Judge rules Trump ineligible to appear on Illinois ballot under 14th Amendment

a reply to: Annee

Send Lawyers guns and money?

If I let my thoughts roam..

Gerard Coad Smith LOL

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlongCameaSpider

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlongCameaSpider

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

you need to do some research on genders....

Sex is physical.

Gender is in the brain.

It’s not complicated.

Gender is physical, biological, and anatomical. Even less complicated. 😀

Wrong and wrong thread.

Correct and correctly answering you in correct thread.

Some continue to live in an antiquated mindset (it's always been that way) because they are unable to move forward with newly accepted human differences that actually have always been.

STUCK is not my forte.

Thread title: Judge rules Trump ineligible to appear on Illinois ballot under 14th Amendment

Newly accepted differences. Accepted by who?

In 77 -- in those years I've experienced many "differences" that were forced to stay in the closet by "polite society". Mentally ill, physically disabled, wrong religion, and others.

All because they made someone else feel uncomfortable.

Some in society have evolved to accept differences, some choose to remain stuck.

Who? The non-stuck.

The stuck and the non-stuck by your definition.
The past mindset vs the present?

No. Stuck — Non-stuck.

How about Traditional — Non-traditional.

Anyway — nothing to do with topic.

If only the non traditional types were as accepting of tradition as the traditional types are expected to be accepting. Being unable to disagree or coexist without creating a villain to sustain that victim philosophy and generate unlimited participation trophies for the poor lambs. Which is tangentially related to the topic because guess where Trump fits in that equation?

The opinion is up.

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section
3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with
Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado
Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result

originally posted by: JinMI
The opinion is up.

For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section
3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with
Congress and not the States. The judgment of the Colorado
Supreme Court therefore cannot stand.
All nine Members of the Court agree with that result

Stand by for…….

Sotomayer, Kagan, and the biologist just can’t help themselves.
They just had to write their own concurring opinion just so they could call Trump an ‘oathbreaking insurrectionist’. It’s in there at least three times LoL
“We know it’s the correct decision but reeeeeeeeeeee”

a reply to: Vermilion

Which is despicable IMO.

a reply to: Vermilion

Yeah they were pretty pathetic but everyone knew it was coming.

originally posted by: Vermilion

Sotomayer, Kagan, and the biologist just can’t help themselves.
They just had to write their own concurring opinion just so they could call Trump an ‘oathbreaking insurrectionist’. It’s in there at least three times LoL
“We know it’s the correct decision but reeeeeeeeeeee”

Well now it's obvious who's bought-off. But even this case had to be overturned. It WAS THAT bad.

The 3 of course, offered zero evidence. 😃

OK

What's the next excuse? 😀

a reply to: xuenchen

I am Confused . Wasn't this Ruling a 9-0 Decision ? The Lib Judges had to go Along for Looks ?

a reply to: JinMI

Tracy Porter's life will be very miserable next year. She may not even be a judge in 12 months.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

I am Confused . Wasn't this Ruling a 9-0 Decision ? The Lib Judges had to go Along for Looks ?

Those 3 can be read in their cleverly clownly despondent wording starting on Page 15 . . . . . .🤡 It's like they wanted to legislate from the bench!!


DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v.
NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlongCameaSpider

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlongCameaSpider

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

you need to do some research on genders....

Sex is physical.

Gender is in the brain.

It’s not complicated.

Gender is physical, biological, and anatomical. Even less complicated. 😀

Wrong and wrong thread.

Correct and correctly answering you in correct thread.

Some continue to live in an antiquated mindset (it's always been that way) because they are unable to move forward with newly accepted human differences that actually have always been.

STUCK is not my forte.

Thread title: Judge rules Trump ineligible to appear on Illinois ballot under 14th Amendment

Newly accepted differences. Accepted by who?

In 77 -- in those years I've experienced many "differences" that were forced to stay in the closet by "polite society". Mentally ill, physically disabled, wrong religion, and others.

All because they made someone else feel uncomfortable.

Some in society have evolved to accept differences, some choose to remain stuck.

Who? The non-stuck.

The stuck and the non-stuck by your definition.
The past mindset vs the present?

No. Stuck — Non-stuck.

How about Traditional — Non-traditional.

Anyway — nothing to do with topic.

If only the non traditional types were as accepting of tradition as the traditional types are expected to be accepting. Being unable to disagree or coexist without creating a villain to sustain that victim philosophy and generate unlimited participation trophies for the poor lambs. Which is tangentially related to the topic because guess where Trump fits in that equation?

Here's your mirror.

a reply to: WeMustCare

If Tracie Porter had ruled that Illinois needed to keep Trump on the ballot she would have lost face with her constituency.
Also the Supreme Court might not have felt so compelled to set the record straight concerning lost electoral votes before Super Tuesday. From the transcript the "millions of thrown out votes" that might be in jeopardy *after* an election refers to votes cast for the *State approved* candidates.

That end game will be avoided now if the SCOTTUS advice is heeded. Everybody probably saw this anyways, and nobody got caught in the possible complicity traps.

"Caw , Caw" Yummy.