatch Seager’s Game 1 homer at least once a week tbh

[Thread]

1737673618119630849

He made President. That's it & that's all.

[koriwhat]

again...read the 14th amendment sec 3 -
no mention of needing a conviction...

The Office of the Presidency of the United States....

even on FOX lying liars channel they refer to the president as holding the office of the presidency...

sorry tat kunt - your treasonous kunt hero traitor is going down


bwahahahahahahahaha!

cry moar faggot!

You're stupid as fuck bro and that Colorado SC is just pulling shit out of their asses redefining our laws to fit their shit ideology. Oh and you obviously hate the gays by the words you choose to share here. Great to know you're so tolerant you bigot loser. :tu

[koriwhat]

Is that gay boy weebo crying again?

[Extra Stout]

The ruling is self-staying. Did nobody actually read it? Trump will appeal, the deadline to certify the ballot will pass, and Trump will appear on the primary ballot. The ruling is designed to moot itself.

The CO justices never intended for this ruling to be decided on the merits. Wishcasting aside, a state Supreme Court cannot simply declare somebody guilty of a crime without due process or a trial by jury in order to deprive them of the right to run for political office. It would fail on the merits. But the merits are irrelevant.

They’re daring the SC to strike down a moot case. If they don’t strike it down, then various Democratic secretaries of state will interpret it as a finding of fact implicitly accepted by the Supreme Court in order to leave Trump off the November ballot. The legal challenges would commence then. Chaos would ensue. There’s a puncher’s chance Trump could end up left off the ballot in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, for example, with Republican voters forced to write him in.

This is fourth dimensional chess Harvard Law stuff. Manipulate the process and the loopholes in the law to gain and maintain power.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The ruling is self-staying. Did nobody actually read it? Trump will appeal, the deadline to certify the ballot will pass, and Trump will appear on the primary ballot. The ruling is designed to moot itself.

The CO justices never intended for this ruling to be decided on the merits. Wishcasting aside, a state Supreme Court cannot simply declare somebody guilty of a crime without due process or a trial by jury in order to deprive them of the right to run for political office. It would fail on the merits. But the merits are irrelevant.

They’re daring the SC to strike down a moot case. If they don’t strike it down, then various Democratic secretaries of state will interpret it as a finding of fact implicitly accepted by the Supreme Court in order to leave Trump off the November ballot. The legal challenges would commence then. Chaos would ensue. There’s a puncher’s chance Trump could end up left off the ballot in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, for example, with Republican voters forced to write him in.

This is fourth dimensional chess Harvard Law stuff. Manipulate the process and the loopholes in the law to gain and maintain power.

Politics aside it does seem a crucial point of fact in determining fitness.

You call it trickery but it answers an important question.

[Thread]

The ruling is self-staying. Did nobody actually read it? Trump will appeal, the deadline to certify the ballot will pass, and Trump will appear on the primary ballot. The ruling is designed to moot itself.

The CO justices never intended for this ruling to be decided on the merits. Wishcasting aside, a state Supreme Court cannot simply declare somebody guilty of a crime without due process or a trial by jury in order to deprive them of the right to run for political office. It would fail on the merits. But the merits are irrelevant.

They’re daring the SC to strike down a moot case. If they don’t strike it down, then various Democratic secretaries of state will interpret it as a finding of fact implicitly accepted by the Supreme Court in order to leave Trump off the November ballot. The legal challenges would commence then. Chaos would ensue. There’s a puncher’s chance Trump could end up left off the ballot in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, for example, with Republican voters forced to write him in.

This is fourth dimensional chess Harvard Law stuff. Manipulate the process and the loopholes in the law to gain and maintain power.

Stout; the voice of reason & moderation in troubled times.

Stout

[Thread]

Politics aside it does seem a crucial point of fact in determining fitness.

You call it trickery but it answers an important question.

Lumps, the voice of a half/ass.

Lumps

[Extra Stout]

Politics aside it does seem a crucial point of fact in determining fitness.

You call it trickery but it answers an important question.
If it were meant to answer an important question then the CO Supreme Court would have forced the USSC to stay it rather than doing so themselves.

I think the question is simple. Congress has defined what insurrection is in 18 USC 2383 and includes in its penalties loss of eligibility for federal office, as per the 14th Amendment. If Trump were convicted of insurrection, all 50 states would be obligated to leave him off the ballot. It’s not up to a state court to determine.

Critical theory teaches that any halfway competent jurist can concoct a ruling that aligns with their political preferences, and in fact have done so throughout American history. High-minded “objective” rulings on the merits are naive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it were meant to answer an important question then the CO Supreme Court would have forced the USSC to stay it rather than doing so themselves.

I think the question is simple. Congress has defined what insurrection is in 18 USC 2383 and includes in its penalties loss of eligibility for federal office, as per the 14th Amendment. If Trump were convicted of insurrection, all 50 states would be obligated to leave him off the ballot. It’s not up to a state court to determine.

Critical theory teaches that any halfway competent jurist can concoct a ruling that aligns with their political preferences, and in fact have done so throughout American history. High-minded “objective” rulings on the merits are naive.

You not having an answer to a question doesn't prove anything.

In essence they are asking for the SCOTUS to opine before acting. Your characterization is gratuitous.

[Thread]

You not having an answer to a question doesn't prove anything.

In essence they are asking for the SCOTUS to opine before acting. Your characterization is gratuitous.

Bend over. I'll show ya fuckin' gratuitous.

[Extra Stout]

You not having an answer to a question doesn't prove anything.

In essence they are asking for the SCOTUS to opine before acting. Your characterization is gratuitous.
I’ve answered the question twice so far. It’s a pretty straightforward question of law, but if you think you’re trying to stop the second coming of Hitler, do you just throw up your hands and say, “Whaddya gonna do, the law tied my hands” or are you going to get creative? We’re long since through the looking glass on the rule of law anyway.

Yeah, if it fails, Trump and his acolytes will just declare BLM an insurrection and any politician who supported it ineligible for office, but wasn’t he going to do that anyway?

[Thread]

I’ve answered the question twice so far. It’s a pretty straightforward question of law, but if you think you’re trying to stop the second coming of Hitler, do you just throw up your hands and say, “Whaddya gonna do, the law tied my hands” or are you going to get creative? We’re long since through the looking glass on the rule of law anyway.

Yeah, if it fails, Trump and his acolytes will just declare BLM an insurrection and any politician who supported it ineligible for office, but wasn’t he going to do that anyway?

Look at Stout...like an avenging angel with news from on high.

It's the finest lodgment since I returned to fore months ago.

Stout

Like Harry S. in '45..."Again..."

Stout

[Thread]

I’ve answered the question twice so far. It’s a pretty straightforward question of law, but if you think you’re trying to stop the second coming of Hitler, do you just throw up your hands and say, “Whaddya gonna do, the law tied my hands” or are you going to get creative? We’re long since through the looking glass on the rule of law anyway.

Yeah, if it fails, Trump and his acolytes will just declare BLM an insurrection and any politician who supported it ineligible for office, but wasn’t he going to do that anyway?

And all it took was Trump walking in off the street in New York and making President. Voila!

DAY ONE? Madonna threatened to blow up the White House with him, his wife and their child in there.
LAST DAY? General Milley threatened to shoot him to death.

"rule of law" indeed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I’ve answered the question twice so far. It’s a pretty straightforward question of law, but if you think you’re trying to stop the second coming of Hitler, do you just throw up your hands and say, “Whaddya gonna do, the law tied my hands” or are you going to get creative? We’re long since through the looking glass on the rule of law anyway.

Yeah, if it fails, Trump and his acolytes will just declare BLM an insurrection and any politician who supported it ineligible for office, but wasn’t he going to do that anyway?

You said you couldn't see any other way than a false dichotomy. That is what I was getting at you not knowing any other answer to your presumptive question.

At the end of the day your characterization as to intent of what is really a disparate and loosely related group makes no sense.

[Spurs Homer]

The ruling is self-staying. Did nobody actually read it? Trump will appeal, the deadline to certify the ballot will pass, and Trump will appear on the primary ballot. The ruling is designed to moot itself.

The CO justices never intended for this ruling to be decided on the merits. Wishcasting aside, a state Supreme Court cannot simply declare somebody guilty of a crime without due process or a trial by jury in order to deprive them of the right to run for political office. It would fail on the merits. But the merits are irrelevant.

They’re daring the SC to strike down a moot case. If they don’t strike it down, then various Democratic secretaries of state will interpret it as a finding of fact implicitly accepted by the Supreme Court in order to leave Trump off the November ballot. The legal challenges would commence then. Chaos would ensue. There’s a puncher’s chance Trump could end up left off the ballot in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, for example, with Republican voters forced to write him in.

This is fourth dimensional chess Harvard Law stuff. Manipulate the process and the loopholes in the law to gain and maintain power.

no one is asking anyone to declare anyone guilty of a crime…

this is not a punitive case- no one will be found guilty or not guilty of any crime

this is merely a case based on the constitution 14th ammendment

no different thanif it was a 21 yr old trying to run for president

the scotus- because they are strict originalists would surely rule that a 21 year old is ineligble to be on the presidential ballot due to the strict interpretation reading of the 14th amendment

simple case for any LEGIT court

not a simple case for a corrupt rt wing bought and paid for by billionaires- scotus

[Thread]

And all it took was Trump walking in off the street in New York and making President. Voila!

DAY ONE? Madonna threatened to blow up the White House with him, his wife and their child in there.
LAST DAY? General Milley threatened to shoot him to death.

"rule of law" indeed.

[daboom1]

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1737661200866136571?t

[djohn2oo8]

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1737661200866136571?t
Womp womp

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1737661200866136571?t

:lmao No U

[Thread]

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1737661200866136571?t

[djohn2oo8]

That’s fine, we’ll do this shit while you’re kicking and screaming.

[Winehole23]

The CO justices never intended for this ruling to be decided on the merits. Wishcasting aside, a state Supreme Court cannot simply declare somebody guilty of a crime without due process or a trial by jury in order to deprive them of the right to run for political office. It would fail on the merits. But the merits are irrelevant.There's a parallel clause in section 3, ..."or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Historically, this would seem to require a presidential proclamation under the Insurrection Act, but in this case, it was the president and his followers who were trying to obstruct the execution of US law. The 14th Amendment does not seem to have anticipated the US president leading or abetting a revolt against the US.

Some commentators, like Judge Luttig, argue that the 14th amendment is self-executing, but this seems tenuous under the meaning of section 5, which gives enforcement to Congress.


This is fourth dimensional chess Harvard Law stuff. Manipulate the process and the loopholes in the law to gain and maintain power.Exactly what Trump did to try to stay in power. If there's no legal impediment short of conviction for insurrection to prevent presidential putchists from running for office, politics must either fill the gap or abstain from the controversy. Congress failed to convict in two impeachments, so it falls to the states and the courts to sort it out, or not. Like it or not, the judiciary is political and always has been -- it's literally a co-sovereign in the US. And like you said, has engaged in political ad hoc-ery throughout our history, for better and for worse.

Obviously, much mischief lies in that direction, but excluding a sadistic, authoritarian putchist like Trump from power on an ad hoc basis might be worth it. This of course if a pragmatic argument, not a legal or constitutional one.

For myself, I'd like to see him stand for election and lose again. The danger is that he wins and shrugs off legal responsibility for what he has already done, and worse.

[CosmicCowboy]

It wasn't like Trump was going to win Colorado anyway.

[Thread]

That’s fine, we’ll do this shit while you’re kicking and screaming.

I look forward to the challenge with equal amounts of both anticipation & determination.

Let us proceed...

[Thread]

It wasn't like Trump was going to win Colorado anyway.

That's what they said about the Presidency before he curb stomped Clinton.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's what they said about the Presidency before he curb stomped Clinton.

I spend a lot of time in Colorado. Colorado politics are overwhelmingly dictated by the East, especially Boulder and Denver. Trump has zero chance of taking Colorado even if he IS on the ballot.

[Thread]

For myself, I'd like to see him stand for election and lose again.

I'll just bet you would, you chickenshit, you.

[Spurminator]

It wasn't like Trump was going to win Colorado anyway.

This is related to the primary ballot though, right? He would definitely win the GOP primary

[Winehole23]

This is related to the primary ballot though, right? He would definitely win the GOP primaryworth pointing out in this regard that it was Colorado Republicans, not Democrats, who filed the lawsuit.

[Thread]

worth pointing out in this regard that it was Colorado Republicans, not Democrats, who filed the lawsuit.

aka RINO's.

[daboom1]

I look forward to the challenge with equal amounts of both anticipation & determination.

Let us proceed...

[boutons_deux]

Newt Gingrich says the 14th amendment simply doesn't apply anymore

[Thread]

Newt Gingrich says the 14th amendment simply doesn't apply anymore

As does the threatening assassination of a President of the United States.

In for penny.
In for pound.

[djohn2oo8]

As does the threatening assassination of a President of the United States.

In for penny.
In for pound.
you were quiet when it was “Hussein Obama”. While your side threatened assassination.

[Thread]

you were quiet when it was “Hussein Obama”. While your side threatened assassination.

Cite it.

[ElNono]

no one is asking anyone to declare anyone guilty of a crime…

this is not a punitive case- no one will be found guilty or not guilty of any crime

this is merely a case based on the constitution 14th ammendment

no different thanif it was a 21 yr old trying to run for president

the scotus- because they are strict originalists would surely rule that a 21 year old is ineligble to be on the presidential ballot due to the strict interpretation reading of the 14th amendment

simple case for any LEGIT court

not a simple case for a corrupt rt wing bought and paid for by billionaires- scotus

If he can’t legally run for President, it’s implicitly punitive.

I’m not arguing your overall point, just pointing that out.

[ElNono]

It wasn't like Trump was going to win Colorado anyway.

It provides a legal argument for other potentially competitive States to do the same.

This SC did an automated stay, some other courts might not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If he can’t legally run for President, it’s implicitly punitive.

I’m not arguing your overall point, just pointing that out.

Not legally. There is no right stated that guarantees ability to run for office. It is technically not granting a privilege which legally is not punitive.

[ElNono]

Not legally. There is no right stated that guarantees ability to run for office. It is technically not granting a privilege which legally is not punitive.

Not saying it’s punitive from a legal standpoint (it is, after all, just not meeting the defined requirements), so I agree with you on that. That said, those requirements themselves can be argued to be relatively arbitrary and definitely have a punitive effect.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not saying it’s punitive from a legal standpoint (it is, after all, just not meeting the defined requirements), so I agree with you on that. That said, those requirements themselves can be argued to be relatively arbitrary and definitely have a punitive effect.

Sure but since the only arguments that matter are going to happen in a court off law the argument will not work for the GOP.

[Thread]

It provides a legal argument for other potentially competitive States to do the same.

This SC did an automated stay, some other courts might not.

When has your side ever obeyed an SC dictate, El?

Never. You just plow right along. Unless it's your SC, then it's august and to be taken with the utmost respect.

[Thread]

you were quiet when it was “Hussein Obama”. While your side threatened assassination.


Cite it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Right off the top of my head the Dems respected the SCOTUS in Gore v FL DoS. When they struck down gun laws with the Heller decision that was respected.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Modern GOP ethics seem to be mostly 'whatever I can get away with makes it okay.'

[Thread]

Modern GOP ethics seem to be mostly 'whatever I can get away with makes it okay.'

We learned that tact from you, ya dummy, you. And only practiced it AFTER Trump made President. Why? Simple, the RINO's scattered like the vermin they were and remain. You'd always done it and are damn good at it.

***And another thing, Lumps; act like somebody and quote me instead of answering me freehand so nobody can see you conversing with the pariah. I've stood by you in broad daylight with Dumps. And took great joy bearing witness as you cleaned that fucker's clock.

[Thread]

Right off the top of my head the Dems respected the SCOTUS in Gore v FL DoS. When they struck down gun laws with the Heller decision that was respected.

You did, I remember it, though the lawyers were enraged that Gore raised the white flag. I too was absolutely flabbergasted that'd he'd done it. And then the kicker, the livin' end? That fuckin' Bush2 was a die hard RINO the whole fuckin' time, but didn't declare till Trump made President.

And I recall Bush2 in his Presidency back in that circa. I'd be around the house here doing the housework with the TV on to the CNN in the background. And I'd hear the damnest things coming from Bush2 sounding like he was pro D. It was like a walking nightmare. "Naw, you're crazy Dale, you heard it wrong. Just clean the toilet bowl!"

[Spurs Homer]

If he can’t legally run for President, it’s implicitly punitive.

I’m not arguing your overall point, just pointing that out.

kind of…

sure he will be left off the ballot -but this action/decision alone is not punitve as the decision wont get him incarcerated - or fined or punished

same as a 21 yr old trying to get on the ballot

in that sense it isnt punitive

[Thread]

kind of…

sure he will be left off the ballot -but this action/decision alone is not punitve as the decision wont get him incarcerated - or fined or punished

same as a 21 yr old trying to get on the ballot

in that sense it isnt punitive

Look at Homer, in a blind panic torturing logic. You dirty thing, you. If I was 55 years younger I'd show ya.

[Ef-man]

worth pointing out in this regard that it was Colorado Republicans, not Democrats, who filed the lawsuit.


kind of…

sure he will be left off the ballot -but this action/decision alone is not punitve as the decision wont get him incarcerated - or fined or punished

same as a 21 yr old trying to get on the ballot

in that sense it isnt punitive

Especially when it is your own state party which filed the lawsuit.

[velik_m]

Democrats begin move to block Trump from ballot in New York

...
State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-Manhattan, issued a letter to the state Board of Elections on Dec. 7 urging the board to exercise its constitutional duty and “immediately exclude” Trump from the ballot.

Hoylman-Sigal, in a letter co-signed by four of his Democratic Senate colleagues, alleges Trump indisputably committed an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore is barred from holding office as president.
...



https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/democrats-begin-move-block-trump-ballot-new-york-18568651.php



Motion filed to remove Trump from Virginia ballots
...
“Mr. Trump has declared his candidacy for president again in 2024,” reads the motion. “However, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on any future ballot for federal office based on his engagement in insurrection against the United States.”
...


https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/motion-filed-to-remove-trump-from-virginia-ballots/

[daboom1]

We learned that tact from you, ya dummy, you. And only practiced it AFTER Trump made President. Why? Simple, the RINO's scattered like the vermin they were and remain. You'd always done it and are damn good at it.

***And another thing, Lumps; act like somebody and quote me instead of answering me freehand so nobody can see you conversing with the pariah. I've stood by you in broad daylight with Dumps. And took great joy bearing witness as you cleaned that fucker's clock.

Tell it Cubby!

Testify!

[Winehole23]

Historically, no previous prosecution has been required to disqualify people from office, and indeed, after the passage of the 14th Amendment, Congress was deluged by petitions to restore eligibility from thousands of people who understood themselves to be already disqualified.

[Thread]

Tell it Cubby!

Testify!

You damn right, da, and Merry Christmas to you. You're a grand fellow. Whenever I become a bit downtrodden and low you're there and it brings me back to the fore.

Bless your heart, da.

[daboom1]

You damn right, da, and Merry Christmas to you. You're a grand fellow. Whenever I become a bit downtrodden and low you're there and it brings me back to the fore.

Bless your heart, da.

Merry Christmas buddy!

[djohn2oo8]

1740521852454511065

[djohn2oo8]

1740525389343326499

[scott]

If you want to run for office, don't commit insurrection, tbh.

[Kim Jong-il]

Meh, let’s see if this happens in a swing state. That would be when it’s time to get the popcorn out.

[Spurs Homer]

No self-respecting insurrectionist should take this lying down!

if you cannot attempt a coup and other such fuckery without a bunch of libs removing you from the next election you plan to cheat on-

what kind of a dictatorship is this anyways?

[Spurs Homer]

States rights!
states rights!
states rights!

[djohn2oo8]

Meh, let’s see if this happens in a swing state. That would be when it’s time to get the popcorn out.
Well, it’s important to see if the SCOTUS decides to weigh in or not. Swing states will join in. Whether the Supreme Court decides to go against the Constitution is the bigger tell.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, it’s important to see if the SCOTUS decides to weigh in or not. Swing states will join in. Whether the Supreme Court decides to go against the Constitution is the bigger tell.

The precedent either way will definitely dictate how it goes.

[Winehole23]

If you want to run for office, don't commit insurrection, tbh.Oaths used to mean something. If you swear to uphold the constitution, protect the US (i.e., protect it from violent attack) and faithfully execute laws you don't trash them and expect to remain in government

[Winehole23]

J6 was a violent attack on the US government.

Trump sat on his hands for hours, watching it on TV, ignoring aides, members of Congress and Sean Hannity pleading with him do do something about it because he thought the violence was to his personal benefit.

[Thread]

Oaths used to mean something. If you swear to uphold the constitution, protect the US (i.e., protect it from violent attack) and faithfully execute laws you don't trash them and expect to remain in government

True, then Trump took his oath and before he could get to the White House you side threatened to blow it up.

Your side tore up & tore apart this country, and dad, it's a stayin' that-a-wayPERIOD

[djohn2oo8]

True, then Trump took his oath and before he could get to the White House you side threatened to blow it up.

Your side tore up & tore apart this country, and dad, it's a stayin' that-a-wayPERIOD
Your side threatened to hang 44.

[pgardn]

Your side threatened to hang 44.

Since you quoted him I had to read it.
Thinking I will use El No No cure.

Anyways.... Thread is convinced that Madonna is a terrorist who knows how to produce bombs and had all the plans laid out and the timing to blow up Trump. Old Tread, of course, is in a state of dementia along with psychotic paranoia. So the equivalence he makes is Madonna (who had no way to carry out anything) and Trump who really did coordinate and carry out a vast effort in swing states he lost to change the results. AND did nothing about stopping his mob after saying very clearly, "go down there and fight like hell".

Its these kind of false equivalences that show the red team core member cannot be reasoned with. And are a real danger to democracy. They believe its impossible to lose an election and if they do lose, they will change it the easiest way. No fake ballots necessary. Just go right to the heart of the matter and change the State vote for them.

And now we have Clarence Thomas, whose wife was apart of the effort to overthrow the election, refusing to recuse himself from rulings dealing with the insurrection. So its spread from the WH, to the congress, and the judiciary. The red team members with half a conscience who see this happen are quitting. Just giving up.

[Thread]

Your side threatened to hang 44.

Cite it.

[Thread]

Since you quoted him I had to read it.
Thinking I will use El No No cure.

Anyways.... Thread is convinced that Madonna is a terrorist who knows how to produce bombs and had all the plans laid out and the timing to blow up Trump. Old Tread, of course, is in a state of dementia along with psychotic paranoia. So the equivalence he makes is Madonna (who had no way to carry out anything) and Trump who really did coordinate and carry out a vast effort in swing states he lost to change the results. AND did nothing about stopping his mob after saying very clearly, "go down there and fight like hell".

Its these kind of false equivalences that show the red team core member cannot be reasoned with. And are a real danger to democracy. They believe its impossible to lose an election and if they do lose, they will change it the easiest way. No fake ballots necessary. Just go right to the heart of the matter and change the State vote for them.

And now we have Clarence Thomas, whose wife was apart of the effort to overthrow the election, refusing to recuse himself from rulings dealing with the insurrection. So its spread from the WH, to the congress, and the judiciary. The red team members with half a conscience who see this happen are quitting. Just giving up.


Trump took his oath and before he could get to the White House your side threatened to blow it up.

Your side tore up & tore apart this country, and dad, it's a stayin' that-a-wayPERIOD

[Winehole23]

For those complaining about the lack of due process in Colorado, while it's true that there was no criminal prosecution, there was a five day trial, held specifically to determine if Trump participated in insurrection. Since the stakes were Trump's eligibility for office and not his personal freedom, the lower civil standard of proof does not seem inappropriate. Qualification disputes don't ordinarily take place in criminal courtrooms.

[Thread]

For those complaining about the lack of due process in Colorado, while it's true that there was no criminal prosecution, there was a five day trial, held specifically to determine if Trump participated in insurrection. Since the stakes were Trump's eligibility for office and not his personal freedom, the lower civil standard of proof does not seem inappropriate. Qualification disputes don't ordinarily take place in criminal courtrooms.

Old Winestein!!!

[Ef-man]

States rights!
states rights!
states rights!

The Colorado SC quoted a ruling by then-judge, Neil Gorsuch, on the very question of whether states get to disqualify people from state election ballots:

'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits the state to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.'

[Tyronn Lue]

States rights!
states rights!
states rights!
https://media.vlipsy.com/vlips/9NQUqfS6/preview.jpg

:lol citizens arrest!

[Thread]

You Democrats are the embodiment of (Fool me once shame on you---Fool me twice shame on me.)

tee, hee.