Just Breaking SCOTUS Rules Trump Is Eligible To Be On Colorado Ballot.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: xuenchen

Court will ignore the law. Congress is not likely to enforce it.

This seems to blatantly indicate an utterly corrupted political and legal situation.

I'm sorry you despise due process and the notion of speech.

What parts of the Constitution do you agree with?

I can answer, He agrees with the part that says they can do what they want if the progressives but every one else are their bitches.

I think that fairly sums it up from the back porch in the mtns of TN.

Strange DP

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: Annee

You don’t want to give it ten years to see how it plays out before making a judgement?
Interesting……

I personally am anti-Trump.

I think he's a moron that cares only about himself and what benefits him.

However, there are groups who evaluate all presidents and how their administration affected the country.

I am not a historian of presidents -- they are.

So far, Trump has consistently been in the bottom 3. Biden is not evaluated yet as his first term is still in progress.

I've seen a number of these. Most of the time they don't even identify their methodology, and if they do they use entirely subjective measures.

Subjective lists such as this are prone to bias. Many academics are Democrats. Everyone has biases of course, but Democrats are famous for injecting their personal politics into their work, sacrificing their professional credibility.

Their childish rankings based on their personal feelings are literally meaningless. They aren't meant to be taken seriously. Their only purpose is to soothe some of that gaping wound Trump left in people like you.

a reply to: Xtrozero

yeah i know that. but as my post clearly stated congress is both the house and senate. not just the house. to let just the house decide could be more of partisan decision based on how many people are from a more bias state like new york, kommiefornia, or the any of the other bent woke states that lean dem and woke or vice a versa from conservative states.

another thing for the ones that keep saying no conviction needed. there is the simple fact for those that were disqualified in that time frame there was some sort of record that they were supporters of the south, to use another word proof, not just opinions, hear say witness testimony. testimony by those who worked/knew them that may or may not have liked or agreed with them. even if there was no due process or conviction for insurrection.

before anything is done under section three/ five, they should be amended to state clear guidelines. until then the voters should decide.

Not sure how reliable this is but ........

Assassin Targeting Trump Allies Is on the Loose, FBI Warns

Newsweek

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: Annee

You don’t want to give it ten years to see how it plays out before making a judgement?
Interesting……

I personally am anti-Trump.

I think he's a moron that cares only about himself and what benefits him.

However, there are groups who evaluate all presidents and how their administration affected the country.

I am not a historian of presidents -- they are.

So far, Trump has consistently been in the bottom 3. Biden is not evaluated yet as his first term is still in progress.

So if your dollar doesn’t mean anything anymore you have to be told if things are good or not?
Yeah….that Trump guy is a moron. Did you hear what he said about coyotes bringing babies over the border?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think an insurrection has taken place, imho.

Only it is the left that has actually succeeded.

Now they're just projecting.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: Annee

You don’t want to give it ten years to see how it plays out before making a judgement?
Interesting……

I personally am anti-Trump.

I think he's a moron that cares only about himself and what benefits him.

However, there are groups who evaluate all presidents and how their administration affected the country.

I am not a historian of presidents -- they are.


So far, Trump has consistently been in the bottom 3. Biden is not evaluated yet as his first term is still in progress.

Why do liberals constantly outsource their thinking to "groups" with their own agenda? "Fact checkers" "historians" blah blah.. What makes them truly qualified to tell you what to think? Is there some reason you can't find the data and make your own decision?

I am not a historian of presidents -- they are.

I guess there's comfort in having "authorities" reinforce your already warped opinions.

Pathetic sheep

a reply to: underpass61

Because they are lemmings. Sheep. They have no critical thinking skills. This is why when you ask them to explain something Trump did...they can't. They will repeat the MSM talking points they hear and that are parroted by their group of friends.

It is sad and scary. The LIV, or low information voter, has been the weapon of they DNC for centuries....

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: underpass61

Because they are lemmings. Sheep. They have no critical thinking skills. This is why when you ask them to explain something Trump did...they can't. They will repeat the MSM talking points they hear and that are parroted by their group of friends.

It is sad and scary. The LIV, or low information voter, has been the weapon of they DNC for centuries....

Do you “guys” ever listen to yourselves?

You’ve actually read these threads and claim there’s another side — sheep/followers.

But not your side? Your side is never in lockstep.

Seriously?!?!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Oh? DId they say that? Can you please cite where they said that, because I swear I complained, earlier in this thread, about how SCOTUS didn't address the issue and I was rebuffed and told that that wasn't the question before the court. The court didn't answer the question because they didn't need to answer it.

"After a five-day trial, a Colorado trial court agreed that Trump engaged in insurrection but concluded that Section 3 does not apply to the president. Specifically, it concluded, the presidency is not an “office … under the United States,” and the president is not an “officer of the United States.”

So, SCOTUS NEVER said that.

Just to be clear, SOCTUS didn't reaffirm the lower court's ruling, that the State of Colorado's Supreme Court overturned and declared that the Office of the President is indeed eligible for a Section 3 disqualification.

SCOTUS didn't say that the CO Supreme Court decision, that Trump is eligible for disqualification, based on the fact that he is an [n]oath breaking insurrectionist, was wrongly decided. They didn't refute or rebuff either of those rulings, right?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: underpass61

Because they are lemmings. Sheep. They have no critical thinking skills. This is why when you ask them to explain something Trump did...they can't. They will repeat the MSM talking points they hear and that are parroted by their group of friends.

It is sad and scary. The LIV, or low information voter, has been the weapon of they DNC for centuries....

Do you “guys” ever listen to yourselves?

You’ve actually read these threads and claim there’s another side — sheep/followers.

But not your side? Your side is never in lockstep.

Seriously?!?!

Justice Clarence Thomas should not have voted on the Trump Colorado Ballot Case, because his wife attended a Donald Trump rally!

Boo-hoo-hoo...: www.newsweek.com...

The anguish of Libs!

I LOVE IT

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Page 12:

Certain evidence (like the congressional Report on which the lower
courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but
inadmissible hearsay in others. Disqualification might be
possible only through criminal prosecution, as opposed to
expedited civil proceedings, in particular States. Indeed, in
some States—unlike Colorado (or Maine, where the secretary of state recently issued an order excluding former President Trump from the primary ballot)—procedures for excluding an ineligible candidate from the ballot may not
exist at all. The result could well be that a single candidate
would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others,
based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record).

a reply to: Annee

Yes. It was OK to be part of the cult of Obama, where they were singing songs praising him in school like A North Korean dictator. However, you state you like Trump and you are a racist, xenophobic, homophobic,transphobic White Supremacist...and that is from our current administration and the media.

The hate for half of this country is sick.

a reply to: JinMI

So again, just to be clear...

SCOTUS never ruled or commented on the question of whether the office of the President of the United is, or isn't, an office under the United States according to the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Does sec 3 mention the president?

a reply to: JinMI

So, the answer to my question, which isn't a trick question, is....? Another question from you?
LOL

Again, just to be clear. SCOTUS didn't say "yea" or "nay" to the question in yesterday's ruling, right?

Yes or no is the only answer required.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The question isn't based on anything.


Does president appear in sec 3 of the 14th amendment?

The answer is no, so how can they make an opinion on something that does not exist?

a reply to: JinMI

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That isn't what the SC said, that is what the court in CO said and so that is what the SC is referring to. Also, this is all they need to say as they did.

President is not an “officer of the United
States”

1) What i cited is exactly what SCOTUS said.
2) SCOTUS didn't say "yea" or "nay" on "President is not an “officer of the United
States”