Fourteenth Amendment | Section 3 - Disqualification from Holding Office

[daz28]

1 minute ago, JaCrispy said:

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

This shouldn't even need to be said.  If the media, that people are addicted to, has them that whacked out, they should seek mental help. 

 

[K D]

5 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

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

This is President of the United States. You don't mess with that. If there is an actual crime, like Watergate, it needs to be obvious like when they review a play in football and everyone is like yep that's a fumble. You can't make up stuff and hope something sticks if you have enough votes due to politics. They will just use that same tactic against you next time and just like that we no longer have a democracy 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

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?

So whatever they say will be correct?  Even if you disagree with it?  That's why I'm asking you NOW what parts you think they got wrong.  Also curious why, for someone supposedly non-partisan, you have the utmost faith in the Supreme Court, but nothing else.  If it was a 5-4 liberal SC, would you have the same faith?  I think your true partisan colors are shining through.  

[Pokebball]

Another interesting tidbit from this CO banana republic event, is that Jan 5 is the deadline to be put on the ballot. I gotta think the SCOTUS decision will come well after this date. Pop the corn fellas!

[Tiberius]

55 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

Oh, now you are telling the courts their job, great 

 

And if it doesn't matter--and I'll apologize in advance!--then please shut up about it 🤣 

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So whatever they say will be correct?  Even if you disagree with it?  That's why I'm asking you NOW what parts you think they got wrong.  Also curious why, for someone supposedly non-partisan, you have the utmost faith in the Supreme Court, but nothing else.  If it was a 5-4 liberal SC, would you have the same faith?  I think your true partisan colors are shining through.  

When did I say I was nonpartisan?

[BillsFanNC]

2 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

This is President of the United States. You don't mess with that. If there is an actual crime, like Watergate, it needs to be obvious like when they review a play in football and everyone is like yep that's a fumble. You can't make up stuff and hope something sticks if you have enough votes due to politics. They will just use that same tactic against you next time and just like that we no longer have a democracy 

 

These are full out commies that you're trying to reason with. 

 

They don't care about democracy. They only care about using the saving our democracy phrase while destroying it.

 

They have and will continue to do everything you point out here...and then some. 

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

This is President of the United States. You don't mess with that. If there is an actual crime, like Watergate, it needs to be obvious like when they review a play in football and everyone is like yep that's a fumble. You can't make up stuff and hope something sticks if you have enough votes due to politics. They will just use that same tactic against you next time and just like that we no longer have a democracy 

True, but now even the electorate only sees what they want to.  The partisan divide is real.  The football analogy is real in the fact that the refs are always for the other political team, so even a fumble is ruled not a fumble on purpose.  

[Pokebball]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Oh, now you are telling the courts their job, great 

 

And if it doesn't matter--and I'll apologize in advance!--then please shut up about it 🤣 

The purpose of an appellate court are set. Neither you or I get to decide.

 

Please keep posting  

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

True, but now even the electorate only sees what they want to.  The partisan divide is real.  The football analogy is real in the fact that the refs are always for the other political team, so even a fumble is ruled not a fumble on purpose.  

Offside would have been the better analogy. but to that point, we've got review which most of the time provides a pretty clear decision. The Dems, in this case, are still arguing that Toney wasn't Offside.  

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said:

It's like you don't actually understand due process.  

 

It doesn't exist in civil cases and he has not been convicted of a crime or insurrection 

Of course due process exists in civil cases. I don't even know where to begin to shoot down this fundamental misunderstanding.

[daz28]

4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

When did I say I was nonpartisan?

When you said you wanted to have faith in our institutions, and that you wanted due process?  I didn't figure that meant you wanted to only get wins for your side at whatever cost.

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

Of course due process exists in civil cases. I don't even know where to begin to shoot down this fundamental misunderstanding.

Yeah, he doesn't have a clue what's going on.  Like I told the other one, this is schoolhouse rock level stuff.  

[Tiberius]

Just now, Pokebball said:

The purpose of an appellate court are set. Neither you or I get to decide.

 

Please keep posting  

All state Supreme Courts are appellate courts, as is the Federal Supreme Court

 

So the ruling from a lower court as appealed up to this court. You don't know what you are talking about. 

[Tommy Callahan]

46 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. 

Thrown out on its merits.

 

can't claim he is guilty of an Inserection when he was never even charged, better yet convicted of that.

 

And how are the voices even claiming democracy in a story about a shady funded PAC suing to get the election results that benefit their class the best?

 

 

Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Tommy Callahan

[daz28]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

Thrown out on its merits.

 

can't claim he is guilty of an Inserection when he was never even charged, better yet convicted of that.

 

And how are the voices even claiming democracy in a story about a shady funded PAC suing to get the election results that benefit their class the best?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A conviction isn't needed for DQ.  This is already established case law, albeit old case law.  

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

When you said you wanted to have faith in our institutions, and that you wanted due process?  I didn't figure that meant you wanted to only get wins for your side at whatever cost.

I'm not the guy arguing in favor of unprecedented legal actions to keep a political opponent off the ballot. And I'm being the partisan? You should do some "refiguring"

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

All state Supreme Courts are appellate courts, as is the Federal Supreme Court

 

So the ruling from a lower court as appealed up to this court. You don't know what you are talking about. 

He really doesn't.  He talked a good game like he understood facts, and wanted the truth/justice, but in reality he just wants Don the soon to be con to win

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Thrown out on its merits.

 

can't claim he is guilty of an Inserection when he was never even charged, better yet convicted of that.

 

And how are the voices even claiming democracy in a story about a shady funded PAC suing to get the election results that benefit their class the best?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this is exactly where the CO appellate court failed.

[daz28]

Just now, Pokebball said:

I'm not the guy arguing in favor of unprecedented legal actions to keep a political opponent off the ballot. And I'm being the partisan? You should do some "refiguring"

Bringing a case before court isn't "unprecedented", and for someone who refuses to look at and discuss the merits of it fairly and unbiased, it sure seems partisan.  

[Pokebball]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

He really doesn't.  He talked a good game like he understood facts, and wanted the truth/justice, but in reality he just wants Don the soon to be con to win

That wager on the SCOTUS' decision...you up to that challenge?

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

And this is exactly where the CO appellate court failed.

Wait, where again did they fail, exactly?