Rep. Cammack to Newsmax: Colo. Ruling Is 'Judicial Activism'

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

How do you expect Donald Trump to beat a man who rigged a national election without leaving his basement, and leaving absolutely no trace? 

Right? -- The election fraud story is thoroughly debunked moronic nonsense. But, damn, if it were true-- if there were an organization in the country capable of committing millions of acts of voter fraud without leaving any evidence and without anyone leaking information --that organization is clearly vastly more qualified to run our government than the mere mortals who currently do so. 

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Right? -- The election fraud story is thoroughly debunked moronic nonsense. But, damn, if it were true-- if there were an organization in the country capable of committing millions of acts of voter fraud without leaving any evidence and without anyone leaking information --that organization is clearly vastly more qualified to run our government than the mere mortals who currently do so. 

Let's talk about that, Whoredad. 

Explain how all of this was "debunked": 

https://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election,_2020

[suds]

Some have posted that Trump has never been convicted of insurrection. If true, I find it fascinating that the Colorado Supreme Court can take away Trump's right to run for office based solely on what? Opinion? Or the fact that all 7 Colorado S.C. Justices were appointed by a democrat governor (3 of which voted against the decision). You might as well kiss rule of law goodbye if judgements are being made based on political affiliation.

[Aristides]

37 minutes ago, suds said:

Some have posted that Trump has never been convicted of insurrection. If true, I find it fascinating that the Colorado Supreme Court can take away Trump's right to run for office based solely on what? Opinion? Or the fact that all 7 Colorado S.C. Justices were appointed by a democrat governor (3 of which voted against the decision). You might as well kiss rule of law goodbye if judgements are being made based on political affiliation.

All judicial rulings are based on opinion. 

[suds]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

All judicial rulings are based on opinion. 

Yeah I get it. But is 'opinion' enough to prevent a former president from running for office again? Or should there at least be a proper trial, with jury, lawyers, witnesses, testimony, cross examination, etc., with a conviction? This sets a terrible precedent for any court or Justice to remove any political opposition they don't agree with. This sounds a lot like judicial overreach.

[CdnFox]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:36 AM, bcsapper said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/21/luttig-14th-amendment-trump-00132792

Wow sapper - you basically just put your position against Deluge's. (yes - you did don't even bother saying you just reposted an article )

I guess we'll see which of you is more intelligent legally speaking.

[CdnFox]

58 minutes ago, Aristides said:

All judicial rulings are based on opinion. 

No, that is not accurate.  They are based on far more than that. And where they do include opinion it's supposed to be opinion of what the law says given the facts presented and ONLY with regards to the very specific case or question at hand. Not their opinion of the person at the trial. And not outside the court's authority.

So... while it's a  cutsie answer it's wrong.  Decisions are based on fact and law, and the only opinion portion is how the facts apply to the law.  It is not a proven fact trump was involved in insurrection nor is that court able to reach that decision.  So the judges 'Opinion" of trump's guilt is NOT a legal opinion, and NOT part of a normal opinion.

And this is definitely weaponizing the court for political reasons and not legal reasons. Hope the dems and lefties are ok with it when that comes back to bite them if trump wins.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No, that is not accurate. 

It's entirely accurate from the leftist POV.

They really do feel like judges should rule in whichever they feel is right. The constitution, statutes, laws are all just a punchline for them. 

When CNN gives those guys their shiny new opinion, they want it to be law now. No legislative process necessary. 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's entirely accurate from the leftist POV.

They really do feel like judges should rule in whichever they feel is right. The constitution, statutes, laws are all just a punchline for them. 

When CNN gives those guys their shiny new opinion, they want it to be law now. No legislative process necessary. 

That does seem to be the case.  Which explains their hatred of Kavanaugh when he got elected - they assumed he was a strictly political appointment because they expect all of theirs to be.

 

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, suds said:

Some have posted that Trump has never been convicted of insurrection. If true, I find it fascinating that the Colorado Supreme Court can take away Trump's right to run for office based solely on what? Opinion? Or the fact that all 7 Colorado S.C. Justices were appointed by a democrat governor (3 of which voted against the decision). You might as well kiss rule of law goodbye if judgements are being made based on political affiliation.

It is because the U.S. Constitution requires it. 
The U.S. Constitution is not an option. We cannot ban all guns just because we want to, because the Constitution says we cannot. A 30 year-old or foreign born Presidential candidate will be disqualified from running, no matter how popular, because the Constitution requires it.  
 

Barack Obama is disqualified from running for President again, because the Constitution requires it.  
 

In 2016, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 2.6 million votes, but did not become President because the U.S. Constitution required it.  The Constitution says the President is selected by a majority of electoral college votes, not the greatest number of votes cast. Even though American voters overall preferred Clinton to Trump, we did what the Constitution requires. And today, the Constitution requires that Trump is disqualified.  

Edited December 24, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

It is because the U.S. Constitution requires it. 
 

It does not empower a person at that level to decide what is and is not insurrection.  Sorry.

This will get overturned and you will be shown to have been entirely wrong (which will affect your credibility for any other legal statements you make).

And - they know it will. They're doing this strictly to cost time and money for trump and to play political games.  And when the time comes for reprisal, and it will eventually,  - better not hear you whining.

THis kind of nonsense drives voters right into trump's arms.  And if he wins i doubt he'll do much of anything short of working on his revenge plans and encouraging every republican supporter in a position of power to do whatever they can to get in the way of the democrat candidates, and investigate the hell out of them.

This was the most stupid thing dem supporters could possibly have done. They've completely undermined the justice system and the political system and after all this the gloves will be off and nothing will be taboo any more.  And there's no coming back from that - the republicans will do it then the dems will do it more and the republicans more and down it goes till the country is a complete joke and a rotted husk of it's former self.

All because orange man bad.  Well done.

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, suds said:

Yeah I get it. But is 'opinion' enough to prevent a former president from running for office again? Or should there at least be a proper trial, with jury, lawyers, witnesses, testimony, cross examination, etc., with a conviction? This sets a terrible precedent for any court or Justice to remove any political opposition they don't agree with. This sounds a lot like judicial overreach.

Not sure what you mean. It's a civil case and had a standard civil trial. There were lawyers for both sides and evidence presented for both sides. There were witnesses and testimony for both sides. The lower court in Colorado found that Trump participated in an insurrection, and on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed. And both courts provided well and extensively reasoned justifications for that finding. 

And, realistically, no matter what kind of trial was held, the ultimate decision was going to end up in front of the same 7 justices to render an opinion.

The events of that day have already been legally established as an insurrection. There's no question that Trump was the cause and prompter of that sentiment, right up to the last moment. He even chose not to call them off--just watched it all unfold, probably with that stupid smirk on his face.

 

But here's the full text of the clause:

 “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Even if one can twist themselves into a pretzel to argue that Trump didn't really participate in the insurrection, it's entirely indisputable that he has offered aid and comfort to the perpetrators, right?

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, Deluge said:

Jesus agrees; you're the biggest liar on this forum. You should be ashamed of yourself - I know I'm ashamed of you. 

^DELUGINAL with ZERO evidence.

[reason10]

On 12/21/2023 at 11:53 AM, robosmith said:

Let's see: Kat Cammack is:

 

And Michael Luttig is a lawyer and former Federal Judge:

That means Cammack's "legal argument":

is BULLSHIT.

Thanks again, DELUGINAL, for posting another easily rebutted argument and continuing to demonstrate just how weak your posts are.

 

Right now ALL your posts are about as strong as THE VIEW. You can't rebut the argument because you Nazis wipe your asses on the Constitution. The Colorado Supremes engaged in judicial misconduct. They should ALL be impeached and removed.

 

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

True, and I think that the Dems were relying on the GOP just letting it slide for that reason, establishing a precedent for other states in the future. 

It will be a complete subversion of democracy if a few SCJs manage to remove a candidate from a ballot just because the other party accused them of something. 

IMO the judges in Colorado need to face some form of punishment for removing Trump from the ballot just because they assume that Trump was involved in an insurrection despite the fact that he has never been convicted, indicted, or even credibly accused of anything of the sort. 

A HEARING on insurrection was held by the CoSC, and Trump FAILED to refute the EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. AKA, LOST AGAIN.

Where do you get off pretending your amateur "legal opinion" trumps a STATE SUPREME COURT? YOU can't even practice LAW in the US, so your OPINION MEANS NOTHING HERE.

 

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, Deluge said:

Let's talk about that, Whoredad. 

Explain how all of this was "debunked": 

https://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election,_2020

Trump had 60+ chances to prove ^these supposed facts about the election IN COURT and FAILED. That's ALL that matters.

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, suds said:

Some have posted that Trump has never been convicted of insurrection. If true, I find it fascinating that the Colorado Supreme Court can take away Trump's right to run for office based solely on what? Opinion? Or the fact that all 7 Colorado S.C. Justices were appointed by a democrat governor (3 of which voted against the decision). You might as well kiss rule of law goodbye if judgements are being made based on political affiliation.

No one has a "right to run for office" when he FAILS to meet the QUALIFICATIONS. Duh.

A criminal conviction for insurrection is NOT REQUIRED to determine FAILURE TO QUALIFY.

Preponderance of the evidence is all that's required.

[Deluge]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump had 60+ chances to prove ^these supposed facts about the election IN COURT and FAILED. That's ALL that matters.

You mean he had 60+ rejections from a radicalized judicial system. That isn't fair, robocheat, and we both know it. 

Perhaps you can step in for Whoredad - how were the claims "debunked" as he put it? 

 

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, suds said:

Yeah I get it. But is 'opinion' enough to prevent a former president from running for office again? Or should there at least be a proper trial, with jury, lawyers, witnesses, testimony, cross examination, etc., with a conviction? This sets a terrible precedent for any court or Justice to remove any political opposition they don't agree with. This sounds a lot like judicial overreach.

Former Presidents have no more "right" to run for office than anyone else. They ALL have to meet the qualfications specified in the CONSTITUTION.

[Deluge]

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^DELUGINAL with ZERO evidence.

I have logical deduction and the truth - you have manufactured bullshit, and that just won't cut it. 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's entirely accurate from the leftist POV.

They really do feel like judges should rule in whichever they feel is right. The constitution, statutes, laws are all just a punchline for them. 

When CNN gives those guys their shiny new opinion, they want it to be law now. No legislative process necessary. 

Nope. It's the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which states the qualifications that TRUMP FAILS to MEET.

Just now, Deluge said:

I have logical deduction and the truth - you have manufactured bullshit, and that just won't cut it. 

Nope, just ^this ridiculous OPINION. OVER and OVER again.

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You mean he had 60+ rejections from a radicalized judicial system. That isn't fair, robocheat, and we both know it. 

Perhaps you can step in for Whoredad - how were the claims "debunked" as he put it? 

 

You can imagine ^this all you want, but it's ONLY those court decisions which COUNT. LMAO

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I have logical deduction and the truth - you have manufactured bullshit, and that just won't cut it. 

What cuts it, is the courts that were unpersuaded by Trump's lack of EVIDENCE, just like yours. LMAO

[Deluge]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nope, just ^this ridiculous OPINION. OVER and OVER again.

Nope, just the truth, in your face, all day every day.

[Deluge]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You can imagine ^this all you want, but it's ONLY those court decisions which COUNT. LMAO

What cuts it, is the courts that were unpersuaded by Trump's lack of EVIDENCE, just like yours. LMAO

Actually those kangaroo court decisions won't count either after the SC runs them over.

What doesn't cut it is the radicalized court system. Thank God the SCOTUS will be there to put those rabid cultists down. 

Edited December 24, 2023 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Not sure what you mean. It's a civil case and had a standard civil trial. There were lawyers for both sides and evidence presented for both sides. There were witnesses and testimony for both sides. The lower court in Colorado found that Trump participated in an insurrection, and on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed. And both courts provided well and extensively reasoned justifications for that finding. 

 

Again, that's not accurate and pretending it is simply is being dishonest.

"Insurrection" is  not a civil charge. It's a criminal charge. A civil court is not empowered to make decisions about criminal activity.  So there's nothing "Standard" about it.

It would be like having a civil court convict someone of murder. You can't do that. You might be able to decide there's enough evidence that they have a liability but not that they were actually guilty of the crime.  That requires a  criminal trial.

Then there is the question of whether or not jan 6 was an actual insurrection or rebellion and to my knowledge no criminal court has actually ruled that.  In fact - they've charged people with everything but.

"Early on, the majority of charges filed against the rioters were for disorderly conduct and unlawful entry.^[10] Other charges include assault on law enforcement officers;^[11]trespassing; disrupting Congress; theft or other property crimes; weapons offenses; making threats; and conspiracy, including seditious conspiracy.^{[12]"  "}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

1200 people and not a single charge of insurrection or rebellion or treason or the like. Even seditious conspiracy doesn't really get the job done unless they can specifically prove trump directly personally conspired with those specific people and to my knowledge nobody has

 

So - the court in Colorado probably overstepped its' boudndries quite a bit arguing that they had the legal authority to determine if trump was actually guilty of participating in an insurrection.

This is a witch hunt and political case, and it's the worst kind of that sort of thing.