Scarlet Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Correct me if I'm wrong here but the real issue is that they ruled only Congress can bar an insurrectionist from holding office. An insurrectionist running for president is not barred from running for president as long as his insurrectionist party holds Congress. So much for those guardrails we've been told about. Any healthy democracy would bar someone who tried to overthrow an election from running for the highest office in the land. 2 2 Link to comment
ZRod Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Scarlet said: Correct me if I'm wrong here but the real issue is that they ruled only Congress can bar an insurrectionist from holding office. An insurrectionist running for president is not barred from running for president as long as his insurrectionist party holds Congress. So much for those guardrails we've been told about. Any healthy democracy would bar someone who tried to overthrow an election from running for the highest office in the land. Well, he hasn't been convicted of anything related to January 6th yet. So there's that... 1 2 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 21 minutes ago, ZRod said: Well, he hasn't been convicted of anything related to January 6th yet. Do there's that... God willing, if our legal system does it’s thing, he never will… That’s the plan I think. In the long run, the ruling is definitely good. Ruling the other way would’ve just been weaponized where both parties would’ve called anything they want an insurrection and used it to kick opponents they don’t like off ballots. As obviously guilty re: Jan 6th as this particular douche is. Sill sad to see how willing SCOTUS and the broader legal system is to enable his shenanigans. It’s a case study is how a person who has committed multitudes of extremely obvious crimes but has sufficient money behind them and/or friendly judges can just get off scot free. This is the two-tiered legal system cons b!^@h about. It just doesn’t cut the way the claim it does. Link to comment
teachercd Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 42 minutes ago, ZRod said: Well, he hasn't been convicted of anything related to January 6th yet. Do there's that... There is the issue, I am all for not having him on the ballot but I also like the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 The ruling basically says while states can ban candidates from holding offices within their particular state based on the 14th Amendment, they can't ban federal office candidates. Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Born N Bled Red said: This only further proves that the right is willing to do or say anything to remain in power. Any other issue, the conservatives scream "States Rights!!! States should decide!!!" Even on something so federal as to the BORDER of the United States and how it is policed. Yet, when it comes to TRUMP, suddenly the states have NO power. Cohesiveness of thought, fairness in decision making, and consistency are all lacking so called justices, who will do anything to placate Trump and the right.... And Archy, before you come back with the derp "left wing justices ruled this way too." They rule that way on every federal/state matter, and argue that the states do not have the right to supersede federal law. They are at least consistent in their reasoning. Honestly, Liberal States were ridiculously stupid to attempt to kick him off the ballot. Democrats need a national strategy to counter the Trump horde. Doing dumb things like this only helps Trump. Now he can claim he's exonerated and the moronic voters that make up the American electorate will believe him. It had a 0% chance of success and was not legal from the start. 2 Link to comment
teachercd Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 10 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said: Honestly, Liberal States were ridiculously stupid to attempt to kick him off the ballot. Democrats need a national strategy to counter the Trump horde. Doing dumb things like this only helps Trump. Now he can claim he's exonerated and the moronic voters that make up the American electorate will believe him. It had a 0% chance of success and was not legal from the start. This takes an interesting approach, almost a parent vs tantrum approach. Ignoring "it", in this case the "it" being trump, and hope it sort of stops. It actually is a very effective method and I think what you posted is probably true. 2 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: Who could have seen this coming. This was a no brained ruling. Many non-partisan legal scholars saw this coming awhile ago. 1 1 1 Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 I don’t think Colorado thought they would be successful in keeping Trump off the ballot. Maybe…maybe with a different SCOTUS but definitely not with this one. As for if it was stupid, only time will tell. Trump supporters have a history of taking anything just exactly how they want to. I’m not sure giving them this ruling helps them in anyway. If they had lost, they would’ve just pivoted to more witchhunt and Dem controlled system persecuting dear leader. There’s really no winning when a group has their head that far up their collective arse. 1 Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 12 minutes ago, teachercd said: This takes an interesting approach, almost a parent vs tantrum approach. Ignoring "it", in this case the "it" being trump, and hope it sort of stops. It actually is a very effective method and I think what you posted is probably true. Democrats need to stop playing nice. Instead of referring to Trump by his name, refer to him by what he is, The Rapist. If calling a Presidential candidate who was deemed legally liable for sexual assault (and later defamed his victim) The Rapist is to harmful for their prospects in rural America, start questioning why those voters support The Rapist in the first place. These voters deserve mocking and derision, not treated as though their political opinions have merit. And, for the love of God, Democrats need to stop throwing things into the court system with the misguided thought that they will issue rulings that favor them OR that the rulings will galvanize the electorate because of brazen corruption or obviously inconsistent interpretations of the law. The average voter doesn't know what the Supreme Court is. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 If that's their decision fine. But, the constitution didn't say the person needs to be found guilty of it and by a specific court or body of government. So, the SC read something into it that wasn't there. Sure...maybe it needed clarified and the SC now has done that. It doesn't exonerate him from what he did. I still don't see good things coming from this. Let's say he wins the general election and the Dems take control of the house and Senate. So, they then can decide he can't take office? Yeah...that's going to go over well. Fact is, Republican voters are putting the US in this situation and it's not good. The best case scenario is Nikki all of a sudden catches some energy and wins the nomination. 1 2 Link to comment
teachercd Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 8 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said: Democrats need to stop playing nice. Instead of referring to Trump by his name, refer to him by what he is, The Rapist. If calling a Presidential candidate who was deemed legally liable for sexual assault (and later defamed his victim) The Rapist is to harmful for their prospects in rural America, start questioning why those voters support The Rapist in the first place. These voters deserve mocking and derision, not treated as though their political opinions have merit. And, for the love of God, Democrats need to stop throwing things into the court system with the misguided thought that they will issue rulings that favor them OR that the rulings will galvanize the electorate because of brazen corruption or obviously inconsistent interpretations of the law. The average voter doesn't know what the Supreme Court is. I do believe this would have a big impact. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said: And Archy, before you come back with the derp "left wing justices ruled this way too." They rule that way on every federal/state matter, and argue that the states do not have the right to supersede federal law. They are at least consistent in their reasoning. It was a unanimous ruling It wasn’t a States Rights issue https://www.mediaite.com/trump/breaking-supreme-court-unanimously-overturns-colorado-ruling-throwing-trump-off-ballot/ “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the opinion read. 1 2 1 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, ZRod said: Well, he hasn't been convicted of anything related to January 6th yet. So there's that... I guess but the Constitution never required conviction. 1 Link to comment
Gage County Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 14th Amendment Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Jurisdiction was given to the US Congress, not the Colorado Supreme Court. 1 1 1 Link to comment
.thumb.jpg.c05ebdd666d00f48cef33a218d519151.jpg)
Recommended Posts