Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

Let’s adhere to the Constitution. I’ll accept SCOTUS decision, even if I don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

A conviction has never been needed before now. Why should Trump get special treatment?

Also, Colorado went to great lengths to find an appropriate definition for “insurrection,” and weighed the evidence. You can read it for yourself to get the answers you seek.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

Even Trump isn’t making this argument. Because it’s a really really bad argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

A riot caused by trump to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power is....an insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

A conviction has never been needed before now. Why should Trump get special treatment?

Also, Colorado went to great lengths to find an appropriate definition for “insurrection,” and weighed the evidence. You can read it for yourself to get the answers you seek.

Colorado also permitted hearsay evidence, which is not allowed in a trial.
There was NO TRIAL for "insurrection." Because nobody has been charged with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

In the 1800s they interpreted insurrection very broadly. Fighting for the Confederacy, yes, but also espousing support for attacking the Union was found to be disqualifying. They cared about their country then. We do not seem to now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

They all called it an insurrection on that day. It was organized and intended to prevent Congress from certifying that Biden had won the election. It was a coup attempt organized by the idiot incumbent office holder which disqualifies him from holding office again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

Yes Arnold Schwarzenegger should run and the voters can decide if he should be president or not. Same with Maxwell Frost. No more of those stupid requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

They all called it an insurrection on that day. It was organized and intended to prevent Congress from certifying that Biden had won the election. It was a coup attempt organized by the idiot incumbent office holder which disqualifies him from holding office again.

"They all." You mean the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

Yes Arnold Schwarzenegger should run and the voters can decide if he should be president or not. Same with Maxwell Frost. No more of those stupid requirements.

You know, I am certain, that he does not meet the basic, and I mean BASIC qualifications.
Your arguments is shallow. Think deeper, if you can.