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

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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.

POTUS commissions officers. Plus they argument being made was that there flows from the verbiage a downward trend of offices. Starting with legislators.

The premise of the argument is moot.

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. ???

Who makes laws in our country Sookie? I know you have the schoolhouse rock video handy.....

a reply to: Sookiechacha

None of those red herrings were in The CO case. So why would The Supreme Court elaborate? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Maybe reread the first several pages. I think they did answer those questions indirectly, but admittedly, it was somewhat nuanced within the context of this particular case. We'll be hearing more about this and your questions, that's a given.

a reply to: Threadbarer

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.

A Congressional act to ban an individual from the ballot?

Sounds more like North Korea or Russia to me.

Both houses of Congress getting together to pass that pile of excrement?

Never happen here in a thousand lifetimes.

a reply to: network dude

They should have been more definitive, instead of wimping out on the real questions. They should have definitively answered the question of whether or not the President of the United States in an "officer under the United States" according to Section 3.

They should have definitively stated whether or not a criminal conviction is required to enforce Section 3. They talked about how states might use civil courts and others use criminal courts, but they failed to address if a criminal conviction would be required on a federal level.

What did they mean by Congress issuing some sort of written statement? Could president Trump be declared an insurrectionist by resolution from the house, and then require a 2/3rd vote for the body of Congress to "remove the disability"?

These unresolved questions make an uneasy transfer of power inevitable. Another "insurrection"? Maybe.

Trump is speaking now. His polling numbers over Biden will increase after today. All networks are carrying this off the cuff speech. Something Biden cannot do, maybe never could do.

a reply to: Threadbarer

DEMOCRAT ELECTION INTERFERENCE SCHEME FACES SIGNIFICANT SETBACK WITH SCOTUS RULING

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.

A tried and trued Trump hater buyout 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: network dude

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.

But this is what our ATS lefty friends do. Every time.

Invent 1000 farcical fake issues that “prove” they didn’t lose and really probably won ….. when they lost bigly.

It’s the baby thing we were discussing earlier. Can’t even admit they lost when it’s 9-0 including their Marxist pervert jihadi blm folks.

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.

He's so disappointed with Ketanji 😃

The "Democracy™" coven in this country aren't done yet, unfortunately. We have ~8 more months of fecal tossing to look forward to. What's next I wonder?

Outright defiance of SCOTUS? They've already proven that SCOTUS decisions are irrelevant as it pertains to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th...

I expect more treasonous, seditious legislation to be passed in response. Kinda like what's going on right now. Until legislators are stripped of their immunity, they will continue to thumb their nose at SCOTUS and The Constitution.

If it isn't clear yet, (and probably never has been or ever will be for their pea brained followers), the left is hell bent on destroying the country and will do so in order to "win".

We haven't even hit peak "REEEEEEEE" yet, lol. Just wait until were like ~3 or 4 months out...it's going to be epic.

This summer should be interesting. All the criminals, rapists, murderers, thieves that poured into our country will be all thawed out and on the hunt.

Enjoy!

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: network dude

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

Cheers

Pelosi, Wray, Biden's election fraud organization, are responsible for most of it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But The CO case wasn't trying to remove Congressional authority. They were trying to illegally enhance state authority. 🤓

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

He's so disappointed with Ketanji 😃

I guess in Biden's eyes she ain't black now.

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.

For selecting a President, The House uses "One State - One Vote" rules. 😃 It's gunnabe close aintit ❗️

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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

No.

SCOTUS said the states have NO business interfering in a Federal election.

Which is both common sense and absolutely correct.

What were those idiots smoking on the CO Supreme Court when they issued that ruling in the first place?

I want some too.

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat
a reply to: Threadbarer

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.

A Congressional act to ban an individual from the ballot?

Sounds more like North Korea or Russia to me.

Both houses of Congress getting together to pass that pile of excrement?

Never happen here in a thousand lifetimes.

Pretty sure we aren’t about to invent a method for Congress to cancel, overturn, or redo an election. If it hasn’t been a legit process for the last 248 years, I hope the democrats won’t be given carte blanche to invent it just for them to use against Trump.

I notice that it wasn’t an option in 2020.

Unfortunately this is good and bad for Trump , Now they have to find another way to keep him out of the election I bet they try and have him arrested for something or even worse I wouldn't put anything passed them at this point .

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

But The CO case wasn't trying to remove Congressional authority. They were trying to illegally enhance state authority. 🤓

The leftists here don't know enough about the case to discuss those kind of details. And the issue fundamentally goes back to the Constitution, which they don't believe in and don't understand.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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. ???

Why would they issue a ruling on a case that isn't before them?

That is NOT what the case was about. It was about Trump being removed from the ballot because some Dems feelz got hurt that he was even allowed to run.

Total democratic dictatorial lunacy.

So what else is new?