Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colorado should ignore this ruling.

Interesting test. What could SCOTUS do about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump can stay on the ballot.

Correct decision.

What happened to States Rights that they harped on in their confirmation hearings not to mention giving the individual states the right to ban abortions. May these Nine quivering Quisling-Laval doppelgangers meet the same end as the originals!

This isn’t a state office. Again. No brainer.

States run their own federal elections in the manner they see fit, and they all do it different ways: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-primary-election-types That is what makes it a states right issue. You will note that not every federal office candidate is on every state's ballot, see e.g. Cenk Uygur, who is on some ballots but not others because not born in U.S. Other states let anyone throw their own name in the hat.

But this is not a state law prohibition. It’s in the U.S. Constitution.

So is being born in the U.S. ... and yet, Uygur.

[Anonymous]

Just to recap:

Democrats (some masquerading as Republicans) try to remove Trump from the ballot in numerous states with the reasoning that he took part in an 'insurrection'. We are told if he is elected he is a 'threat to democracy'. The first experts brought in to discuss this say it will be an easy appeal for Trump and (I remember this guy specifically) that it could be a 9-0 decision quite easily. Disappointed, media bring in more extreme talking heads until the narrative is that there is no way the Supreme Court could side with Trump.

Supreme Court hands down 9-0 decision that Trump remain on the ballot, including Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who I would consider a radical Leftist who normally rules by ideology rather than the Constitution.

Democrats are now calling to disolve the Supreme Court.

I'm supposed to believe that somehow Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy? Democrats are the party trying to make it impossible to vote for a candidate. Democrats are the party who want to destroy the Supreme Court and remove any checks and balances to the violation of citizens rights. Democrats are the ones interfering in an election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9-0.

The liberals were going to dissent but then changed their minds. Makes you wonder what they got from Roberts for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colorado should ignore this ruling.

Interesting test. What could SCOTUS do about it?

Nothing but the Feds can. It would be state in open rebellion and would need to be taken over and occupied by federal troops until democracy would be restored

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Who said anything about a criminal conviction?

When the Fourteenth Amendment applied in the past to DQ someone, a criminal conviction wasn't required. Why should it be now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Who said anything about a criminal conviction?

When the Fourteenth Amendment applied in the past to DQ someone, a criminal conviction wasn't required. Why should it be now?

The question was why SCOTUS didn’t acquit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Who said anything about a criminal conviction?

When the Fourteenth Amendment applied in the past to DQ someone, a criminal conviction wasn't required. Why should it be now?

The question was why SCOTUS didn’t acquit.

They didn't un-insurrectionist Trump, although he asked them to. There's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colorado should ignore this ruling.

Interesting test. What could SCOTUS do about it?

Toss out any ballots that don’t have the republican nominee on them. Refuse to toss any write in ballots for the disputed nominee. Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Who said anything about a criminal conviction?

When the Fourteenth Amendment applied in the past to DQ someone, a criminal conviction wasn't required. Why should it be now?

The question was why SCOTUS didn’t acquit.

They didn't un-insurrectionist Trump, although he asked them to. There's that.

There is no insurrectionist Trump in a court of law. And he is on the ballot. And leading in the polls.

Honestly, move on. This was never going to go the way the far left wanted it to. I think even Biden understands that which is why he is focusing on his campaign and not on this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to recap:

Democrats (some masquerading as Republicans) try to remove Trump from the ballot in numerous states with the reasoning that he took part in an 'insurrection'. We are told if he is elected he is a 'threat to democracy'. The first experts brought in to discuss this say it will be an easy appeal for Trump and (I remember this guy specifically) that it could be a 9-0 decision quite easily. Disappointed, media bring in more extreme talking heads until the narrative is that there is no way the Supreme Court could side with Trump.Unless you have proof of the masquerading allegation, you're just spreading lies. And removing from the ballot was done out in the open and challenged in teh courts, JUST AS REPUBLICANS would do in the reverse. And have done -lawsuits ad nauseum- since the 2020 election."[b]

Supreme Court hands down 9-0 decision that Trump remain on the ballot, including Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who I would consider a radical Leftist who normally rules by ideology rather than the Constitution. No one gives a F what you think Justice Jackson is. I have a few choice adjectives for some of the Justices.[/b]

Democrats are now calling to disolve the Supreme Court.No they are not. Some are calling to expand the court. Expanding the federal judiciary has been called for for years now. And has a precedent. No one is calling for it to be abolished. Again, you're LYING.

I'm supposed to believe that somehow Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy? Democrats are the party trying to make it impossible to vote for a candidate. Democrats are the party who want to destroy the Supreme Court and remove any checks and balances to the violation of citizens rights. Democrats are the ones interfering in an election. You are ignoring, deliberately, a host of acts and misconduct by the Right on the issue of voting and threats to democracy. Most repugnantly, failing to mention, highlight or even identify the Jan. 1 insurrection for what it was. Treason.

What a precious selective recounting of what is actually happening. The bold is what is actually happening.

Now go change your pants, Liar Liar, you're pants are charred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the SC didn’t say in its opinions is also important. They didn’t acquit Trump of insurrection, as he had requested.

You can’t acquit someone who hasn’t been charged.

He has been charged, but more relevant to this case, he was found to have engaged in an insurrection after a weeks-long civil court proceeding. Trump’s brief asked SCOTUS to throw that out and they did not.

When’s the trial?

It was last year. You missed it.

LOL, you and I both know it never happened because he has never been charged. Some finding from a lower level judge in a case eventually lost 9-0 is not a criminal conviction and you know it.

Did you read the opinion? The majority said that even if Trump was convicted of insurrection it still wouldn’t count. The y said congress has to pass a new statute that specifically outlines the procedures for determining if someone is disqualified and the existing insurrection statute isnt that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to recap:

Democrats (some masquerading as Republicans) try to remove Trump from the ballot in numerous states with the reasoning that he took part in an 'insurrection'. We are told if he is elected he is a 'threat to democracy'. The first experts brought in to discuss this say it will be an easy appeal for Trump and (I remember this guy specifically) that it could be a 9-0 decision quite easily. Disappointed, media bring in more extreme talking heads until the narrative is that there is no way the Supreme Court could side with Trump.Unless you have proof of the masquerading allegation, you're just spreading lies. And removing from the ballot was done out in the open and challenged in teh courts, JUST AS REPUBLICANS would do in the reverse. And have done -lawsuits ad nauseum- since the 2020 election."[b]

Supreme Court hands down 9-0 decision that Trump remain on the ballot, including Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who I would consider a radical Leftist who normally rules by ideology rather than the Constitution. No one gives a F what you think Justice Jackson is. I have a few choice adjectives for some of the Justices.[/b]

Democrats are now calling to disolve the Supreme Court.No they are not. Some are calling to expand the court. Expanding the federal judiciary has been called for for years now. And has a precedent. No one is calling for it to be abolished. Again, you're LYING.

I'm supposed to believe that somehow Trump and Republicans are a threat to democracy? Democrats are the party trying to make it impossible to vote for a candidate. Democrats are the party who want to destroy the Supreme Court and remove any checks and balances to the violation of citizens rights. Democrats are the ones interfering in an election. You are ignoring, deliberately, a host of acts and misconduct by the Right on the issue of voting and threats to democracy. Most repugnantly, failing to mention, highlight or even identify the Jan. 1 insurrection for what it was. Treason.

What a precious selective recounting of what is actually happening. The bold is what is actually happening.

Now go change your pants, Liar Liar, you're pants are charred.

Not sure why this bolded that way but obv. the bold is the PP being responded to. So all you formatting experts can just stuff it.