Jump to content

SCOTUS Rules 9-0 States Can't Kick Trump Off Ballot. That's 9-0.


Recommended Posts

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291

 

"In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices."

 

There is no denying that Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive in various State courts as others besides Colorado also had similar rulings.  They are going to have to go back to the drawing board, obviously.  The recent Illinois ruling comes to mind. 

 

 

Edited by sharkman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sharkman said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291

 

"In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices."

 

There is no denying that Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive in various State courts as others besides Colorado also had similar rulings.  They are going to have to go back to the drawing board, obviously.  The recent Illinois ruling comes to mind. 

 

 

I wonder how many rounds of scotch they all shared before they decided they had "deliberated" long enough on this stupidity? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "BUT IT"S THE LAAAAWWWW!!! THEY HAVE TO EXCLUDE TRUMP!!!!

From the ruling:

“We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency,” the top US court said in an unsigned opinion.

Which is what those of us who actually understand law have been saying all along. And the SC unanimously agrees

Sorry @robosmith and others - turns out  you don't understand law.

 

And this is worth noting from the judgement:

"To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers' vision of "a Federal Government directly responsible to the people," the justices wrote.

In other words - the colorado judge and the others who attmepted this are Anti-democratic.  They are subverting democracy as envisioned by the founders with this crap.

Weaponizing the courts to unlawfully repress democracy.  "democrats" today.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting result that I didn't see predicted.  They shut down Colorado's attempt but left it as states' rights as long as there was a solid process in place.  From what I've read that's the upshot.  Good ruling IMO, and will likely prevent noise in this area in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Interesting result that I didn't see predicted.  They shut down Colorado's attempt but left it as states' rights as long as there was a solid process in place.  From what I've read that's the upshot.  Good ruling IMO, and will likely prevent noise in this area in the future.

Not exactly.  They said that the state has no right to rule on a federal crime. If the feds say it was insurrection as considered by that provision then the state can take the appropriate action but the state cannot reach that conclusion on it's own.

Which is basically what everyone sane here and elsewhere said.  There needs to be a ruling by a competent authority that insurrection took place, you can't just make that up like the state did,

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ironstone said:

The Democrats are still going to do anything they can to keep Trump off the ballot.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/democrats-announce-bill-to-kick-trump-off-the-ballot/ss-BB1jk2Z4#image=2

It doesn't matter to them how obvious it is that this is entirely politically motivated, they'll do it.

America needs to wake up before these communists completely bury the country. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ironstone said:

The Democrats are still going to do anything they can to keep Trump off the ballot.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/democrats-announce-bill-to-kick-trump-off-the-ballot/ss-BB1jk2Z4#image=2

It doesn't matter to them how obvious it is that this is entirely politically motivated, they'll do it.

This is the bottom line. What they did in colorado and maine etc was not lawful, and was as direct attack on democracy  And that was obvious.

Everything else they're doing is geared to the same end. They are very much an anti-democratic party right now 100 percent focused on holding power and trashing their political opponents.

The thing is - do you honestly believe it'll be different with the next candidate after trump is gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ironstone said:

The Democrats are still going to do anything they can to keep Trump off the ballot.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/democrats-announce-bill-to-kick-trump-off-the-ballot/ss-BB1jk2Z4#image=2

It doesn't matter to them how obvious it is that this is entirely politically motivated, they'll do it.

Yes, the POLICY of discouraging, if not preventing, insurrections by denying the possibility of the prior perpetrators ever holding office again makes sense.

And it could have kept Hitler from being re-elected and destroying democracy in Germany, IF the Germans had been smart enough to implement such a law and strong enough to enforce it.

It is beyond me to understand how voters could be dense enough to re-elect a man who has NO RESPECT for election integrity, because they would have to prefer dictatorship to democracy. AKA Party POWER OVER ALL ELSE.

Or stupid enough to believe Trump's blatant self-serving LIES.

I will excuse the Canadians here for their IGNORANCE of US laws which Trump planned to use as a FIG LEAF to overturn the election. Makes it MUCH EASIER for YOU to DENY what was actually ATTEMPTED. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Yes, the POLICY of discouraging, if not preventing, insurrections by denying the possibility of the prior perpetrators ever holding office again makes sense.

And it could have kept Hitler from being re-elected and destroying democracy in Germany, IF the Germans had been smart enough to implement such a law and strong enough to enforce it.

It is beyond me to understand how voters could be dense enough to re-elect a man who has NO RESPECT for election integrity, because they would have to prefer dictatorship to democracy. AKA Party POWER OVER ALL ELSE.

Or stupid enough to believe Trump's blatant self-serving LIES.

I will excuse the Canadians here for their IGNORANCE of US laws which Trump planned to use as a FIG LEAF to overturn the election. Makes it MUCH EASIER for YOU to DENY what was actually ATTEMPTED. 

Well i guess that's one way of saying "i was horribly wrong about trump and colorado and turns out my position was actually anti-democratic bordering on facist"   :)  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Yes, the POLICY of discouraging, if not preventing, insurrections by denying the possibility of the prior perpetrators ever holding office again makes sense.

And it could have kept Hitler from being re-elected and destroying democracy in Germany, IF the Germans had been smart enough to implement such a law and strong enough to enforce it.

It is beyond me to understand how voters could be dense enough to re-elect a man who has NO RESPECT for election integrity, because they would have to prefer dictatorship to democracy. AKA Party POWER OVER ALL ELSE.

Or stupid enough to believe Trump's blatant self-serving LIES.

I will excuse the Canadians here for their IGNORANCE of US laws which Trump planned to use as a FIG LEAF to overturn the election. Makes it MUCH EASIER for YOU to DENY what was actually ATTEMPTED. 

giggle...

'I was WRONG and I'm just B1TCHY as HELL! All you MAGA dogs are FASCISTS! NAZIS! You...you...you BASKET OF DEPLORABLES!'

giggle...

November 5th robo...November 5th.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I woulda loved to have seen the look on Pelosi's face the moment she found out that democracy prevailed.

I woulda laughed and puked at the same time, like when I read a leftard post here. 

I doubt it was a surprise to her.  The dems knew full well this was unconstitutional and anti democratic and they'd fail, the point was to try to intimidate and make it look like supporting trump was a bad idea.

The scum know they're scum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's why they wanted to put 4 more activist (fascist) SCJ's on the bench. 

Of course - the first step to facist control is to sieze the courts ;)

Hillary said she would pick judges that would agree with her agenda. Period and flat out - no bones about it. During a debate on national tv.

It's not like they're subtle :)  Which is why they assume any republican appointed must be horribly bias - there's are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Of course - the first step to facist control is to sieze the courts ;)

Hillary said she would pick judges that would agree with her agenda. Period and flat out - no bones about it. During a debate on national tv.

It's not like they're subtle :)  Which is why they assume any republican appointed must be horribly bias - there's are.

"If we can find a way to add 4 more justices to the supreme thing, we can have the perfect 1-party democracy! 'Murica will never have to worry about fastshizistseses or whatever again. C'mon man!"

Joe22Adolf22Biden.thumb.png.4a9f7b10482858db6beeaf2634f3178b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How mad do you think the left wingers are that it wasn't 6-3. At least if it was 6-3 they can claim that the bias of the Supreme Court was to blame not the stupid way Colorado handled it.

Face it, be glad they stopped you from creating a bigger mess. If they had agreed with Colorado, you would have red states removing Biden from the ballot and every election from here on would go this way.

I hope the same happens with New York Appeals court or you could see New York start looking a lot like Detroit as businesses flee as fast as they can and taking their workers with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is beyond me to understand how voters could be dense enough to re-elect

Do not choke on your porridge, my friend...

You need to welcome him back. Don't forget, he's everyone's president.

Not just the deplorables...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

YeeHaw! Dougie can vote for a demented rapist fraud artist for President.

Blame the Dems for being such a clown car of criminals and evil psychopaths that only a wretched loser could vote for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

America needs to wake up before these communists completely bury the country. 

You'd think that the blatant message of "We need to stack the Supreme Court so that they will rubber stamp anything we want" would have provided that wake-up call, or the fact that the FBI was caught committing crimes with them and they never even blinked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harvard Constitutional Law Prof. Tribe on Trump ballot case: Colorado was doing its job applying the Constitution

For the amateur posters HERE, Prof Tribe tells YOU the LEGAL CASE for the SCOTUS having made the wrong decision.

Now the real test for those amateurs is making a LEGAL counter argument to Tribe's.

Since the SCOTUS has NOT done that, you're going to FAIL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...