Reply With Quote
Still so surrealI rewatch Seager’s Game 1 homer at least once a week tbh
Still so surreal
He made President. That's it & that's all.
You're stupid as bro and that Colorado SC is just pulling out of their asses redefining our laws to fit their 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.
Is that gay boy weebo crying again?
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.
Stout; the voice of reason & moderation in troubled times.
Stout
Lumps, the voice of a half/ass.
Lumps
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.
Bend over. I'll show ya in' 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?
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
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.
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.
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 cons ution 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
Womp womp
That’s fine, we’ll do this while you’re kicking and screaming.
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.
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 cons utional 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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-22-2023 at 10:49 AM.
It wasn't like Trump was going to win Colorado anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
No U
