Colorado Supreme Court rules insurrectionist Trump ineligible

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Question: 

Where in the Constitution does it say a conviction is required?

Legal experts have said only a hearing determining by a preponderance of the evidence is required to remove THE PRIVILEGE of being a candidate.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Question: 

Where in the Constitution does it say a conviction is required?

Question - where does the constitution say that a lower court gets to decide what insurrection is?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Legal experts have said only a hearing determining by a preponderance of the evidence is required to remove THE PRIVILEGE of being a candidate.

So now it's a PRIVILEGE - to put yourself forward for election.

You don't have that right.  Democracy isn't a RIGHT you see.  Its a privilege.  And if the democrats don't think you deserve that Privilege then you shouldn't be allowed to run.

I wonder if they'll still feel that way when the republicans find reasons to deny dem's the "privilege' of running?

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

Question: 

Where in the Constitution does it say a conviction is required?

Answer: Common Sense, which is what the Constitution was founded on. 

Question: Why aren't you diaper fillers barking about Joe Biden's dereliction of duty at our southern borders? 

 

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

You MAGA CULT members

There's no such thing as a MAGA cult. 

There is, however, a cult of screaming pronoun users and every single one of them are on YOUR side of the political fence.

Edited January 5, 2024 by Deluge

[robosmith]

How the Supreme Court May Rule on Trump’s Presidential Run

Quote

The Supreme Court, battered by ethics scandals, a dip in public confidence and questions about its legitimacy, may soon have to confront a case as consequential and bruising as Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

Until 10 days ago, the justices had settled into a relatively routine term. Then the Colorado Supreme Court declared that former President Donald J. Trump was ineligible to hold office because he had engaged in an insurrection. On Thursday, relying on that court’s reasoning, an election official in Maine followed suit.

An appeal of the Colorado ruling has already reached the justices, and they will probably feel compelled to weigh in. But they will act in the shadow of two competing political realities.

They will be reluctant to wrest from voters the power to assess Mr. Trump’s conduct, particularly given the certain backlash that would bring. Yet they will also be wary of giving Mr. Trump the electoral boost of an unqualified victory in the nation’s highest court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will doubtless seek consensus or, at least, try to avoid a partisan split of the six Republican appointees against the three Democratic ones.

He may want to explore the many paths the court could take to keep Mr. Trump on state ballots without addressing whether he had engaged in insurrection or even assuming that he had.

If there is a consensus among legal experts, it is that the Supreme Court must act.

“For the sake of the country, we need resolution of this issue as soon as possible,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Republican primary voters deserve to know if the candidate they are considering supporting is eligible to run. Otherwise they waste their votes on an ineligible candidate and raise the risk of the party nominating an ineligible candidate in the general election.”

Mr. Trump was disqualified in Colorado and Maine based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars officials who have taken an oath to support the Constitution from holding office if they then engage in an insurrection.

Professor Stephanopoulos said those determinations were legally sound. But he added that he was “highly skeptical” that the Supreme Court, which has a six-justice conservative supermajority, would agree. 

Conservatives are all about states' rights until it's Republicons ox that's being gored.
 

[Rebound]

On 1/4/2024 at 9:15 PM, Deluge said:

Answer: Common Sense, which is what the Constitution was founded on. 

Question: Why aren't you diaper fillers barking about Joe Biden's dereliction of duty at our southern borders? 

 

So you agree that the Constitution does not say that a conviction is required to disqualify an insurrectionist.  
And, there is a reason why the Constitution does not require a conviction: Civil War veterans were not tried for participating in the war, yet they were barred from being office holders, IF they had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

So you agree that the Constitution does not say that a conviction is required to disqualify an insurrectionist.  
And, there is a reason why the Constitution does not require a conviction: Civil War veterans were not tried for participating in the war, yet they were barred from being office holders, IF they had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.

No, I agree that you're a dumbass and a liar. 

Let's examine this together: If the Constitution doesn't say whether conviction in a court of law is required or not, then you can't officially declare Donald Trump an insurrectionist. 

The 14th Amendment doesn't support you jackasses simply saying Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. 

The only way someone can definitiovely say that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist, is if he is convicted of insurrection in a court of law. 

Donald Trump is not an insurrectionist, and the SCOTUS agrees. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

So you agree that the Constitution does not say that a conviction is required to disqualify an insurrectionist.  
 

But it does - just not directly.  It says he must be an insurrectinoist.  But it does not empower that level of court to make that decision. It does emplower a supreme court of the us.

So by what authority has that court chosen to convict him of this crime?  

Many things are not specifically spelled out in the law but are implied or contained within by implication.  It does not say in the constitution whether abortion is a state or federal responsibility - yet we've had two major court cases over it. 

[Yakuda]

If Trump is guilty of insurrection, why isn't he in jail? And if he incited an insurrection why was no one associated with the j6 episode convicted of insurrection? 

[Yakuda]

On 1/4/2024 at 5:23 PM, robosmith said:

You MAGA CULT members are completely out of the loop. Everyone knows that Trump "engaged in insurrection;" that's why the Co SC and Maine SoS removed him from the ballot. Duh

What's really amazing is that you continue to act as though anyone believes YOUR LIES.

If he did why hasn't trump been tried for insurrection? Why werent any of the j6 protestors convicted of insurrection? 

[Yakuda]

On 1/6/2024 at 11:46 AM, Deluge said:

No, I agree that you're a dumbass and a liar. 

Let's examine this together: If the Constitution doesn't say whether conviction in a court of law is required or not, then you can't officially declare Donald Trump an insurrectionist. 

The 14th Amendment doesn't support you jackasses simply saying Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. 

The only way someone can definitiovely say that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist, is if he is convicted of insurrection in a court of law. 

Donald Trump is not an insurrectionist, and the SCOTUS agrees. 

If he is an insurrection and incited an insurrection why hasn't he been tried and why weren't any of the protestors convicted of insurrection? It seems they know he isn't an insurrectionists 

[robosmith]

On 1/6/2024 at 11:46 AM, Deluge said:

No, I agree that you're a dumbass and a liar. 

Let's examine this together: If the Constitution doesn't say whether conviction in a court of law is required or not, then you can't officially declare Donald Trump an insurrectionist. 

The 14th Amendment doesn't support you jackasses simply saying Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. 

The only way someone can definitiovely say that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist, is if he is convicted of insurrection in a court of law. 

Donald Trump is not an insurrectionist, and the SCOTUS agrees. 

You're wrong. Trump was found, by a preponderance of the evidence, guilty of INSURRECTION by the Co SC.

NOT a criminal trial, ONLY a civil finding is required to remove HIS PRIVILEGE of holding OFFICE. No one has a RIGHT to hold office when they don't satisfy the QUALIFICATIONS.

 

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

Quote

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Quinta Jurecic: Trump discovers that some things are actually illegal

IOW, your amateur legal eagle OPINIONS, MEAN NOTHING.

 

 

 

[Deluge]

18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump was found, by a preponderance of the evidence, guilty of INSURRECTION by the Co SC.

Wrong. 

The Co SC, a court full of pot smoking homosexual agenda supporters, doesn't know their a$$es from the hole in the ground. 

Thank GOD we have a SCOTUS that isn't deranged like you perverts.

[robosmith]

Just now, Deluge said:

Wrong. 

The Co SC, a court full of pot smoking homosexual agenda supporters, doesn't know their a$$es from the hole in the ground. 

Thank GOD we have a SCOTUS that isn't deranged like you perverts.

In REALITY, the hearing COUNTS and ^YOUR OPINION DOES NOT.

[Deluge]

Just now, robosmith said:

In REALITY, the hearing COUNTS and ^YOUR OPINION DOES NOT.

The REALITY is that you have ZERO ACCESS TO REALITY. 

The SCOTUS is the only court that matters. The rest of you degenerates can go pound sand, or each other.

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

The REALITY is that you have ZERO ACCESS TO REALITY. 

The SCOTUS is the only court that matters. The rest of you degenerates can go pound sand, or each other.

You're going to have to prepare for some serious backtracking if the SCOTUS rules Trump is disqualified. LMAO

[Deluge]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're going to have to prepare for some serious backtracking if the SCOTUS rules Trump is disqualified. LMAO

No sweat there, scumbag. It'd probably be 9-0 in favor of Trump.

That's how warped you f*ckers are.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

No sweat there, scumbag. It'd probably be 9-0 in favor of Trump.

That's how warped you f*ckers are.

Not going to be 9-0 unless they disqualify Trump, cause the liberals will go by the literal meaning of the words.

[Deluge]

14 hours ago, robosmith said:

Not going to be 9-0 unless they disqualify Trump, cause the liberals will go by the literal meaning of the words.

No, the Justices will go 9-0 through actual Justice, not left-wing democrat activism, which is what a real American would expect from the highest court. 

[Deluge]

18 hours ago, Yakuda said:

If he is an insurrection and incited an insurrection why hasn't he been tried and why weren't any of the protestors convicted of insurrection? It seems they know he isn't an insurrectionists 

They pretend to not know so they can fool Americans into thinking that they are pursuing actual justice as opposed to their political activism. Real Americans see right through that bullshit and call them out at every opportunity. 

[Yakuda]

13 minutes ago, Deluge said:

They pretend to not know so they can fool Americans into thinking that they are pursuing actual justice as opposed to their political activism. Real Americans see right through that bullshit and call them out at every opportunity. 

It nothing but leftist political theater 

[robosmith]

22 hours ago, Yakuda said:

If Trump is guilty of insurrection, why isn't he in jail? And if he incited an insurrection why was no one associated with the j6 episode convicted of insurrection? 

The 14th A, is NOT exclusive to the technical violation of "insurrection."

Quote

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

So as you can see ^here, your nitpicking about specific CONVICTIONS makes NO SENSE.

The 14th A is NOT a CRIMINAL PENALTY case, and thus does NOT REQUIRE a CRIMINAL CONVICTION.

The PENALTY is civil. AKA REMOVAL of a PRIVILEGE.

This is why your Interwebz legal analysis is INVALID and you should listen to the EXPERTS like the Co SC.

[CdnFox]

20 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're wrong. Trump was found, by a preponderance of the evidence, guilty of INSURRECTION by the Co SC.

NOT a criminal trial, ONLY a civil finding is required to remove HIS PRIVILEGE of holding OFFICE. No one has a RIGHT to hold office when they don't satisfy the QUALIFICATIONS.

 

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

IOW, your amateur legal eagle OPINIONS, MEAN NOTHING.

 

 

 

Your OPINION is USELESS without PROOF!!!!!! 

And you have no proof.  So there you go

[Yakuda]

48 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The 14th A, is NOT exclusive to the technical violation of "insurrection."

So as you can see ^here, your nitpicking about specific CONVICTIONS makes NO SENSE.

The 14th A is NOT a CRIMINAL PENALTY case, and thus does NOT REQUIRE a CRIMINAL CONVICTION.

The PENALTY is civil. AKA REMOVAL of a PRIVILEGE.

This is why your Interwebz legal analysis is INVALID and you should listen to the EXPERTS like the Co SC.

First I dont care about the 14 th amendment. Next I never claimed that the 14th amendment REQUIRED a conviction, unless you can cite where I made such a claim. My point is much less complicated. 

 

The claim has been made that trump incited an insurrection. That's the term leftists have used. It's been said there is evidence of him inciting an insurrection. That's the term the leftist have used. So the point is why is trump walking free if he incited and there is evidence of his crime? This has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. Apparently an insurrectionist is allowed to walk free. 

 

You know what else is interesting? Trump is said to have incited a riot but not a single j6 protestor was convicted of insurrection? So trump incited an insurrection for which no one has been convicted. Again nothing to do with the 14th amendment.