Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

That was one of the hypotheticals proposed during the oral arguments. One of the justices (Roberts?) said that if this happens that Republican states would rush to disqualify Democrats from the ballot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

All three levels of the Colorado judiciary determined after a weeks long civil proceeding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

So you are saying that a red state could kick Biden off the ballot if the courts in that state just decided that his actions, for example, with respect to Iran (or maybe his actions to have DOJ prosecute his political opponent) constitutes an insurrection? And every state gets to decide whether Trump or Biden can be on their ballot? Quite the can of worms.

Bingo.

But that's ridiculous. The reason Trump was removed from the CO ballot is because he fomented an insurrection against the US government and thus is ineligible to run for POTUS. The 14th A is very clear about what disqualifies someone to run for elected office in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

All three levels of the Colorado judiciary determined after a weeks long civil proceeding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

So you are saying that a red state could kick Biden off the ballot if the courts in that state just decided that his actions, for example, with respect to Iran (or maybe his actions to have DOJ prosecute his political opponent) constitutes an insurrection? And every state gets to decide whether Trump or Biden can be on their ballot? Quite the can of worms.

Bingo.

But that's ridiculous. The reason Trump was removed from the CO ballot is because he fomented an insurrection against the US government and thus is ineligible to run for POTUS. The 14th A is very clear about what disqualifies someone to run for elected office in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

Might as well just crack open that case in the National Archives and set the Constitution on fire, since the words CLEARLY written on it apparently now mean absolutely nothing to SCOTUS.

It’s actually quite the opposite but nice try.

Anonymous wrote:Ya, well, the SCOTUS will justify not following the plain text of the Amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost respect for all three branches of our government, and their bastardization of the Constitution.

Isn't it horrifying how one man can wreck all of our institutions because...of his strong personality?

It's pitiful. The Supreme Court is pititful.

No one has been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

All three levels of the Colorado judiciary determined after a weeks long civil proceeding that Trump engaged in an insurrection.

So you are saying that a red state could kick Biden off the ballot if the courts in that state just decided that his actions, for example, with respect to Iran (or maybe his actions to have DOJ prosecute his political opponent) constitutes an insurrection? And every state gets to decide whether Trump or Biden can be on their ballot? Quite the can of worms.

Bingo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Please elaborate. I don't follow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

Did you listen to the arguments?
The three "liberals" asked tough questions of CO's counsel and were very skeptical of the responses. They are not "selling their vote."

Thats because they’ve already made a deal to vote with the republicans on this one in exchange for denying the stay on immunity.

That is not how they operate.
You people are just nuts.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear threat by the SC Justices that Republican states are going to use this to disqualify Democrat candidates en masse, if the Court disqualifies Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If they had already made their decision then today was just a sham
How does this boost the court's credibility? It doesn't.

Sometimes they've already decided before the oral argument, sometimes not. It's not a sham, either way.

Of course it's a sha. Most of us were interested in today's proceeding because we believed this was an honest hearing. To already have decided is a sham on the American people. My God, the United States of America is no better than as Third World Banana Republic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump 9-0.

Sorry.

6-3

9-0, and stay in immunity case denied 9-0

If The three liberals sell their vote for this then they will sell their vote for immunity. Despicable, corrupt and every damn one of them should rot in Hell listening to a neverending campaign rally from Trump.

... not sure you understand how negotiating works, friend.

Yup. This horse trading already happened. Roberts is desperate to boost the court’s credibility.

If they had already made their decision then today was just a sham
How does this boost the court's credibility? It doesn't.

Sometimes they've already decided before the oral argument, sometimes not. It's not a sham, either way.

Of course it's a sha. Most of us were interested in today's proceeding because we believed this was an honest hearing. To already have decided is a sham on the American people. My God, the United States of America is no better than as Third World Banana Republic.