Unanimous ruling by SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Biden is not directing any of this. We have checks and balances.

Sure. And, pigs fly.

Please explain to us how the office of the president is directing any of this. Please provide facts, not feelings.

Not just this case..... all the phony cases that have been brought against Trump.
I'll start with the GA one. Interesting that the deputy DA in Fulton Co, Jeff DiSantis, reportedly worked with the Biden campaign.
And, then the numerous visits of Nathan Wade to the WH.....

Your tin-foil hat should be tossed in the trash can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

DP. No, majority rules is not how the rule of law works. Even if unpopular, the Constitution controls. Sorry Charlie.

You can start a constitutional convention to five insurrectionists a pass and overturn that part of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to.

You really aren’t responding to what that PP is saying at all. The Constitution does control, on that we agree, and apparently 9 of the SCOTUS justices too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

One side has ZERO proof of a stolen election. There in lies part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court unanimously rules to keep Trump on Colorado ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

Biden is not directing any of this. We have checks and balances.

Sure. And, pigs fly.

Please explain to us how the office of the president is directing any of this. Please provide facts, not feelings.

Not just this case..... all the phony cases that have been brought against Trump.
I'll start with the GA one. Interesting that the deputy DA in Fulton Co, Jeff DiSantis, reportedly worked with the Biden campaign.
And, then the numerous visits of Nathan Wade to the WH.....

Your tin-foil hat should be tossed in the trash can.

The tin foil hat crowd are the posters who really thought Colorado ever stood a chance here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was a no-brainer. But he won't get immmunity.

He doesn't need immunity, he just needs to stall and the court is granting him that. Either he'll be president and his attorney general will drop all charges or he won't be and he'll be thrown to the wolves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

DP. No, majority rules is not how the rule of law works. Even if unpopular, the Constitution controls. Sorry Charlie.

You can start a constitutional convention to five insurrectionists a pass and overturn that part of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to.

You really aren’t responding to what that PP is saying at all. The Constitution does control, on that we agree, and apparently 9 of the SCOTUS justices too.

PP said that if people vote for Trump, then he should be president. But he is disqualified under the Constitution. So whether he wins the election or not, being elected by the people isn't democracy. It is just making a statement, like voting for Felix the Cat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

DP. No, majority rules is not how the rule of law works. Even if unpopular, the Constitution controls. Sorry Charlie.

You can start a constitutional convention to five insurrectionists a pass and overturn that part of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to.

You really aren’t responding to what that PP is saying at all. The Constitution does control, on that we agree, and apparently 9 of the SCOTUS justices too.

PP said that if people vote for Trump, then he should be president. But he is disqualified under the Constitution. So whether he wins the election or not, being elected by the people isn't democracy. It is just making a statement, like voting for Felix the Cat.

Nope. Reread. PP is saying that whether he is disqualified is a matter of opinion because not all people are seeing Jan 6th as an insurrection which would trigger disqualification.

[Anonymous]

When Biden is reelected his first act should be to enlarge the US Supreme Court to 13 and appoint five liberal/progressive women under age 50. Assuming Dems keep the Senate this can be accomplished in record time by holding all five confirmation hearings simultaneously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer decision. I called it as 9-0 repeatedly, happy to be proven right.

The Senate refused to convict him based on the fact that impeachment power is moot after the president is out of office. So I guess there is a huge loophole that makes failed coups unpunishable.

The problem with your logic is that half of the country views January 6th as an insurrection, and half of the country views it as a riot stemming from a suspicion that the election was stolen via mail in ballots, etc.

It’s akin to half of the country viewing abortion as a medical procedure, versus half of the country viewing abortion as infanticide.

The two sides don’t see eye to eye on this, and preventing the man from being president based on one’s sides view will not go over well. Let the people vote — isn’t that democracy after all?

DP. No, majority rules is not how the rule of law works. Even if unpopular, the Constitution controls. Sorry Charlie.

You can start a constitutional convention to five insurrectionists a pass and overturn that part of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you want to.

You really aren’t responding to what that PP is saying at all. The Constitution does control, on that we agree, and apparently 9 of the SCOTUS justices too.

PP said that if people vote for Trump, then he should be president. But he is disqualified under the Constitution. So whether he wins the election or not, being elected by the people isn't democracy. It is just making a statement, like voting for Felix the Cat.

Nope. Reread. PP is saying that whether he is disqualified is a matter of opinion because not all people are seeing Jan 6th as an insurrection which would trigger disqualification.

That's what PP is saying. But whether the sky is blue is not a matter of opinion. Even if 25% of the country thinks it's yellow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, one positive thing about Trump is that he is highlighting all of the flaws and weaknesses in our system of government. Lets patch those loopholes!

Silver lining I suppose. Yes, he’s the king of loopholes as was his father. It’s the foundation of their ability to grift. Close ‘em up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump can stay on the ballot.

Correct decision.

Detest Trump and think he is very dangerous. But this was about constitutional law and not following wherever the hell the political whims blow. Correct decision because we have to go by the law and through the law.

[Anonymous]

Am I reading the opinion correctly: the majority says that congress can pass a law, that a president must sign, to declare a person violated the 14th amendment. So, are they saying that, such a thing must occur for trump to be ineligible for office if he is elected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I reading the opinion correctly: the majority says that congress can pass a law, that a president must sign, to declare a person violated the 14th amendment. So, are they saying that, such a thing must occur for trump to be ineligible for office if he is elected?

We should file a petition for a writ of mandamus to force Congress to do its job and codify the mechanism of disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment, section 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden needs to understand that the courts are not going to take Trump out of the running.

His effort at Lawfare are not going to work.

The original Colorado suit was filed by Colorado REPUBLICANS, but you do you.