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

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

Like, say, a law adopted by congress, that has the term insurrection right in the statute?



Weird.

SCOTUS did exactly what I thought they would do. They kicked the issue back to Congress but didn't settle the questions of If (1), The office of the President of the United States qualifies for exemption under Section 3, and (2) If a criminal conviction is required for Congress to disqualify anyone under Section 3.

So, what we're going to have is a constitutional crisis on Jan 6th, 2025, when Congress fold assert their objections to the admission of certain states electoral votes.

Mark my words, the 2024 Presidential election will be decided by The House of Representative, not the Electoral College.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You mean the guy who was charged with tax evasion and fraud who filed because he said Trump hindered his chances of winning?

It was not Republicans. It was a nut case.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The original lawsuit was filed by Republicans.

Shoo fly ! We saw you crawling on that democrat dung pile ….. stay away from our food !

You’re acting like a guy at a party all by yourself in the corner, yelping out odd phrases every few minutes to let people know you’re still there.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
a reply to: Threadbarer

DEMOCRAT LUNGE TOWARD AUTHORITARIAN ONE-PARTY SYSTEM HALTED BY SCOTUS RULING

Don't bet on that. The communists in our society and government are deeply seated and their tentacles run far and wide. This decision is a minor setback. There's much more to come in 2024.

My bad, it would be more accurate to say "slowed" rather than halted.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

9-0
Even the leftists on the SC know it was a bogus move.

The ruling went like I thought it would.


Now go back and read all the crap that was posted on this site prior to the decision. There were some really crazy posts supporting the removal of Trump from the ballot....but they are still there for your reading enjoyment.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: BernnieJGato

The headline is a bit misleading. SCOTUS ruled that someone can be prohibited from being on the ballot by an act of Congress.

A complete lack of self awareness and a lazy attempt at moving the goalposts. Joe, is that you?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

Like, say, a law adopted by congress, that has the term insurrection right in the statute?



Weird.

SCOTUS did exactly what I thought they would do. They kicked the issue back to Congress but didn't settle the questions of If (1), The office of the President of the United States qualifies for exemption under Section 3, and (2) If a criminal conviction is required for Congress to disqualify anyone under Section 3.

So, what we're going to have is a constitutional crisis on Jan 6th, 2025, when Congress fold assert their objections to the admission of certain states electoral votes.

Mark my words, the 2024 Presidential election will be decided by The House of Representative, not the Electoral College.

Lol, Thing # 1 got roundly trounced.

Thing # 2 is here to give it a go !

This one must have really demoralised the lefties. Only two trollings observed.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, what we're going to have is a constitutional crisis on Jan 6th, 2025, when Congress fold assert their objections to the admission of certain states electoral votes.

Like they did in 2016?

Or like they did in 2020 and are being charged for in GA and Michigan?

a reply to: RickinVa

Scary stuff as anyone can be elected to office or be influenced while in office.

The political landscape is Progressives vs Constitutionalists. There is no Repubican/Democrats anymore.

Dems.



Cheers

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Except the ruling makes it very clear that Trump, or anyone else running for federal office, could be prohibited from appearing on a ballot by a Congressional act.

The fact that SCOTUS went out of their way to state that's the only way someone can be removed from a ballot by way of Section 3 caused two separate concurring opinions to be written pointing out how that feel outside the scope of the case.

The case was really about common sense? Shocking. No one was challenging the "act of congress" bit. What was being challenged was states thinking they have the power to unilaterally impact elections. You know, subverting your precious democracy that you can't stop whining about? Think of all the voter they attempted to disenfrachise. If you had any sort of moral compass that would bother you. It clearly doesn't, and you clearly don't.

a reply to: Threadbarer

No. SCOTUS ruled that states have no way to prevent someone from the ballot. The law has always been 2/3 for removal so there is no reason to 'rule' on that but it was alluded to as the way to handle this situation and not states overstepping their boundries.

This is a much larger ruling than many think. It is enforcing that Federal Elections and Federal Elections and states do not have the ability to control them which is the law. I am thinking the left is glad they did not remove the Electoral College.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
America's biggest fan and hero, and next president, Donald Trump, will be making a live statement at 12:00 noon Eastern Time.

Seems like Trump should now be able to sue these state officials for slander and election interference.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Mark my words, the 2024 Presidential election will be decided by The House of Representative, not the Electoral College.

If Trump isn't in jail by then ... yeah ... you could be right.
IF Congress takes it up.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
Dems.

Cheers

Hopefully the number of liberal callers to 988 will continue to escalate.

spectrumlocalnews.com...

a reply to: arcticshuffle

Lol, Thing # 1 got roundly trounced.

What do you mean? Did the SCOTUS ruling clarify whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for disqualification under Section 3? If they did, I must have missed it.

Thing # 2 is here to give it a go !

What does that mean? Did SCOTUS say that anyone must be criminally convicted of insurrection before they would qualify for the Section 3 disqualification?

Do you think, if Trump wins, Jan 6th will glide by without any objection problems in the Congress, and the Electoral College will decide our election, like it always does?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Except the ruling makes it very clear that Trump, or anyone else running for federal office, could be prohibited from appearing on a ballot by a Congressional act.

The fact that SCOTUS went out of their way to state that's the only way someone can be removed from a ballot by way of Section 3 caused two separate concurring opinions to be written pointing out how that feel outside the scope of the case.

Yeah, I remember the original filing where the operative phrase was “please rule on the best way to get rid of Trump”.

You sure there isn’t another random tangent in the ruling that makes it clear that the whole case was about “Trump is Hitler in all future cases” ?

a reply to: matafuchs

Norma Anderson is the former House Majority Leader and Senate Majority Leader for Colorado's state house and a member of the GOP.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: arcticshuffle

Lol, Thing # 1 got roundly trounced.

What do you mean? Did the SCOTUS ruling clarify whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for disqualification under Section 3? If they did, I must have missed it.

Thing # 2 is here to give it a go !

What does that mean? Did SCOTUS say that anyone must be criminally convicted of insurrection before they would qualify for the Section 3 disqualification?

Do you think, if Trump wins, Jan 6th will glide by without any objection problems in the Congress, and the Electoral College will decide our election, like it always does?

Yes yes and yes.