Effort in Colorado to keep Trump off ballot fails

[lolcatzuru]

Not sure I'd go so far as to call them "compromised," but perhaps not trustworthy when it comes to high-profile cases. It takes an extraordinary amount of courage to publicly stand up to the MAGA mobsters.

i agree it does take courage to be corrupt and stand for tyranny, but i guess someone has to do it.

 

[x65943]

So then it must be a done deal in the supreme Court then

If you think 3 out of 7 Democrat judges are too afraid to keep Trump off the ballot, then no way any of you could really believe the SCOTUS with 6/3 split could rule against him

If a 7D-0R group split 4/3 (almost in Trump's favor), then surely a 3D-6R panel will almost assuredly result in Trump's favor

So then this ruling doesn't matter since the conservative judges will absolutely agree with the 3/7 Democrat judges from Colorado and put Trump back on the ballot

 

[Xzi]

i agree it does take courage to be corrupt and stand for tyranny, but i guess someone has to do it.

Yeah, that's what Trump and his braindead cronies did on January 6th. Actions have consequences.

So then this ruling doesn't matter since the conservative judges will absolutely agree with the 3/7 Democrat judges from Colorado and put Trump back on the ballot

It depends on their willingness to put their own necks on the line by publicly wiping their asses with the constitution. Trump has everything to gain here, and the justices have everything to lose. I'm not going to say it's a done deal that they'll side with Trump, because self-preservation will weigh heavily on them too. This particular amendment cannot be ignored without beginning to unravel the entire constitutional order. Their lifetime appointments aren't worth a flaming bag of dog shit if that falls apart.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Yeah, that's what Trump and his braindead cronies did on January 6th. Actions have consequences.


It depends on their willingness to put their own necks on the line by publicly wiping their asses with the constitution. Trump has everything to gain here, and the justices have everything to lose. I'm not going to say it's a done deal that they'll side with Trump, because self-preservation will weigh heavily on them too. This particular amendment cannot be ignored without beginning to unravel the entire constitutional order.

what did trump do? he wasnt there

 

[Xzi]

what did trump do? he wasnt there

LMAO he gave a speech that had the word "fight" in it nearly fifty times, then he turned his rabid gravy seals on the capitol building. Both courts so far have concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection that day.

 

[lolcatzuru]

LMAO he gave a speech that had the word "fight" in it nearly fifty times, then he turned his rabid gravy seals on the capitol building. Both courts so far have concluded that Trump engaged in insurrection that day.

so? radicals have done that too when it suits them. Can you source what " rabid gravy seals" are? im not familiar with how the mentally ill marginalize people, and wait just a minute, you are telling me 2 radical courts who of course dont want the guy to get away with something... made sure he didnt? *insert fry meme here*

 

[Xzi]

you are telling me 2 radical courts who of course dont want the guy to get away with something... made sure he didnt?

Lol enforcing laws is "radical" when it harms Republicans, is it?

 

[Wolfy]

The funniest part of any state trying to keep a candidate off the ballot is the fact that the U.S. is all about free speech and whatever. Insurrection? The U.S. is built upon a revolution against a higher authority to keep one's own happiness and one's nation rather than be ruled by a harsh government. If a group is keeping you from running because you're a threat to their "peace", then you might be in a not so free world after all.

 

[Xzi]

The funniest part of any state trying to keep a candidate off the ballot is the fact that the U.S. is all about free speech and whatever. Insurrection? The U.S. is built upon a revolution against a higher authority to keep one's own happiness and one's nation rather than be ruled by a harsh government. If a group is keeping you from running because you're a threat to their "peace", then you might be in a not so free world after all.

You're suggesting a Civil War every four years is preferable to democratic elections? Just no. Trump disqualified himself from running for office, as did so many confederates before him.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Lol enforcing laws is "radical" when it harms Republicans, is it?

it is when when it doesnt apply to him sure.

 

[Xzi]

it is when when it doesnt apply to him sure.

The facts say otherwise, and your feelings on the matter aren't admissible evidence.

 

[Taleweaver]

It's not really Xzi's paranoa. Any judges on these cases really need courage to make fair rulings. All the Democrat judges that are on Trump's cases have had their lives and the lives of their family threatened on a daily basis. THOUSANDS of documented threats. I can understand why some people don't want to touch that with ten foot pole.

There's even a less partizan/ethical possibility behind the 4/3 split here., presuming that the vote was closed.
See, the outcome is the same with 4/3 and 7/0 in regards to the ruling. However, it's harder to claim the Colorado court is a Democrat vehicle if the vote was close (though of course Trump already claims it regardless). The maga's also will be less likely to retaliate if they 'only' have a 4/3 chance they're acting out against someone not in their camp.

Otherwise said: it could've been less close than they're letting on.

Post automatically merged: Dec 20, 2023

what did trump do? he wasnt there

Bin Laden didn't crash in the twin towers either.

Post automatically merged: Dec 20, 2023

Interpret, not rewrite. Any laymen with 3rd grade reading comprehension can understand 14A Section 3. Did Trump hold office and/or swear an oath to the constitution? Yes. Did Trump engage in insurrectionist activity on January 6th? Yes. It's not rocket surgery, and anybody trying to muddy the waters has an ulterior motive for doing so. We fought a Civil War in part to keep corrupt SOBs like Trump out of office, we shouldn't have to fight another one.

It certainly isn't rocket surgery.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

It's hard to truly imagine 7 judges appointed exclusively by Democrat governors really have no conflicts of interest

It's no secret that judges too have political beliefs

Ok I don't think you know what "conflict of interests" means, for the US context

 

[lolcatzuru]

The facts say otherwise, and your feelings on the matter aren't admissible evidence.

wel i will agree with you that feelings aren't admissible evidence unless they are related to gender identity, but i disagree the facts say otherwise. 14-3 is very clearly laid out as "engaged in" the radical court decided thats anyone who knew about it ( ironically including you) however ,typically this involves someone actually participating in a crime, which kinda hot hutchinson tried to insinuate, the only problem is, she confirms that he wasnt there, so that means they are intentionally abusing the provision for radical purposes, as a fake citizen of colorado, you should be scared by this, now engaged in means knows about

Post automatically merged: Dec 20, 2023

Ok I don't think you know what "conflict of interests" means, for the US context

do you know what it means?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

*Non sequitur word salad*

Are you feeling OK?

 

[Xzi]

14-3 is very clearly laid out as "engaged in"

Correct, and both courts ruled Trump engaged in insurrection. The evidence for that is irrefutable.

 

[Chris2055]

Well, this has SCOTUS in a tough spot. The fact that this has even come up scares me a lot. To be clear, I do think Trump should be barred from running again. I think he should be in prison as he committed sedition on live TV which led to an insurrection. If that wasn't bad enough, he then conspired with his cronies to cast doubt on our election integrity and our institutions. He continues to do it to this day.

But the implications and practical results of this ruling are going to be huge. If SCOTUS doesn't overturn this I can see republicans in red states inventing actually bogus insurrection charges to keep democrats off the ballot just like they're trying to impeach Biden because the democrats impeached Trump. Republicans are bad faith actors. They've shown they're willing to abuse the system.

And this is going to amplify Trump's claims of election interference and election rigging among the ignorant and the brainwashed.

And if SCOTUS does block it? It's going to look extremely partisan considering 3 of the 9 justices were appointed by Trump and the republicans.

Scary times for American democracy.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Correct, and both courts ruled Trump engaged in insurrection. The evidence for that is irrefutable.

ok so we are in agreement that colorado is radical and therefore abused the definition, glad we can agree.

Post automatically merged: Dec 20, 2023

Are you feeling OK?

im quite fine how are you, also why did you change my quoted text to gibberish?

 

[Xzi]

ok so we are in agreement that colorado is radical and therefore abused the definition, glad we can agree.

Think about it dummy: if not for Trump's lies about his election loss, none of the insurrectionists would've been at the capitol building that day. He riled everybody up with bullshit, set 'em loose, and didn't tell them to stand down for hours. He was the ringleader of the whole circus, and leading fits the definition of "engaging in."

 

[lolcatzuru]

Think about it dummy: if not for Trump's lies about his election loss, none of the insurrectionists would've been at the capitol building that day. He riled everybody up with bullshit, set 'em loose, and didn't tell them to stand down for hours. He was the ringleader of the whole circus.

do you have a source on that? if so, you and i need to become good friends so you can tell tell me the future. The really sad part is too, is unlike kingdom hearts guy who is just a troll, i think you actually have some iota of intelligence, but between being constantly condescending with name calling it makes you appear feebleminded, which perhaps you dont care about, and thats fine, but it is a shame because it stops an otherwise interesting discourse.