Today: SCOTUS hearing Arguments to Disqualify Trump

[Rebound]

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today, February 8, 2024, to establish whether Trump is eligible to be on the ballot in Colorado and, presumably, in the other 49 states. 
 

Trump’s primary written arguments are:

1) The President is not an “officer” of the United States and 

2) The Presidential oath of office Trump took does not include the word “support” the Constitution, it is to “preserve, protect, and defend” it. 

Trump’s argument does not deny that he participated or supported an insurrection. 

The U.S. Constitution states:

“No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, 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.” It adds, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

[Deluge]

Please, Satan, take our political enemy down. We've worked so hard and we've manufactured so much! How far do we have to go???

-- The Left

[Rebound]

33 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Please, Satan, take our political enemy down. We've worked so hard and we've manufactured so much! How far do we have to go???

-- The Left

Please, Supreme Court, uphold, defend and support the U.S. Constitution.  

Edited February 8 by Rebound

[Deluge]

Just now, Rebound said:

Right. Cause Jesus decided to make Trump a billionaire, and then rewarded him for his extraordinarily ethical, moral behavior.  

Satan, how can we make everyone else equally poor?

-- The Left

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today, February 8, 2024, to establish whether Trump is eligible to be on the ballot in Colorado and, presumably, in the other 49 states. 
 

Trump’s primary written arguments are:

1) The President is not an “officer” of the United States and 

2) The Presidential oath of office Trump took does not include the word “support” the Constitution, it is to “preserve, protect, and defend” it. 

Trump’s argument does not deny that he participated or supported an insurrection. 

The U.S. Constitution states:

“No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, 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.” It adds, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

He says as spittle runs down his chinny chin chin...

[Deluge]

53 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Please, Supreme Court, uphold, defend and support the U.S. Constitution.  

Yes, Supreme Court, p*ss the democrats off: uphold, defend and support the US Constitution. 

[Hodad]

58 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Please, Supreme Court, uphold, defend and support the U.S. Constitution.  

I listened to the opening arguments live, and they are night and day different in terms of clarity and efficacy, but I am deeply skeptical that this court is going make the plain judgment. They will 100% weasel out of it because it's a political hot potato and it's a highly political court.

[Rebound]

45 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I listened to the opening arguments live, and they are night and day different in terms of clarity and efficacy, but I am deeply skeptical that this court is going make the plain judgment. They will 100% weasel out of it because it's a political hot potato and it's a highly political court.

Pathetic, sad, but true. 
It appears that none of the Justices will bar him. Guess we don’t really need a Constitution, we just have these nine old people who do whatever the fck they want.
 

I guess this will kick it back to Jack Smith to amend his DC indictment to include the charge of engaging in insurrection, according to Kavanaugh, at least.   

Edited February 8 by Rebound

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

He says as spittle runs down his chinny chin chin...

^Bankruptcy, AGAIN.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Pathetic, sad, but true. 
It appears that none of the Justices will bar him. Guess we don’t really need a Constitution, we just have these nine old people who do whatever the fck they want.
 

I guess this will kick it back to Jack Smith to amend his DC indictment to include the charge of engaging in insurrection, according to Kavanaugh, at least.   

I doubt Smith will do that. He didn't do it the first time in the interests of a speedy trial and time is even shorter now.

[Nationalist]

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^Bankruptcy, AGAIN.

Awww...come on. That was funny.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Awww...come on. That was funny.

Very childish. Maybe the MAGA CULT was your target audience.

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Very childish. Maybe the MAGA CULT was your target audience.

 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

I doubt Smith will do that. He didn't do it the first time in the interests of a speedy trial and time is even shorter now.

Also, the sentence for insurrection is, IIRC, only 10 years. The obstruction charges come with 20 years and are easier to prove. 

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Also, the sentence for insurrection is, IIRC, only 10 years. The obstruction charges come with 20 years and are easier to prove. 

Exactly. Proving insurrection is a minefield in comparison.

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, Rebound said:

Trump’s argument does not deny that he participated or supported an insurrection. 

Why would he even address that? It's just a Dem narrative. 

Were you hoping that he'd tell us whether or not Santa exists at the same time? 

(Should I burst poor little Rebound's bubble?)

[Fluffypants]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

Pathetic, sad, but true. 
It appears that none of the Justices will bar him. Guess we don’t really need a Constitution, we just have these nine old people who do whatever the fck they want.
 

I guess this will kick it back to Jack Smith to amend his DC indictment to include the charge of engaging in insurrection, according to Kavanaugh, at least.   

If all 9 judges decide the same it should tell you that the Constitution is alive and well and bias had no basis in their decision. That and the fact that Colorado was the only state to adjudicate this and actually barred him while the others all said no.

Edited February 9 by Fluffypants

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Rebound said:

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today, February 8, 2024, to establish whether Trump is eligible to be on the ballot in Colorado and, presumably, in the other 49 states. 
 

Trump’s primary written arguments are:

1) The President is not an “officer” of the United States and 

2) The Presidential oath of office Trump took does not include the word “support” the Constitution, it is to “preserve, protect, and defend” it. 

Trump’s argument does not deny that he participated or supported an insurrection. 

The U.S. Constitution states:

“No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, 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.” It adds, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

I woudln't imagine that it would say anything about the insurrection - that will be the burden of proof of the accusors.  they'll have to deal with that and if they fail to prove it then it's an auto fail.

The second one is interesting.

I'm curious where he'll go with that.  Will he claim that if he or others genuinely believed that biden was unlawfully taking power that his actions were in defense of the constitutoin and not opposed to it? That would be a very possible and interesting argument to make.

[Caswell Thomas]

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

Pathetic, sad, but true. 
It appears that none of the Justices will bar him. Guess we don’t really need a Constitution, we just have these nine old people who do whatever the fck they want.
 

I guess this will kick it back to Jack Smith to amend his DC indictment to include the charge of engaging in insurrection, according to Kavanaugh, at least.   

Not quite. I listened very closely to what the Justices said when they questioned Mr. Trump's attorney on whether or not the attorney agreed that the rioters - as the attorney referred to the Insurrectionists as -were guilty of the crime of Insurrectionist in that they broke into the Capitol but not necessarily Mr. . Trump because in his Presidential.official last moments in Office he claimed he was immune.  The Justices notably did not say President Trump was immune, the only asked if anyone was found to have participated in that event, did Mr. Trumps attorney on behalf if Mr/Past President Trump agree those rioters were acting in violation of the law of that location and event and he said Yes.   

So...the question those rioters/Insurrectionists will now be asking their friends, families, attorneys will be is Did President Trump KNOW that even if HE personally was physically at the riot/insurrection, DID he think he would still have total immunity as he claims and therefore was running no personal risk to HIS freedom, HIS going to prison, but didn't care that those with him COULD? This then argues that he does not care about his followers, he just wanted rioters to break into the Capitol to stop the Electoral College from confirming Joseph Biden as President and knew that those same rioters would very possibly be all arrested and didn't care, or possibly be seriously hurt or killed in the commission of that and those acts. 

Its important then that Mr./President Trump's attorney, by the SCOTUS , was asked specifically this very question and answered YES.    So all those who went to prison, don't look to be getting out, Mr. Trump may beat HIS rap.on a technicality, and  MAY is the word here, but you won't . And the SCOTUS is not going to let anyone who it can be proved was there and participated in the Riot/Insurrection be given any leeway now, you participated , no matter Who it was at the direction of , or incitement to act in that way, YOU are GUILTY as charged. Your Life is ruined,  Mr. Trumps attorney today agreed so. 

[Deluge]

Huge win for America - well done, SC. 

[robosmith]

SCOTUS hasn't told anyone anything yet.

When they do, they will likely have made up reasons to say "the Constitution doesn't matter," AGAIN.

Cause they know punishing the INCITER in CHIEF will put their lives in danger, due to the unhinged violent MAGA CULT.

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

SCOTUS hasn't told anyone anything yet.

When they do, they will likely have made up reasons to say "the Constitution doesn't matter," AGAIN.

Cause they know punishing the INCITER in CHIEF will put their lives in danger, due to the unhinged violent MAGA CULT.

ROFLMAO!!!

Chalk up yet another loss for the Tweenkies.

[Deluge]

33 minutes ago, robosmith said:

SCOTUS hasn't told anyone anything yet.

When they do, they will likely have made up reasons to say "the Constitution doesn't matter," AGAIN.

Cause they know punishing the INCITER in CHIEF will put their lives in danger, due to the unhinged violent MAGA CULT.

Now, now, don't be a little crybaby b*tch. 

It's the libbies on that court that are leading the charge. Despite what you messy diapers think, Colorado doesn't get to decide who can be President. 

[robosmith]

57 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Now, now, don't be a little crybaby b*tch. 

It's the libbies on that court that are leading the charge. Despite what you messy diapers think, Colorado doesn't get to decide who can be President. 

You're an lDIOT if you believe ANYONE is claiming Colorado "get to decide who can be President."

It was Trump who decided to "engage in insurrection," NOT the CoSC.

And Anderson is a REPUBLICAN, who sued to get him OFF the ballot. Duh

In FACT Colorado won't give ANY of the electoral votes to Trump no matter what the SCOTUS says.

[Deluge]

34 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. You're an lDIOT if you believe ANYONE is claiming Colorado "get to decide who can be President."

2. It was Trump who decided to "engage in insurrection," NOT the CoSC.

3. And Anderson is a REPUBLICAN, who sued to get him OFF the ballot. Duh

4. In FACT Colorado won't give ANY of the electoral votes to Trump no matter what the SCOTUS says.

1. I'm not the pervert trying to tell Colorado Republicans and Trump supporters that they don't get to vote for him. lol

2. Trump has never even been charged with an insurrection, yet you and the other woketards in Colorado are trying to remove him from the ballot for insurrection. lol

3. Anderson's a RINO and needs to be removed. He's part of the problem. 

4. And there's no problem with them making it official on election day. The point is, Colorado doesn't get to say who can run for President and who can't.