Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Luttig on Court's Colorado ballot decision.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Luttig is correct. SCOTUS majority showed itself to be political hacks and displayed unprecedented judicial overreach. They just eviscerated part of the Constitution.

The majority didn’t even pretend to uphold its recently implemented “originalism” standard. Such blatant partisan hypocrisy.

lol…so 9 justices who make or are supposed to make ensuring the laws are constitutional are the hacks? Even the two most leftist judges?

No…what is the truth is it was a 9-0 decision and what CO did was so egregious they were smacked down handedly.

But of course some SAHM on an anonymous message board knows better than 9…count them…9 judges who all came to the same conclusion with NO difference in opinion

Learn how to read. The opinion was joined in whole by only 5 of the justices. The other four concurred. There was CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

Further, this really didn't have much to do with the merits of the case. It was an engineered decision to prevent the chaos of immature red states kicking candidates off without cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Luttig on Court's Colorado ballot decision.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Luttig is correct. SCOTUS majority showed itself to be political hacks and displayed unprecedented judicial overreach. They just eviscerated part of the Constitution.

The majority didn’t even pretend to uphold its recently implemented “originalism” standard. Such blatant partisan hypocrisy.

lol…so 9 justices who make or are supposed to make ensuring the laws are constitutional are the hacks? Even the two most leftist judges?

No…what is the truth is it was a 9-0 decision and what CO did was so egregious they were smacked down handedly.

But of course some SAHM on an anonymous message board knows better than 9…count them…9 judges who all came to the same conclusion with NO difference in opinion

Learn how to read. The opinion was joined in whole by only 5 of the justices. The other
four concurred. There was CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you oppose this unanimous decision, it only goes to show what a radical, dangerous, extremist you have become.

The libs are Nazis … Trump tore their mask off. Now they are threatening the Jews. Thank God for the 2nd amendment which is Nazi, Commie and Fascist insecticide.

Plus 1. First play in the playbook of authoritarians is to take the guns. Close second is to destroy the institutions that threaten there control. We see this with the left. Maniacal about guns and their constant attempts to destroy the country via a collapsed border, disregard of the law, use of public education as a tool for indoctrination, and of course creating a servile population addicted to their handouts. Perfect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you oppose this unanimous decision, it only goes to show what a radical, dangerous, extremist you have become.

The libs are Nazis … Trump tore their mask off. Now they are threatening the Jews. Thank God for the 2nd amendment which is Nazi, Commie and Fascist insecticide.

Plus 1. First play in the playbook of authoritarians is to take the guns. Close second is to destroy the institutions that threaten there control. We see this with the left. Maniacal about guns and their constant attempts to destroy the country via a collapsed border, disregard of the law, use of public education as a tool for indoctrination, and of course creating a servile population addicted to their handouts. Perfect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

The only option is "one of the two of them"? Ha! We don't live in Russia. We can certainly choose to send a message to the RNC and DNC by not rewarding them with a vote for their awful candidates. You are not an American if you think Trump and Biden are our "only" options. Real Americans have had enough of this garbage.

You can throw away your vote however you want, but the winner of the election will be Biden or Trump unless Biden withdraws for some reason. My point stands.

Some people have integrity and standards. Trump and Biden should not be the nominees and definitely shouldn't be president until 2029. Why would people with integrity and standards vote for Trump and Biden?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you oppose this unanimous decision, it only goes to show what a radical, dangerous, extremist you have become.

The libs are Nazis … Trump tore their mask off. Now they are threatening the Jews. Thank God for the 2nd amendment which is Nazi, Commie and Fascist insecticide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trump didn't have the votes last time and he doesn't have the votes this time. You can blather about "lawfare" but what you actually mean is the rule of law.

This decision isn't terrible, for several reasons. But as someone posted upthread, if an insurrectionist is elected, they would not be seated. This doesn't apply to Trump because he doesn't have the votes and won't be elected. But we need to start examining other current and future lawmakers for their participation on January 6.

What needs to happen on Jan 6, 2025 is even though Trump will have lost the election, Congress should vote to reject the electoral votes cast for him because he is not eligible. The Supreme Court just said it is up to Congress alone to interpret the insurrection clause.

+1

Trump is leading in almost all polls.

NYT: “The majority opinion did not explicitly address that possibility, but it cautioned against the “chaos” of a postelection disqualification. Its insistence that legislation is necessary would seem to rule out that option since no statute says that Congress can refuse to count Electoral College votes for a candidate whom lawmakers deem an oath-breaking insurrectionist.”

But it’s obvious in the real world that Trump has much less support now than he had four years ago.

Unfortunately that’s also true for his opponent and the only option is one of the two of them.

The only option is "one of the two of them"? Ha! We don't live in Russia. We can certainly choose to send a message to the RNC and DNC by not rewarding them with a vote for their awful candidates. You are not an American if you think Trump and Biden are our "only" options. Real Americans have had enough of this garbage.

You can throw away your vote however you want, but the winner of the election will be Biden or Trump unless Biden withdraws for some reason. My point stands.

Anonymous wrote:If you oppose this unanimous decision, it only goes to show what a radical, dangerous, extremist you have become.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Luttig on Court's Colorado ballot decision.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Luttig is correct. SCOTUS majority showed itself to be political hacks and displayed unprecedented judicial overreach. They just eviscerated part of the Constitution.

The majority didn’t even pretend to uphold its recently implemented “originalism” standard. Such blatant partisan hypocrisy.

lol…so 9 justices who make or are supposed to make ensuring the laws are constitutional are the hacks? Even the two most leftist judges?

No…what is the truth is it was a 9-0 decision and what CO did was so egregious they were smacked down handedly.

But of course some SAHM on an anonymous message board knows better than 9…count them…9 judges who all came to the same conclusion with NO difference in opinion

Learn how to read. The opinion was joined in whole by only 5 of the justices. The other four concurred. There was CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Luttig on Court's Colorado ballot decision.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Luttig is correct. SCOTUS majority showed itself to be political hacks and displayed unprecedented judicial overreach. They just eviscerated part of the Constitution.

The majority didn’t even pretend to uphold its recently implemented “originalism” standard. Such blatant partisan hypocrisy.

lol…so 9 justices who make or are supposed to make ensuring the laws are constitutional are the hacks? Even the two most leftist judges?

No…what is the truth is it was a 9-0 decision and what CO did was so egregious they were smacked down handedly.

But of course some SAHM on an anonymous message board knows better than 9…count them…9 judges who all came to the same conclusion with NO difference in opinion

Learn how to read. The opinion was joined in whole by only 5 of the justices. The other four concurred. There was CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge Luttig on Court's Colorado ballot decision.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

Luttig is correct. SCOTUS majority showed itself to be political hacks and displayed unprecedented judicial overreach. They just eviscerated part of the Constitution.

The majority didn’t even pretend to uphold its recently implemented “originalism” standard. Such blatant partisan hypocrisy.

lol…so 9 justices who make or are supposed to make ensuring the laws are constitutional are the hacks? Even the two most leftist judges?

No…what is the truth is it was a 9-0 decision and what CO did was so egregious they were smacked down handedly.

But of course some SAHM on an anonymous message board knows better than 9…count them…9 judges who all came to the same conclusion with NO difference in opinion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this seriously the next move of the supposedly “save our democracy” crowd? Encourage Congress to toss out the votes post election? This is why people can’t take the far left seriously.

Your guy is disqualified because he tried to organize a coup after he lost last time. It’s in the Constitution that conservatives pretend to give a shit about.

He isn’t my guy first of all, and he isn’t disqualified just because Colorado claimed he was.

Colorado acted appropriately to interpret the Constitutional provision, since there was no SCOTUS precedent for guidance.

Many other states properly shut this down. They knew this wouldn’t hold up. You are giving CO way too much credit here.

Nope. SCOTUS just said that states don't get to control their ballots. Those states that removed Uygur acted improperly and he should be put back on.

? Those other states chose NOT to remove Trump. They were right and Colorado was wrong, as the verdict showed. Colorado did NOT act properly, as many of us pointed out at the time.