Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Trump tried to overthrow our government. Per the Constitution, he cannot serve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

They don't need to thread any needle. There is plenty for them to use to overturn the Colorado decision.... simply look at the arguments of the 3 judges (Democratically appointed, BTW) who dissented. That's a start right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump tried to overthrow our government. Per the Constitution, he cannot serve.

You keep chanting that.

[Anonymous]

Kinda funny how democrat Bill Pascrale (NJ) wanted to remove 126 representatives from congressby linking them somehow to overthrowing the government.

It's hilarious how you democrats think you can just sue everyone to grab more power. Please keep trying to your detriment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

They don't need to thread any needle. There is plenty for them to use to overturn the Colorado decision.... simply look at the arguments of the 3 judges (Democratically appointed, BTW) who dissented. That's a start right there.

Colorado made its decision. They’re going to have to justify overturning a state’s right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

No SCOTUS is above the law and the constitution. They do no answer to anyone. Stop with this “thread the needle” crap. The judges have been bought and paid for. If trump was 30 they would make sure he was on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

No SCOTUS is above the law and the constitution. They do no answer to anyone. Stop with this “thread the needle” crap. The judges have been bought and paid for. If trump was 30 they would make sure he was on the ballot.

They have to paper over a decision in a way that looks legitimate because this will be the landmark decision of the century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

They don't need to thread any needle. There is plenty for them to use to overturn the Colorado decision.... simply look at the arguments of the 3 judges (Democratically appointed, BTW) who dissented. That's a start right there.

You understand that Trump's lawyers are actually going to have argue something this time, right? None of Trump's lawyers have been successful on anything beyond "delay delay delay". And he doesn't have that luxury this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

They don't need to thread any needle. There is plenty for them to use to overturn the Colorado decision.... simply look at the arguments of the 3 judges (Democratically appointed, BTW) who dissented. That's a start right there.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say you didn’t read any of those dissents. If you did, you would know those dissents were disagreements about the interpretation of the state election code over which the Colorado Supreme Court has the final say.

[Anonymous]

Bright side if the courts rule against:
This is going to be a red hot spear into the heart of federalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

No SCOTUS is above the law and the constitution. They do no answer to anyone. Stop with this “thread the needle” crap. The judges have been bought and paid for. If trump was 30 they would make sure he was on the ballot.

Spitballing for a way to explain the coming Colorado loss. ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

They don't need to thread any needle. There is plenty for them to use to overturn the Colorado decision.... simply look at the arguments of the 3 judges (Democratically appointed, BTW) who dissented. That's a start right there.

But even the dissenters agreed that Trump engaged in insurrection. The right-wing judges won’t want to affirm that. They will need to redefine insurrection so that it doesn’t include a fascist coup attempt orchestrated by the incumbent President.

[Anonymous]

Literally admitting his "engagement" with the insurrection.

[Anonymous]

It's wild how Republicans are all "STATES RIGHTS!!!!" - except for where it comes to how states handle elections. Or whatever other thing to inconvenience the GOP machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

They don't need to thread any needle. There is plenty for them to use to overturn the Colorado decision.... simply look at the arguments of the 3 judges (Democratically appointed, BTW) who dissented. That's a start right there.

Not really. Two of the three were making arguments about Colorado procedure over which the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority.

So you’re down to the lone justice who thinks the office of the President isn’t a federal office.

The conservative majority will have to forever abandon any pretense of their vaunted textualism if they want to force Colorado to put him on the ballot despite his oath breaking attempt to overthrow our government.