Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 "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.

 

I rather suspect that a rendition such as was attempted by Trump in the past election where he presented false electors and got away with it so far due to his court date stalling, could happen from dissenting states and keep his name off the ballot while preparing Appeals ..each individualized as to that particular States laws of intervention in federal cases affecting State Constitutions, and thereby drag the whole question much further down the road, past the election entirely, which very likely will keep Trump from winning.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caswell Thomas said:

I rather suspect that a rendition such as was attempted by Trump in the past election where he presented false electors and got away with it so far due to his court date stalling, could happen from dissenting states and keep his name off the ballot while preparing Appeals ..each individualized as to that particular States laws of intervention in federal cases affecting State Constitutions, and thereby drag the whole question much further down the road, past the election entirely, which very likely will keep Trump from winning.  

Dude - he has never ever been charged with insurrection. or aiding in one. In fact - nobody has.

Nor would presenting false electors likely be considered 'insurrection'.

Trump's name will be on the ballot, and as things stand there's a good chance he'll win. And these unconstitutional attacks on democracy are only going to make him look better to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

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. 

The woketards can't wait anymore. They want Trump's head on a platter and communism for everyone.

Yes, they're still gaslighting people, but it's not working like it used to, and they get bolder with each passing day.

Pretty soon we'll have no choice but to put the 2nd Amendment into action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours 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. 

The density, robowrong, comes from your Hitler/Trump comparison. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude - he has never ever been charged with insurrection. or aiding in one. In fact - nobody has.

Nor would presenting false electors likely be considered 'insurrection'.

Trump's name will be on the ballot, and as things stand there's a good chance he'll win. And these unconstitutional attacks on democracy are only going to make him look better to people.

Actually they have. In fact the term appears in every hearing that put these Capitol attackers in prison or under other punishment interdiction.  Fyi..over 300 have so far, gone down that path, had their lives and family lives and futures damaged in such a way that they will be tarnished throughout their existence and their descendants will not thank them.  

There are easier, safer ways to get yourself in the history of our country publications. Going that route as a convict, tarred with the brush of stupidity and being conned by a criminal to do his dirty work and get stuck with the responsibility...while he went off to watch tv and have a burger and fries while his faithful wore handcuffs and got food that was barely edible, and scarred the family name and reputation for life as well?  No, there's nothing good here.  Trump USED them....and has he said or written anything to any thanking them ....No.. 

So you can quibble all you want in the name " insurrectionist". versus convict, or felon, or arrested and convicted for ATTACKING not just the Capitol buildings but also the process of what was occurring there that day....they attacked people WE ELECTED to be there and to the job we sent them to do! And that was Count the Electoral College ballots and Certify our Election.  Joe Biden ...won it. 

Every one of those who attacked the people defending the Capitol and WHAT IT STANDS FOR is an Innsurrectionist...no matter what term you prefer to call them. They did the crime, now they're voting or have done by now the first part of the punishment for their crime(s),  the second part is the worst...no one will ever trust them again in this country.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Actually they have

nope - not once
 

Quote

. In fact the term appears in every hearing that put these Capitol attackers in prison or under other punishment interdiction.

A hearing is not a criminal charge.  Am i going to have to spend another 4 pages explaining basic law to you?

Neither trump NOR the protesters have been charged with insurrection. Ever at all.

Why do you guys on the left feel the need to lie so much? Is there not enough wrong with trump that's the truth for you? You have to make things up?

Trump was never charged with insurrection at all.

However the supreme court DID rule unanimously that the actions of the colorado court (and indirectly the maine court et al) IS IN FACT a threat to democracy ,

So there you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

nope - not once
 

A hearing is not a criminal charge.  Am i going to have to spend another 4 pages explaining basic law to you?

Neither trump NOR the protesters have been charged with insurrection. Ever at all.

Why do you guys on the left feel the need to lie so much? Is there not enough wrong with trump that's the truth for you? You have to make things up?

Trump was never charged with insurrection at all.

However the supreme court DID rule unanimously that the actions of the colorado court (and indirectly the maine court et al) IS IN FACT a threat to democracy ,

So there you go.

I can see that you refuse to accept reality. Coloring it differently doesn't change it. The felons ARE serving their sentences. Trump has not interceded for any, did not post even one bail bind for any of them to get their affairs in their personal lives and families taken care of before being taken to prisons and jails throughout the country,  in fact when directly asked if he felt any responsibility for any of them and their imprisonment for their attack on the Capitol and interference in the Electoral College proceedings he said "No.".   As to Trump not being charged with Insurrection. Its in the Court docket waiting its trial date. If it happens before or after Joe Biden being re-elected President, well that's immaterial. Trump cannot become President or hold any public service office if he has been convicted of a felony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

I can see that you refuse to accept reality.

Ok - so show me where he was charged with insurrection.  Go on - show me the charge.  I said he hadn't been charged with insurrection you say he has - what court is that in?

Unless you're just a useless liar of course.  But naaah that couldn't' be it.  Go on - it's a federal criminal charge so show me where he's been criminally charged with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

I can see that you refuse to accept reality. Coloring it differently doesn't change it. The felons ARE serving their sentences. Trump has not interceded for any, did not post even one bail bind for any of them to get their affairs in their personal lives and families taken care of before being taken to prisons and jails throughout the country,  in fact when directly asked if he felt any responsibility for any of them and their imprisonment for their attack on the Capitol and interference in the Electoral College proceedings he said "No.".   As to Trump not being charged with Insurrection. Its in the Court docket waiting its trial date. If it happens before or after Joe Biden being re-elected President, well that's immaterial. Trump cannot become President or hold any public service office if he has been convicted of a felony. 

Your interpretation of reality is written in foot high letters on the back of a dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“And in the course of unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case, the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause — as the concurrence of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson witheringly explain.” — Judge Michael Luttig (R). 

1-5%20copy.jpg

Edited by robosmith
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
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

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