Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Doesn't matter what they thought. It isn't the role of appellate court judges. Why Dems are celebrating this is beyond me. Scary

Huh?  Who's role is it, then?  I don't know if you read up on the case facts, but the judge said he knew this was headed to the Supreme Court anyways.  A case was filed and brought before a court.  Trump won, and they appealed.  The COL SC took up the case, and ruled against Trump.  Now Trump will appeal to the US SC.  This is happening EXACTLY how it's legally supposed to.  I think you're a bit confused about how the judicial system works.    

Edited December 20, 2023 by daz28

[B-Man]

 

 

The Colorado Supreme Court 4-3 Decision Is Pure Nonsense and Can Be Laughed At,
They Even Admit It on Page 9

 

Three main points before getting to the substance. 

#1)  It was a 4-3 decision. Meaning it was the politics of the court, literally the political makeup and perspective therein, that determined the outcome of the decision.  This is showcased in point #3, which is the funniest part.

 

#2)  The entire framework of the case against Trump in the Colorado decision is predicated on this: “[the complainants] asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.”  [pdf, page 6]  REMINDER – President Donald Trump was not charged with “insurrection,” is not accused of “insurrection,” does not fit the complaint under the definitions of “insurrection,” and has never been found guilty of insurrection.  The complaint is moot before the court.  But hey, it’s Lawfare… and we all know Lawfare is created for public media consumption, so that takes us directly to the biggest point.

 

#3)  Instead of me writing it, let me screengrab it so we can all laugh together [pdf page 9].

 

 

Wait, what?

 

Yes, that’s correct.  As long as President Trump appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, the appeals court stays their own ruling – essentially indefinitely.  The Colorado primary ballots printed, and the primary election will be over, before the Supreme Court puts this on their docket.

 

In addition to the virtual guarantee the high court will overrule this political nonsense, SCOTUS can make the entire issue moot before them by following their own normal schedule for submissions, arguments, deliberation and opinions delivered by the court.

 

The Colorado appellate court knows this, that’s why they put this self-stay into their 4-3 ruling.  It’s a politically correct way of giving the optics of telling their tribe, ‘hey we’re with you,’ without the ramifications of the political backlash.  In other words, psychological lawfare stuff – intended for media consumption.

 

Making the issue that much better for Donald Trump, the efforts of the Prescott-Bush clan (look it up – they live in CO) will backfire bigly.  The public backlash against a judicial ruling that interferes with the right of the citizens to determine their own election candidates plays perfectly into the sunlight operation against the Lawfare left.

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/12/19/the-colorado-supreme-court-4-3-decision-is-pure-nonsense-and-can-be-laughed-at-they-even-admit-it-on-page-9/

 

.

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

No, I'm saying the SC and Congress both kick the can down the road on WAY too many issues.  I'm not sure I'm following your due process thing, though.  They literally heard his case, and now he can appeal.  This isn't considered, and isn't required to be a criminal case.  The Supreme Court will have to rule on this.  I'd bet my last dollar that they don't attempt to define insurrection, or even if there was incitement.  They won't elaborate on the meaning and definition of the 3rd clause. They'll just find some miniscule reason to reverse it on, and kick the can.  

The Trump is going to jail rallies started over 7 years ago. The Dems are now using liberal appellate judges in a blue state to banana republic their political opponent, using a civil case. The reason to overturn this puppy isn't going to be miniscule. The most basic common sense!

[BillStime]

F nutters - jfc

 

 

[daz28]

Just now, Pokebball said:

The Trump is going to jail rallies started over 7 years ago. The Dems are now using liberal appellate judges in a blue state to banana republic their political opponent, using a civil case. The reason to overturn this puppy isn't going to be miniscule. The most basic common sense!

About the time the lock her up ones started??  Either way, it's irrelevant.  This isn't a civil case, and I think you're starting to go way off topic.  This is a Constitutional case.  You really think the Supreme Court is going to look at, and rule on all of the aspects of this case?   LOLOL        Look, I understand your concerns, but this is unfortunately the world we're living in now, and we have to have faith in our institutions, or debating anything is pointless.   

[Pokebball]

5 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Huh?  Who's role is it, then?  I don't know if you read up on the case facts, but the judge said he knew this was headed to the Supreme Court anyways.  A case was filed and brought before a court.  Trump won, and they appealed.  The COL SC took up the case, and ruled against Trump.  Now Trump will appeal to the US SC.  This is happening EXACTLY how it's legally supposed to.  I think you're a bit confused about how the judicial system works.    

The judge saying that he knows the decision is heading to the SCOTUS tells you all you need to know, right?

 

A case like this has never, ever, "happened how it's legally suppose to", and for a reason. We're treading new banana republic water here. This is very new ground in how our legal system works and to suggest it isn't is being intellectually dishones.

[Pokebball]

5 minutes ago, daz28 said:

About the time the lock her up ones started??  Either way, it's irrelevant.  This isn't a civil case, and I think you're starting to go way off topic.  This is a Constitutional case.  You really think the Supreme Court is going to look at, and rule on all of the aspects of this case?   LOLOL        Look, I understand your concerns, but this is unfortunately the world we're living in now, and we have to have faith in our institutions, or debating anything is pointless.   

While I understand your faith in our institutions, I think it has been exposed that our institutions have been used for partisan efforts. My faith in our institutions has eroded quite a bit. I do have faith in our SCOTUS to decide this one correctly. We all know it's heading there. LOL

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

The judge saying that he knows the decision is heading to the SCOTUS tells you all you need to know, right?

 

A case like this has never, ever, "happened how it's legally suppose to", and for a reason. We're treading new banana republic water here. This is very new ground in how our legal system works and to suggest it isn't is being intellectually dishones.

Then you explain to me how this matter should have been handled by the judicial system, because you have me completely confused.  I've always thought it was file a case, and then follow it to the Supreme Court if necessary.  This is schoolhouse rock level stuff here. 

[Big Blitz]

 

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Then you explain to me how this matter should have been handled by the judicial system, because you have me completely confused.  I've always thought it was file a case, and then follow it to the Supreme Court if necessary.  This is schoolhouse rock level stuff here. 

We're going in circles now. I'll agree that "school house rock" is a great way to describe what's happening here. I'll have to borrow it.

 

The dems will continue to erode support among moderates and independents with this move.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Pokebball

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

While I understand your faith in our institutions, I think it has been exposed that our institutions have been used for partisan efforts. My faith in our institutions has eroded quite a bit. I do have faith in our SCOTUS to decide this one correctly. We all know it's heading there. LOL

This isn't about my faith in anything.  This is about the foundations of our Constitution and democracy.  Like I said, if there's no faith in them, and everything conspiracy world, then debating anything is utterly pointless.  

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

This isn't about my faith in anything.  This is about the foundations of our Constitution and democracy.  Like I said, if there's no faith in them, and everything conspiracy world, then debating anything is utterly pointless.  

Have you seen recent polls regarding the faith in our institutions? Why is it so low, in your opinion?

[daz28]

Just now, Pokebball said:

We're going in circles now.

 

The dems will continue to erode support among moderates and independents with this move.

Do you even know who brought this case?  It's republicans backed by a group that is anti-corruption.  While they target republicans more often, I believe they brought 41 cases vs GW, and 38 vs Obama.  It's like 2 to 1 ratio for Congress people. Trump is a whole different animal, and they brought tons of cases against him.  That's to be expected though, because no one attempts to abuse rules/loopholes like Trump does.  It's a shame that anyone would even need to worry about eroding support against an insurrectionist.  

2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Have you seen recent polls regarding the faith in our institutions? Why is it so low, in your opinion?

I already covered that, but now you're just moving the goalposts.  This was about if due process is happening.  I'll repost that again for you on institutions:  I think we can all agree that the powers that be really aren't interested in our democracy, but rather what's expedient to achieve their ends.  There's just too many loopholes, exemptions, and legal nonsense present to be exploited, with little to no will to curb it.  It's amazing that we had courts and politicians that have had an urge to defend democracy this long.  Nixon should have been our warning, and been heeded.  Instead, we just didn't like the way that poop stain looked on us, so we took the easy way out, and hoped it never came up again.  

[Pokebball]

6 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Do you even know who brought this case?  It's republicans backed by a group that is anti-corruption.  While they target republicans more often, I believe they brought 41 cases vs GW, and 38 vs Obama.  It's like 2 to 1 ratio for Congress people. Trump is a whole different animal, and they brought tons of cases against him.  That's to be expected though, because no one attempts to abuse rules/loopholes like Trump does.  It's a shame that anyone would even need to worry about eroding support against an insurrectionist.  

I already covered that, but now you're just moving the goalposts.  This was about if due process is happening.  I'll repost that again for you on institutions:  I think we can all agree that the powers that be really aren't interested in our democracy, but rather what's expedient to achieve their ends.  There's just too many loopholes, exemptions, and legal nonsense present to be exploited, with little to no will to curb it.  It's amazing that we had courts and politicians that have had an urge to defend democracy this long.  Nixon should have been our warning, and been heeded.  Instead, we just didn't like the way that poop stain looked on us, so we took the easy way out, and hoped it never came up again.  

Yeah, you think due process is happening, I don't. I'm certain it is partisan politics. The 4 repubs that signed onto this case are lincoln project types. The SCOTUS will decide.

[nedboy7]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

I'm not white. What does race have to do with the government taking away our freedom and democracy?

 

You think there are fair elections with gerrymandering?  Did it bother you when 19 Republicans were indicted in Fulton county?  I doubt it. 

[JaCrispy]

3 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

Whatever your politics, whether you love Trump or can't stand him, this is an attack on democracy. Consider if you were a Dem and Trump made it so Biden couldn't run. That's not how this works. If you don't want the person to win then you don't vote for him. You don't hit him with numerous lawsuits, threaten jail, and then kick him off the ballot when half the country supports them. Great way to start a real "insurrection" aka Civil War

What makes it even more suspicious is that Trump is leading in all the polls

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Yeah, you think due process is happening, I don't. I'm certain it is partisan politics. The 4 repubs that signed onto this case are lincoln project types. The SCOTUS will decide.

Exactly, which is how due process works.  Whether it's due process or partisan politics are 2 entirely different things, and I was only referring to the former.  I understand your point about the plaintiff, but I'm not sure about what parts(if any) of the justice's findings you disagree with.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

I really wanna see this civil war. Been hearing about it for 7 years. Bring it on. Enough talk.  

Classic. Can’t comment on Jan 6 without the ***** BLM riots. How does someone get this predictable.  

Nobody should EVER want see civil war…it is quite horrific 

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Exactly, which is how due process works.  Whether it's due process or partisan politics are 2 entirely different things, and I was only referring to the former.  I understand your point about the plaintiff, but I'm not sure about what parts(if any) of the justice's findings you disagree with.  

We'll see if the SCOTUS agrees that the appellate courts findings were proper. Let's wait and see who was correct. I'm willing to put a very hefty wager on my opinion. You?