Colorado Supreme Court rules insurrectionist Trump ineligible

[Hodad]

Colorado Supreme Court has the backbone to enforce the law.

I'm skeptical that the Trump-packed SCOTUS will have the same integrity, but these are thinking people rather than politicians and perhaps they've had enough of his destructive anti-democratic nonsense.

[Caswell Thomas]

31 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Colorado Supreme Court has the backbone to enforce the law.

I'm skeptical that the Trump-packed SCOTUS will have the same integrity, but these are thinking people rather than politicians and perhaps they've had enough of his destructive anti-democratic nonsense.

I am thinking they , the US Supreme Court in January , will follow Colorado's lead and use it as an escape from having to entirely decide the matter for themselves. It is also very.likely now that one state has broken the ice, other states will do the same, certainly a lot of solid blue states will and that I think may even convince some red states Courts who do not want their State authority supplanted by the kind if Dictator Trump has already shown himself to espouse as his creed to become President again. Then too, the US Supreme Court as THE Authoritarian Determiner of Facts and decisions affecting the Democracy of the US , knows that if they let Trump get away with this, they diminish themselves and Trump will take advantage of them until he, like his hero Hitler, abolishes the entire thought of any Court over ruling the Dictator Trump in ANY decision in the future.  I salute Colorado for making this Statement of Democracy over Tyranny. 

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

Colorado Supreme Court has the backbone to enforce the law.

I'm skeptical that the Trump-packed SCOTUS will have the same integrity, but these are thinking people rather than politicians and perhaps they've had enough of his destructive anti-democratic nonsense.

Only it hasn't been proven that Trump is an insurrectionist. This will get overturned.

[Deluge]

See, what's happened here is that Colorado has just proven that it's the dumbest state in America.

We may have to kick all their legal and government officials out of office and replace them with real Americans.

Revoking their US citizenship should also be on the table. 

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

I am thinking they , the US Supreme Court in January , will follow Colorado's lead and use it as an escape from having to entirely decide the matter for themselves. It is also very.likely now that one state has broken the ice, other states will do the same, certainly a lot of solid blue states will and that I think may even convince some red states Courts who do not want their State authority supplanted by the kind if Dictator Trump has already shown himself to espouse as his creed to become President again. Then too, the US Supreme Court as THE Authoritarian Determiner of Facts and decisions affecting the Democracy of the US , knows that if they let Trump get away with this, they diminish themselves and Trump will take advantage of them until he, like his hero Hitler, abolishes the entire thought of any Court over ruling the Dictator Trump in ANY decision in the future.  I salute Colorado for making this Statement of Democracy over Tyranny. 

Tyranny and the DNC are one and the same. 

If democrats want another civil war, I suppose engaging balls deep in election interference is as good a reason as any to get things moving. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Deluge

[Nationalist]

41 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Tyranny and the DNC are one and the same. 

If democrats want another civil war, I suppose engaging balls deep in election interference is as good a reason as any to get things moving. 

People like @Caswell Thomas will say any outlandish bullshit, in order to keep Trump from running. Essentially, they already know they can't beat Trump in a fair election, so they cheat. Simpler as that.

This whole "SAVE DEMOCRACY FROM TRUMP THE FASCIST!" is an incredibly thin lie. Its actually these Tweenkies who openly display fascist tendencies.

The SCOTUS will have no choice but to overturn this abuse of the law because nobody can prove Trump told anyone to hold an insurrection. In fact...now that we can all see what really happened...the term "insurrection" itself is a lie and a joke.

"I don't know officer. All I did was stand at the end of that big dog's rope and tease him. Then he got loose and bit my leg off. BAD DOG!"

LOL...These twits should really pray the dog never get off its leash.

[Deluge]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

People like @Caswell Thomas will say any outlandish bullshit, in order to keep Trump from running. Essentially, they already know they can't beat Trump in a fair election, so they cheat. Simpler as that.

This whole "SAVE DEMOCRACY FROM TRUMP THE FASCIST!" is an incredibly thin lie. Its actually these Tweenkies who openly display fascist tendencies.

The SCOTUS will have no choice but to overturn this abuse of the law because nobody can prove Trump told anyone to hold an insurrection. In fact...now that we can all see what really happened...the term "insurrection" itself is a lie and a joke.

"I don't know officer. All I did was stand at the end of that big dog's rope and tease him. Then he got loose and bit my leg off. BAD DOG!"

LOL...These twits should really pray the dog never get off its leash.

Democrats are really just unhinged children in bigger bodies - they're wired for one thing, and one thing only, and that is to test the limits of the public: "How can I foist stuff on people and still get away with it?". 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Deluge

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Tyranny and the DNC are one and the same. 

If democrats want another civil war, I suppose engaging balls deep in election interference is as good a reason as any to get things moving. 

^Extremely WEAK and DESPERATE. The DNC had nothing to do with this decision.

Let me remind you of The Conservative Legal Roadmap to Disqualify Trump From Office 

Which is  the CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.

It is unfortunate (for you), that right wingers here are UNABLE to make one of those. 

 

 

 

[ironstone]

15 hours ago, Hodad said:

Colorado Supreme Court has the backbone to enforce the law.

I'm skeptical that the Trump-packed SCOTUS will have the same integrity, but these are thinking people rather than politicians and perhaps they've had enough of his destructive anti-democratic nonsense.

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection.  

[ironstone]

 

[Deluge]

44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^Extremely WEAK and DESPERATE. The DNC had nothing to do with this decision.

Let me remind you of The Conservative Legal Roadmap to Disqualify Trump From Office 

Which is  the CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.

It is unfortunate (for you), that right wingers here are UNABLE to make one of those. 

Sorry, robobias, but there are too many democrat sympathizers on that supreme court. Anti-Trumpism is what fueled that ruling, nothing else. 

[Hodad]

47 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection.  

Jack Smith also didn't charge Trump with fraud. ?‍♂️

Nevertheless, both are true and the former is the cited reason of the Colorado courts.

[Rebound]

46 minutes ago, ironstone said:

 

The Constitution does not say that conviction for the crime of insurrection is required for disqualification. This is clear because the 14th Amendment disqualified former Civil War participants even though those people had not been convicted of a crime for fighting in the Civil War as a Confederate. 

In your video, this man doesn’t make any legal arguments at all. He “just says so.” But he doesn’t explain at all why the claim is invalid, except that Trump was not convicted of participating in an insurrection or giving aid and comfort to those who did. What we do have here is a judicial finding of fact that Trump did indeed participate in an insurrection. The lower court judge wrote a 100 page ruling on that fact. 

[ironstone]

9 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The lower court judge wrote a 100 page ruling on that fact. 

And one of the dissenting judges on the Colorado decision stated that there was no basis in the Constitution for the decision.

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, ironstone said:

And one of the dissenting judges on the Colorado decision stated that there was no basis in the Constitution for the decision.

Could you be more specific?

It seems very very common for judges to refuse to rule on Constitutional issues because they think nobody has any standing to do so.  This happened when people sued to block Obama from the ballot with the false and unproven claim that he was not a U.S. citizen. But in this case, plaintiffs did prove Trump participated or aided in insurrection. 
 

It’s likely going to the SCOTUS and the 3 judges he appointed will likely be corrupt and refuse to recuse themselves despite obvious conflict of interest and they will likely rule in Trump’s favor, so quit whining.  

[ironstone]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

But in this case, plaintiffs did prove Trump participated or aided in insurrection. 

Why then did Jack Smith not charge trump with insurrection? Everything in this latest court decision revolves around 'Trump the insurrectionist' yet he's not actually charged with it.

[Deluge]

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Jack Smith also didn't charge Trump with fraud. ?‍♂️

Nevertheless, both are true and the former is the cited reason of the Colorado courts.

Anti-Trumpism is strong in the Colorado SC. They will need help from the US SC to free them from this deranged illness. 

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Why then did Jack Smith not charge trump with insurrection? Everything in this latest court decision revolves around 'Trump the insurrectionist' yet he's not actually charged with it.

You are incorrect. Most of the issues raised in this case relate to who has standing to make the challenge and whether the fourteenth amendment applies to the Presidency and whether “support the Constitution” is different from “defend the constitution.”

The Constitution does not say that a conviction is needed. I do not know why Trump was not specifically charged with Insurrection, but I think it may the that particular law states that anyone convicted of the crime is ineligible to hold any federal office, and that prohibition is probably unconstitutional.  

Edited December 20, 2023 by Rebound

[Deluge]

23 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The Constitution does not say that conviction for the crime of insurrection is required for disqualification. This is clear because the 14th Amendment disqualified former Civil War participants even though those people had not been convicted of a crime for fighting in the Civil War as a Confederate. 

In your video, this man doesn’t make any legal arguments at all. He “just says so.” But he doesn’t explain at all why the claim is invalid, except that Trump was not convicted of participating in an insurrection or giving aid and comfort to those who did. What we do have here is a judicial finding of fact that Trump did indeed participate in an insurrection. The lower court judge wrote a 100 page ruling on that fact. 

The Colorado SC has been infected by anti-Trumpism. The US SC will help cure this devastating sickness. 

[Deluge]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The Constitution does not say that a conviction is needed.

If that's the case then we'll have to go ahead and remove Joe Biden from the presidency for treason. His border policies and relationship with foreign entities is suspicious as f*ck, therefore he needs to go. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection.  

Conviction is NOT REQUIRED by the Constitution, just "engaged in."

There was a hearing in Colorado. Trump presented his case, and LOST.

 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Sorry, robobias, but there are too many democrat sympathizers on that supreme court. Anti-Trumpism is what fueled that ruling, nothing else. 

Sorry DELUGINAL, ^this OPINION means NOTHING, in comparison to the LEGAL EXPERTS I CITED. 

Come back when you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE from LEGAL EXPERTS. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

Tyranny and the DNC are one and the same. 

If democrats want another civil war, I suppose engaging balls deep in election interference is as good a reason as any to get things moving. 

This is the problem. 

This is obviously just a stunt, trump will be running in colorado.  And the trump supporters will use this as more proof that biden friendly officials will use any means necessary, legal or otherwise, to try to keep trump out.

So - trump wins anyway and then pulls a similar trick and gets friendly states to deny the next dem candidate on some charge or another, claims their language is insurrectionist or the like.  Now we've weaponized the system to be a tool AGAINST democracy.

Or trump loses and his followers go bat crap crazy because the corruption of the dems is "obvious" to them and we have ongoing disruptions there.

The dems basically put a bullet into the entire democracy of the us when they created the 'fake' dossier and wepaonized the FBI against their political opponent, and it's gone down hill from there, and at this point ii don't know that it's recoverable.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

And one of the dissenting judges on the Colorado decision stated that there was no basis in the Constitution for the decision.

So what? Dissenting opinion LOSES by DEFINITION. You don't even know the basis for that dissent.

Clearly there is a basis in the 14th Amendment.

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Why then did Jack Smith not charge trump with insurrection? Everything in this latest court decision revolves around 'Trump the insurrectionist' yet he's not actually charged with it.

Again; no conviction is required. The court determined at a hearing that Trump "engaged in insurrection." Nuff said.

[robosmith]

59 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Anti-Trumpism is strong in the Colorado SC. They will need help from the US SC to free them from this deranged illness. 

Why do you bother posting ^this deranged foolishness? Your OPINION means NOTHING.