Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You keep chanting that.

Both statements are true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They’re going to set such terrible precedent to get a criminal and insurrectionist back on the ballot. And if they don’t, the red states will throw temper tantrums and pull Biden off. It’s a no-win situation. If Trump had any class (he doesn’t), he wouldn’t have run and put the US in such a precarious position. He’s a uniquely evil bad guy. As soon as he’s dead, watch the rest of the GOP backtrack on how much they supported him. History will not have one kind word to say about him and will remember him as a traitor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All these posters who are so certain the Colorado Supreme Court got it wrong and they haven’t even bothered themselves to read the decision.

[Anonymous]

The insurrectionists called it an insurrection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The insurrectionists called it an insurrection

Exactly right. Pretty hard to deny. Things like this should be cited front and center.

And the grifting morons like Vivek Ramaswamy need to be smacked down for a-hole comments about "entrapment" that DIDN'T HAPPEN AND WASN'T NECESSARY because TRUMP'S OWN MAGA NUTJOBS PLANNED THE WHOLE THING. And Elise Stefanik and others need to be smacked down for "hostage" and "innocent" comments

[Anonymous]

Seems that based on a lot of the polling out there a SUBSTANTIAL number of Republicans are indeed that "special kind of stupid"

Do better, folks.

[Anonymous]

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy and is evidence that the GOP goals of undermining public education to better sett the cattle is working for them.

[Anonymous]

but it's the democrats...

[Anonymous]

This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

Only the Democrats that engaged in insurrection. Or are you suggesting Republicans are dishonorable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

The difference is one side having a basis under law and the other simply conjuring up BS.

At some point, people need to be held accountable under the law. As it is, thanks to Gov. Abbott, the SCOTUS doesn't matter any more.

At the end of the day, the GOP has completely undermined the US Constitution and the notion of 'rule of law' and 'no man is above the law'

It is really pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

How is it not bi-partisan? Or in your world, there is no such thing as a non-MAGA republican anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

How is it not bi-partisan? Or in your world, there is no such thing as a non-MAGA republican anymore?

If you oppose Trump, you aren't a republican.

[Anonymous]

So someone like Judge Luttig isn't a republican?

I ask because political parties are supposed to expand their base and garner widespread support. If traditional conservatives are no longer in the party, that means the GOP is only about 60% the size it was just 10 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a bipartisan effort and everyone knows it. A handful of GOP is not changing that fact. That being said, if SCOTUS somehow allowed this to stand, of course Republicans would begin disallowing Democrats on ballots. It will open the floodgates. Naive to think this stops with Trump.

How is it not bi-partisan? Or in your world, there is no such thing as a non-MAGA republican anymore?

If you oppose Trump, you aren't a republican.

Trump is the false idol they all worship.