Today: SCOTUS hearing Arguments to Disqualify Trump

[Yakuda]

2 hours 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.

Someone is butt hurt 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

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

That would be your MAGA CULT leader who "engaged in insurrection."

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

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

There was a trial in CO and "engaged in insurrection" was confirmed BY EVIDENCE.

Charging is NOT required to make a finding of FACT.

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

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

She is retired, DELUGINAL.

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

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.

No finding from the SCOTUS yet. In reality, it is the responsibility of every state to determine who is qualified for THEIR ballot.

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

Someone is butt hurt 

Not at all. I expect the SCOTUS to ignore the Constitution, cause they are that corrupt.

[Yakuda]

38 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That would be your MAGA CULT leader who "engaged in insurrection."

There was a trial in CO and "engaged in insurrection" was confirmed BY EVIDENCE.

Charging is NOT required to make a finding of FACT.

She is retired, DELUGINAL.

No finding from the SCOTUS yet. In reality, it is the responsibility of every state to determine who is qualified for THEIR ballot.

Not at all. I expect the SCOTUS to ignore the Constitution, cause they are that corrupt.

You're whining because you didn't get what you want. Waaaaaa

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You're whining because you didn't get what you want. Waaaaaa

I'm pointing out FACTS. While you pretend a decision was rendered.

Premature e-speculation on your part. LMAO

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

I'm pointing out FACTS. While you pretend a decision was rendered.

Premature e-speculation on your part. LMAO

You won't get what you want, you know it and you're whining that the SCOTUS ignores the constitution because they are "corrupt". Waaaaaaaa

[Deluge]

46 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. That would be your MAGA CULT leader who "engaged in insurrection."

2. There was a trial in CO and "engaged in insurrection" was confirmed BY EVIDENCE.

3. Charging is NOT required to make a finding of FACT.

4. She is retired, DELUGINAL.

5. No finding from the SCOTUS yet. 

6. Not at all. I expect the SCOTUS to ignore the Constitution, cause they are that corrupt.

1. Actually it's you bed wetters that think that, normal Americans know better. 

2. Wrong. There's a political witch hunt in this country and Donald Trump is the target. 

3. Facts are opinions until they are proven. You f*ckers have no FACTS, just opinions. 

4. Thanks for keeping me posted, b*tch. 

5. And it doesn't look good, so it's best to just stfu. 

6. No, you are p*ssed off that the SCOTUS isn't ALSO corrupt. 

What other bullshit would you like to lay at my feet? 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

1. Actually it's you bed wetters that think that, normal Americans know better. 

2. Wrong. There's a political witch hunt in this country and Donald Trump is the target. 

3. Facts are opinions until they are proven. You f*ckers have no FACTS, just opinions. 

4. Thanks for keeping me posted, b*tch. 

5. And it doesn't look good, so it's best to just stfu. 

6. No, you are p*ssed off that the SCOTUS isn't ALSO corrupt. 

What other bullshit would you like to lay at my feet? 

^This is the BULLSHIT. Except you should take your advice on 5.

Esp #3 which is thoroughly backed by SWORN TESTIMONY from Trump's WH insiders.

We can tell you're a COWARD cause you refuse to examine that EVIDENCE.

1 hour ago, Yakuda said:

You won't get what you want, you know it and you're whining that the SCOTUS ignores the constitution because they are "corrupt". Waaaaaaaa

You're right. It is very sad that the Constitution is being TRAMPLED by this corrupt SCOTUS which desperately searching for a way to sell their crap to the American people.

[Yakuda]

On 2/9/2024 at 5:35 PM, robosmith said:

^This is the BULLSHIT. Except you should take your advice on 5.

Esp #3 which is thoroughly backed by SWORN TESTIMONY from Trump's WH insiders.

We can tell you're a COWARD cause you refuse to examine that EVIDENCE.

You're right. It is very sad that the Constitution is being TRAMPLED by this corrupt SCOTUS which desperately searching for a way to sell their crap to the American people.

You're a very angry person. You should talk to someone about that 

[Deluge]

On 2/9/2024 at 3:35 PM, robosmith said:

^This is the BULLSHIT. Except you should take your advice on 5.

Esp #3 which is thoroughly backed by SWORN TESTIMONY from Trump's WH insiders.

We can tell you're a COWARD cause you refuse to examine that EVIDENCE.

Sorry, sworn testimony of lying a$$holes is still opinion. You're short on fact and loooooong on opinion.  

[WestCanMan]

On 2/8/2024 at 8:29 PM, Deluge said:

Huge win for America - well done, SC. 

I didn't see the result online, and on Google I just get 4-day old commentary...

Was it unanimous?  

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I didn't see the result online, and on Google I just get 4-day old commentary...

Was it unanimous?  

From what I've read and heard, all 9 of them are pretty much saying that Colorado doesn't get to decide who runs for President. 

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

From what I've read and heard, all 9 of them are pretty much saying that Colorado doesn't get to decide who runs for President. 

So no vote yet, they're just opining right now?

[Deluge]

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So no vote yet, they're just opining right now?

Yes. I initially was under the impression that they already made their decision, but I'm not sweating it. 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Yes. I initially was under the impression that they already made their decision, but I'm not sweating it. 

When the Senate here was busy excoriating Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act he yanked it prior to the vote in order to avoid the embarrassment of their verdict. 

I dunno of the Col SPUDUS have that option. 

[Deluge]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

When the Senate here was busy excoriating Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act he yanked it prior to the vote in order to avoid the embarrassment of their verdict. 

I dunno of the Col SPUDUS have that option. 

I think they tried to walk all that shit back a little, but they won't withdraw until the SC makes their decision; we're dealing with Marxist psychopaths after all. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Sorry, sworn testimony of lying a$$holes is still opinion. You're short on fact and loooooong on opinion.  

Nope. SWORN TESTIMONY is completely valid EVIDENCE unless the defense manages to poke substantial holes in it.

And that's almost impossible when it's CORROBORATED as much of it is.

Now I'm just going to "CALMY" take a nap as soon as I finish LMAO

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nope. SWORN TESTIMONY is completely valid EVIDENCE unless the defense manages to poke substantial holes in it.

Are you admitting that no one knows if the DNC server was even hacked, based on the testimony of the CEO of Crowdstrike? 

Good job on telling the truth for once, this is a big day for you. 

Don't make it a habit though, you'll get kicked out of the leftard lounge if it becomes habit. 

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Nope. SWORN TESTIMONY is completely valid EVIDENCE unless the defense manages to poke substantial holes in it.

And that's almost impossible when it's CORROBORATED as much of it is.

Now I'm just going to "CALMY" take a nap as soon as I finish LMAO

Nope. Your idea of EVIDENCE is anything a leftoid BELIEVES. You're the biggest liars on the planet. 

[Fluffypants]

I have that the liberals can't see the big picture, they do things out of the norm and if they get away with it they think "yay we won" not "oh the other side can use this against us".

We have seen this time and time again and watch as it bites them in booty and they want to cry and be like "but its different".

Harry Reid started this when he changed the way judges were voted on. Well look at what happened to the Supreme Court.

Can't wait to see all the fallout from the, now we can prosecute political opponents mentality the left has.

In the case of Colorado that could lead to states just determining what an insurrection is and say nope on the ballot. Texas can claim that Bidens failure at the border is providing aid and comfort to the enemy and take him off the ballot etc.

I love how Democrats talk about how important democracy is when they have proven time and time again they only care about it when they win. When they are in the middle of an election they will lie, cheat and steal to win and if they lose they will riot and deny they lost.

Edited February 13, 2024 by Fluffypants

[CdnFox]

On 2/9/2024 at 9:46 AM, robosmith said:

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

 

You yourself said it. You said they do have the power to deny people without having any express jurisdiction to do so.

But i agree that anyone listening to you is an 1diot

On 2/9/2024 at 12:05 PM, robosmith said:

That would be your MAGA CULT leader who "engaged in insurrection."

 

Says who.  You ? Where does the constituton say you have the power to decide that?

Oh that's right - no where. And where does it say colorado has the power? Same place.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, Yakuda said:

You're a very angry person. You should talk to someone about that 

He is.  Us.  Lucky lucky us.

[godzilla]

its a pretty tough sell for SCOTUS to claim that they "originalists", have already enshrined states with more powers than ever (Roe vs Wade) and then obliterate a very clear piece of the constitution.

but they will... but they'll fail Trump on his immunity case and call it even.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

its a pretty tough sell for SCOTUS to claim that they "originalists", have already enshrined states with more powers than ever (Roe vs Wade) and then obliterate a very clear piece of the constitution.

but they will... but they'll fail Trump on his immunity case and call it even.

You misunderstand. The court did not 'enshrine' anything as far as abortion for example. They simply said the constitution didn't apply to abortion. They did not make any ruling about who had power over it or anything.

once the constitution did not address it then by default it reverts to the states as a medical issue. That was 'pre enshrined' if you will 

 And this will not be "obliterating" anything. This is most likely going to come down to a few points,and will basically point out a state actor is not empowered to pass judgment on whether a federal law has been breeched.  That requires a federal judge. And trump hasn't even been charged with it federally.

Honestly anyone with half a brain knew that this was not a legal move - it was a political move and they should never have done it and they were playing games with democracy.

[Yakuda]

8 hours ago, godzilla said:

its a pretty tough sell for SCOTUS to claim that they "originalists", have already enshrined states with more powers than ever (Roe vs Wade) and then obliterate a very clear piece of the constitution.

but they will... but they'll fail Trump on his immunity case and call it even.

The roe decision was garbage. There is no right to kill babies in the Constitution. 

[Deluge]

9 hours ago, godzilla said:

its a pretty tough sell for SCOTUS to claim that they "originalists", have already enshrined states with more powers than ever (Roe vs Wade) and then obliterate a very clear piece of the constitution.

but they will... but they'll fail Trump on his immunity case and call it even.

What "very clear piece of the constitution"? You cultists are either fighting the constitution or you're trying to reimagine it.