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

originally posted by: Threadbarer
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.

Ah, you’re still there. Thank goodness.

Don’t eat all the shrimp, and keep your fingers out of the punch bowl.

Even though everybody knew the outcome. President Biden is in shock today. Unwilling to speak. None of the liberals expected 9-0.

Everybody please remember to flag this thread. It helps with search engine placement.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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.

You didn't read the judgement, did you. It was not just kicked back to congress. A ruling was made. States do not have authority over federal offices, especially the office of president. It is a federal decision. Meaning...congress.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
Even though everybody knew the outcome. President Biden is in shock today. Unwilling to speak. None of the liberals expected 9-0.

That's not true.

The writing was on the wall since the day the court heard the arguments before them. On liberal MSN, SCOTUS scholars were practically weeping, seeing how the court reacted to the case before them. They spent these last few weeks talking their audience down from expectation of Trump not being on the ballot and encouraging people to vote, vote vote!

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?

are you rooting for an insurrection? Because that's what happens when one side is angry and protests an election. Surely you aren't advocating for more trouble on Jan 6th....

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?

We knew you’d come full circle and announce that dem refusal to accept 2024 election results is great for America.

After yelling and cheering for long prison sentences for everybody, for the same thing in 2020.

Sad and embarrassing, yes. But it was a given.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
If I were one of those idiot judges in Colorado who passed the 'kick Trump off the ballot' ... I'd be embarrassed as all hell that the SCOTUS just overturned my ruling. It shows the morons in Colorado are biased and don't understand the Constitution.

The Judges on the original case and their Supreme Court that voted for removing a candidate from a ballot need to be heckled and hooted loudly and in public relentlessly 🤡🤡

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: WeMustCare
Even though everybody knew the outcome. President Biden is in shock today. Unwilling to speak. None of the liberals expected 9-0.

That's not true.

The writing was on the wall since the day the court heard the arguments before them. On liberal MSN, SCOTUS scholars were practically weeping, seeing how the court reacted to the case before them. They spent these last few weeks talking their audience down from expectation of Trump not being on the ballot and encouraging people to vote, vote vote!

I think threadbarer already used up all these red herrings and purple tangents that are the equivalent of “haha didn’t hurt !”

Please don’t make us sit through them all again.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Sookiechacha

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.

You didn't read the judgement, did you. It was not just kicked back to congress. A ruling was made. States do not have authority over federal offices, especially the office of president. It is a federal decision. Meaning...congress.

I did read the ruling. I read the whole ruling. I haven't yet read what each justice thought.

I didn't see SCOTUS clear up the question as to whether the President of USA is an "Office" under the United States, as Trump's lawyers argued it wasn't.

I didn't see SCOTUS address whether or not a criminal conviction would be required. It did say something about Congress issuing some kind of writ, or declaration. ???

With these questions seemingly unanswered, it leaves congress members open to object to states' electoral votes being counted on Jan 6th, 2025. If that happens, like the Republicans wanted it happen last time, the election will be kicked to The House of Representatives. I think only a simple majority is needed for the body to decide, so, elections and resignations matter quite a bit, right now.

originally posted by: network dude

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?

are you rooting for an insurrection? Because that's what happens when one side is angry and protests an election. Surely you aren't advocating for more trouble on Jan 6th....

I'm predicting it will happen, as pre-planned. This SCOTUS ruling sealed that deal, in my opinion.

The House of Representatives will decided this election on a simple majority.

Convince me I'm wrong.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The absence of a criminal conviction by a Jury, a loony judge like Engoron, or by the Senate, was an important consideration in their 9-0 ruling.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yep, making Colorado government look good

/sarc

Cheers

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: WeMustCare
Even though everybody knew the outcome. President Biden is in shock today. Unwilling to speak. None of the liberals expected 9-0.

They spent these last few weeks talking their audience down from expectation of Trump not being on the ballot and encouraging people to vote, vote vote!

How about they just report the news instead of telling people how to think and what to do.
Oh yeah, independent thought for a liberal is a bridge too far.

Carry on

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The original lawsuit was filed by Republicans.

A handful of paid operators. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: network dude

That 6th is now just a dastardly day, no way 'round it.

Cheers

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The House of Representatives will decided this election on a simple majority.

It's my opinion that if someone is running for POTUS and they may or may not have committed insurrection, that it should be decided by a federal court of law and not the House of Representatives. No matter if it's a republican or a democrat running for POTUS ... the House of Representatives will vote in favor of their own side. They are too partisan to do the job correctly. None of them can be trusted to be fair and impartial.

That's just my opinion of course and it means nothing. But it's what makes sense to me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

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?

are you rooting for an insurrection? Because that's what happens when one side is angry and protests an election. Surely you aren't advocating for more trouble on Jan 6th....

I'm predicting it will happen, as pre-planned. This SCOTUS ruling sealed that deal, in my opinion.

The House of Representatives will decided this election on a simple majority.

Convince me I'm wrong.

On January 7th, I wonder if you will have the guts to show up? Time will tell.

What was the SCOTUS supposed to do here? The ruling is exactly what the left expected according to the left.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Sookiechacha

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.

You didn't read the judgement, did you. It was not just kicked back to congress. A ruling was made. States do not have authority over federal offices, especially the office of president. It is a federal decision. Meaning...congress.

I did read the ruling. I read the whole ruling. I haven't yet read what each justice thought.

I didn't see SCOTUS clear up the question as to whether the President of USA is an "Office" under the United States, as Trump's lawyers argued it wasn't.

I didn't see SCOTUS address whether or not a criminal conviction would be required. It did say something about Congress issuing some kind of writ, or declaration. ???

With these questions seemingly unanswered, it leaves congress members open to object to states' electoral votes being counted on Jan 6th, 2025. If that happens, like the Republicans wanted it happen last time, the election will be kicked to The House of Representatives. I think only a simple majority is needed for the body to decide, so, elections and resignations matter quite a bit, right now.

Yes, but as we heard very loudly, that's not how it works. If it did work that way, they would not have screamed for months about how wrong all of that was. Or did all that change now?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Enduro

She had one of the most Conservative voting records in Congress.

. . . . and then the blackmail and payoffs and mental illness🤣🤣