Supreme Court hearing on Trump, Colorado

[5-Points 3,397]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Perhaps we should allow them opportunity.....though based on experience I rarely detect self-awareness.....

So far the judges across the board, seem highlight skeptical.  I take heart in that.

Sadly, this failure will not impeded the general effort overall on the part of Democrats to pervert our democracy, and in fact it could make them even more desperate.....their only goal being to grab at power.

Make them shed that sheep disguise. Force them to show themselves for who they are. Make it impossible for those in the middle to keep playing dumb. 

Or continue down this road and end up where we end up. 

[shadrap 223]

40 minutes ago, Fnord said:

A unanimous decision wouldn't be very surprising. I don't think the cases were bullshit, since I believe Trump DID participate in an insurrection. BUT, I'm also not comfortable with the Maine and Colorado rulings, despite my feelings about Trump. 

My point with the post you quoted was that conservatives have always supported states' rights, and if the conservatives on SCOTUS decide that the states don't have the right to make decisions like removing Trump from the ballot, that perhaps the whole argument for states' rights, specifically about abortion, may be tougher to defend. It's an interesting quandary. 

you can't argue he was responsible or created an insurrection to keep him off the ballot when he hasn't been convicted of the same.  

I think it is that simple.

[Fnord 2,052]

48 minutes ago, shadrap said:

you can't argue he was responsible or created an insurrection to keep him off the ballot when he hasn't been convicted of the same.  

I think it is that simple.

Like I said, that's my belief. And what you say here is why I was uncomfortable with the rulings made in ME and CO.

And again, those that made the decisions in those states had the authority to make them, whether we agree or not. Ultimately, it looks as if SCOTUS will rule against the states, which is probably the correct decision. 

[shadrap 223]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Like I said, that's my belief. And what you say here is why I was uncomfortable with the rulings made in ME and CO.

And again, those that made the decisions in those states had the authority to make them, whether we agree or not. Ultimately, it looks as if SCOTUS will rule against the states, which is probably the correct decision. 

probably??  due process if a foundation of our country.  Just because you hate a guy does not mean you can circumvent laws protecting the guy.

your hate for Trump comes up in almost everything you post regardless of the political topic.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

2 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

 

Poor Melania. Don’t you think Trump accuses her of being Nancy Pelosi whenever they get in a tiff?

Nah who are we kidding? She never hangs out with that loser

[Fnord 2,052]

6 minutes ago, shadrap said:

probably??  due process if a foundation of our country.  Just because you hate a guy does not mean you can circumvent laws protecting the guy.

your hate for Trump comes up in almost everything you post regardless of the political topic.

Agree with all of this. Bear in mind I do actually post in non-political threads, and Trump doesn't come up. Since he's literally driving damn near the entire political discussion in the US right now, it doesn't seem abnormal for him to come up in topics related to politics. And I'm obviously not shy in sharing my opinions about him.

[Horseman 2,370]

Colorado’s lawyer got completely destroyed from the parts I heard.  Should be 8-1 if not unanimous    Clown show. Good job Colorado. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

1 hour ago, Horseman said:

Colorado’s lawyer got completely destroyed from the parts I heard.  Should be 8-1 if not unanimous    Clown show. Good job Colorado. 

I hope it is. Otherwise, this is a dangerous move on the S.C.'s part. 

Clownzo should be on the ballot. 

If he had been convicted, that would be another dealio. 

[Voltaire 5,203]

13 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Yeah, I love a good discussion over how the Supreme Court will interpret this in regard to the Constitution. 

I've offered no opinions on this other than leaning that Trump needs to remain on the ballot, because otherwise states might move to pull Biden off ballots using their own Constitution interpretations, such as this immigrant "invasion."

"Insurrection" belongs on quotations marks more than "invasion" does.

They had a protest that got out of hand for a few hours and everybody on the left is horrified and pretends its a big deal, as if they aren't responsible for doing 1000x worse.

[Mike Honcho 5,113]

12 hours ago, Fnord said:

A unanimous decision wouldn't be very surprising. I don't think the cases were bullshit, since I believe Trump DID participate in an insurrection. BUT, I'm also not comfortable with the Maine and Colorado rulings, despite my feelings about Trump. 

My point with the post you quoted was that conservatives have always supported states' rights, and if the conservatives on SCOTUS decide that the states don't have the right to make decisions like removing Trump from the ballot, that perhaps the whole argument for states' rights, specifically about abortion, may be tougher to defend. It's an interesting quandary. 

If you think he participated in an insurrection, why would you be uncomfortable with those rulings.

[BuckSwope 654]

6 hours ago, Voltaire said:

"Insurrection" belongs on quotations marks more than "invasion" does.

They had a protest that got out of hand for a few hours and everybody on the left is horrified and pretends its a big deal, as if they aren't responsible for doing 1000x worse.

And people on the right try so hard to pretend there was 0 going on besides selfies, or the bolded.    As with most things, nobody with their partisan heels dug in can be truthful about much.  This is the state of America - point fingers elsewhere while your "team" does most of the same things.  

Why is it so hard for people to say things like both groups were idiots who were lied to by their partisan media who when given the opportunity, many showed their true colors by devolving into violence and destruction with a healthy dose of anti-police sentiment?    

This is just more of the "they started it first!" b.s. that is so common around here.   Well, the lefties downplayed the riots so I guess the righties will just call 1/6 a selfie tour.  

[RLLD 4,143]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

If you think he participated in an insurrection, why would you be uncomfortable with those rulings.

It was a mostly peaceful event.....sir.....

[Ron_Artest 1,080]

It was an insurrection in that Trump asked his supporters to show up and stop the election certification.  They went into the capitol trying to stop it and subvert democracy.

It also was not an insurrection in that most of the rubes there had no idea what they were doing and they were ill prepared to succeed in an insurrection.

Just because the insurrectionists were clowns with zero plan and chance of success doesn't nullify the intent and failed actions.

[Mike Honcho 5,113]

25 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

It was an insurrection in that Trump asked his supporters to show up and stop the election certification.  They went into the capitol trying to stop it and subvert democracy.

It also was not an insurrection in that most of the rubes there had no idea what they were doing and they were ill prepared to succeed in an insurrection.

Just because the insurrectionists were clowns with zero plan and chance of success doesn't nullify the intent and failed actions.

Agree-nearly 100%

I would some of the investigations have shown that those in charge had a very good inkling about what probably would happen and were counting on it to delay the certification.  

[Fnord 2,052]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

If you think he participated in an insurrection, why would you be uncomfortable with those rulings.

He hasn't been tried or convicted. I still put some level of trust in the justice system, and will be content with the final results.

Unless of course Trump gets elected and pardons himself, which would create some pretty serious destabilizing issues and a constitutional crisis. But hell, Trump makes constitutional crisis for breakfast, takes a few hours of "executive time" then starts his afternoon with treason and fraud. 

[Fnord 2,052]

31 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Agree-nearly 100%

I would some of the investigations have shown that those in charge had a very good inkling about what probably would happen and were counting on it to delay the certification.  

Yeah, this part of the J6 investigation is bullshit. Blame it all on Trump, let's not talk about the Congressional members and Capitol Police that aided and abetted. 

[Mike Honcho 5,113]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

He hasn't been tried or convicted. I still put some level of trust in the justice system, and will be content with the final results.

Unless of course Trump gets elected and pardons himself, which would create some pretty serious destabilizing issues and a constitutional crisis. But hell, Trump makes constitutional crisis for breakfast, takes a few hours of "executive time" then starts his afternoon with treason and fraud. 

He was tried and found guilty. It was another trial he declined to participate.

Quote

 

Colorado insurrection trial.

Over more than 30 hours of evidentiary hearings held beginning Oct. 30, the trial in Denver’s Courtroom 209 at times closely resembled the proceedings of the House of Representatives’ select Jan. 6 committee, complete with dramatic video exhibits of Trump’s election-denying rhetoric and the mob’s Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. Members of Congress and law enforcement officers assigned to protect the Capitol testified in graphic detail about the day’s events.

Trump was represented in the Colorado case by Scott Gessler, a former Colorado secretary of state who had himself endorsed debunked conspiracy theories alleging widespread fraud in the 2020 election, during an unsuccessful bid for Colorado Republican Party chair the following year. Trump’s defense in the case relied extensively on close Trump loyalists and election deniers who had organized or attended pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” events on or prior to Jan. 6, and who used their time on the witness stand to reiterate their beliefs that the election had been stolen or that Antifa had been responsible for the violence on Jan. 6.

 

 

[lod001 1,344]

9-0. Retards in Colorado lose. Another great victory for the best POTUS ever.

[Engorgeous George 2,151]

15 hours ago, RLLD said:

Perhaps we should allow them opportunity.....though based on experience I rarely detect self-awareness.....

So far the judges across the board, seem highlight skeptical.  I take heart in that.

Sadly, this failure will not impeded the general effort overall on the part of Democrats to pervert our democracy, and in fact it could make them even more desperate.....their only goal being to grab at power.

Historically trying to read the tea leaves based on questions during oral argument has been tricky. Justices often ask hard hitting questions sounding skeptical of an argument precisely becasue they are trying to msrshall arguments from Counsel they can use to butress the decision they may be contemplating.  they play the devil's advocate and they do it well.  Recently I have noticed a trend away from the historical trend.  now they seem to relish the spotlight and to be advocating for their final position, but one never really knows.

[jerryskids 6,576]

There is plenty of precedent for the Feds to become involved in state elections; Voting Rights Act for instance.  And since Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, it seems odd to keep him off of the ballot for it.  It seems like some sort of violation of Trump's civil rights or sumthin.   

[TheNewGirl 1,357]

42 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

There is plenty of precedent for the Feds to become involved in state elections; Voting Rights Act for instance.  And since Trump hasn't even been charged with insurrection, it seems odd to keep him off of the ballot for it.  It seems like some sort of violation of Trump's civil rights or sumthin.   

Sumthin like that.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,959]

4 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

And people on the right try so hard to pretend there was 0 going on besides selfies, or the bolded.    As with most things, nobody with their partisan heels dug in can be truthful about much.  This is the state of America - point fingers elsewhere while your "team" does most of the same things.  

Why is it so hard for people to say things like both groups were idiots who were lied to by their partisan media who when given the opportunity, many showed their true colors by devolving into violence and destruction with a healthy dose of anti-police sentiment?    

This is just more of the "they started it first!" b.s. that is so common around here.   Well, the lefties downplayed the riots so I guess the righties will just call 1/6 a selfie tour.  

Plenty of people have said the ones that did violence deserve to be prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to make a point without making things up? 

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

He hasn't been tried or convicted. I still put some level of trust in the justice system, and will be content with the final results.

Unless of course Trump gets elected and pardons himself, which would create some pretty serious destabilizing issues and a constitutional crisis. But hell, Trump makes constitutional crisis for breakfast, takes a few hours of "executive time" then starts his afternoon with treason and fraud. 

Ironic that the party of law and order/personal responsibility has 0 issues getting behind somebody who has 0 concept of either thing.  

[zsasz 362]

17 hours ago, shadrap said:

you can't argue he was responsible or created an insurrection to keep him off the ballot when he hasn't been convicted of the same.  

I think it is that simple.

Disagree with that bolded part.

 

But unless there's some real behind the scenes dialogue between his inner circle and the undesirable scum that broke into the Capitol that day, "We're going to walk down there and I'll be with you” doesn't exactly qualify for insurrection.

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,850]

29 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Ironic that the party of law and order/personal responsibility has 0 issues getting behind somebody who has 0 concept of either thing.  

I didn't vote for Biden.  Did you?  Cause if you did then once again you're in here - like a good leftist - pointing fingers at others for doing the same thing your side is doing. GTFO, hypocrite.

[Fnord 2,052]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

He was tried and found guilty. It was another trial he declined to participate.

 

I prefer verdicts of this heft to be made by a jury. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know law very well, I'm just going with my gut, honestly. 

[Fnord 2,052]

26 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I didn't vote for Biden.  Did you?  Cause if you did then once again you're in here - like a good leftist - pointing fingers at others for doing the same thing your side is doing. GTFO, hypocrite.

We're in here saying Biden should be removed or not run again based on a special counsel report that declined to charge him for anything. Donald's been charged with so many crimes he can't remember or explain them all. But we're the hypocrites? You GTFO, you're obviously a harder partisan than most of us horrible lefties.

[seafoam1 2,804]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I prefer verdicts of this heft to be made by a jury. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know law very well, I'm just going with my gut, honestly. 

I think all the smart normal people knew this long ago about you. We all know you liberals base everthing in life on your feelers. Not on intellect. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,959]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

We're in here saying Biden should be removed or not run again based on a special counsel report that declined to charge him for anything. Donald's been charged with so many crimes he can't remember or explain them all. But we're the hypocrites? You GTFO, you're obviously a harder partisan than most of us horrible lefties.

You’re only saying that because he has a good chance of losing. If he was riding high you would have a different tune. That’s what TDS does. 

[Strike 5,219]

So the lead attorney for CO told the SCOTUS yesterday that a state, based on polling, could choose to remove a candidate from the ballot 3 days before the election:

Quote

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, let me ask you a question about whether the power that you’ve described as plenary really is plenary. Suppose that the outcome of an election for president comes down to the vote of a single state, how the electors of the vote of a single state are going to vote. And suppose that candidate A gets a majority of the votes in that state, but the legislature really doesn’t like candidate A, thinks candidate A is an insurrectionist, so the legislature then passes a law ordering its electors to vote for the other candidate. Do you think the state has that power?

MR. MURRAY: I think there may be principles that come into play in terms of after the people have voted, that Congress — that the state can’t change the rules midstream. I’m not sure because I’m not aware of this Court addressing it. And, certainly, as the —

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, let’s change it so that it’s not after the election; it’s three days before the election based on the fact that the polls in that state look bad. Can they do it?

MR. MURRAY: I think they probably could under this Court’s decision in Chiafalo [v. Washington], where this Court emphasized that, for much of American history, state legislatures picked their — their own electors and assigned their own electors themselves. But, of course, that would be much more extraordinary than what we have here, which is simple application of normal state ballot access principles to say that we’re only going to put on the ballot an individual who is qualified to assume the office.

 

 

But yeah, they have a valid case. 

[TheNewGirl 1,357]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

So the lead attorney for CO told the SCOTUS yesterday that a state, based on polling, could choose to remove a candidate from the ballot 3 days before the election:

 

But yeah, they have a valid case. 

I am trying to figure out how they THINK this is okay. 

Ordering people to vote a certain way based on what someone THINKS just feels so icky. 

 

[Fnord 2,052]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You’re only saying that because he has a good chance of losing. If he was riding high you would have a different tune. That’s what TDS does. 

You know fuk-all about me other than I'm left of you politically and in what passes for your brain, that means you automatically know where I stand on every issue.

You do not.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,959]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

You know fuk-all about me other than I'm left of you politically and in what passes for your brain, that means you automatically know where I stand on every issue.

You do not.

No I don’t. But you have already made the case for your severe TDS, so all you want is the win. You wouldn’t give a rats ass what Biden did or said if it got you that . You’re denying that? 

[Fnord 2,052]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

No I don’t. But you have already made the case for your severe TDS, so all you want is the win. You wouldn’t give a rats ass what Biden did or said if it got you that . You’re denying that? 

I'm telling you the chances of me voting for Biden have fallen significantly in the last two days. Yes, I'd still prefer him to Trump, but that's an awfully low bar. I prefer YOU to Trump.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,959]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I'm telling you the chances of me voting for Biden have fallen significantly in the last two days. Yes, I'd still prefer him to Trump, but that's an awfully low bar. I prefer YOU to Trump.

Ok. I have no reason to not believe you then. Let me ask, is it Trump on policy that bothers you are is it that he disgusts you along with his voters? 

[Fnord 2,052]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ok. I have no reason to not believe you then. Let me ask, is it Trump on policy that bothers you are is it that he disgusts you along with his voters? 

His voters don't disgust me. I am close friends/related to many of his voters.

What disgusts me (aside from his nonexistent policy goals) is what he has done, both purposefully and unintentionally, to the political dynamics, division, and discussion in the US. He's made it perfectly acceptable to hate your political rivals and those that don't agree with your views, instead of just disagreeing with each other. Yes, I realize political zealotry existed well before Trump, but he launched it to a whole new level.

He WANTS us to be divided, wants us to tear each other apart on his behalf, and doesn't GAF about ANY of the American people, including his supporters. We are rabble, a means to an end.

He had the once in a generation opportunity to unite us against a common enemy, Covid, that didn't involve us going to war or committing acts of violence, fall into his lap during a deeply polarized time. And instead of even attempting to mold that into a triumph of American unity, he further stoked the division, ignored the experts, promulgated the spread of misinformation, which caused any number of unnecessary deaths, and generally kept acting only in his own best interests. Literally ANY other president would have been smart enough to do the right thing. But this piece of filth doesnt even comprehend right from wrong. He's wretched in every way, and he's caused incalculable damage. At best, he has significantly sped up the ruination of this country. At worst, he'll be the single largest factor in our slide into authoritarianism and decay. And the good (and not good) people that support him not only can't see it, they cheer it on.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,959]

That’s a lot. But I am curious, what did he ignore the experts about with Covid? 

[Horseman 2,370]

Yeah, Biden ran on being able to bring the country together.  How's that working out.  

And anybody that still uses Covid in their argument isn't worth listening to.  

[Horseman 2,370]

All that in a thread where the Dems tried to keep their opponent off the ballot, which is about to get struck down by the SCOTUS 9-0.  Yeah, division is all Trump's fault.  

[Voltaire 5,203]

12 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

And people on the right try so hard to pretend there was 0 going on besides selfies, or the bolded.    As with most things, nobody with their partisan heels dug in can be truthful about much.  This is the state of America - point fingers elsewhere while your "team" does most of the same things.  

Why is it so hard for people to say things like both groups were idiots who were lied to by their partisan media who when given the opportunity, many showed their true colors by devolving into violence and destruction with a healthy dose of anti-police sentiment?    

This is just more of the "they started it first!" b.s. that is so common around here.   Well, the lefties downplayed the riots so I guess the righties will just call 1/6 a selfie tour.  

Because it's not true.

Both sides don't do it in anywhere near equal amounts; the left is exponentially worse. Magnitudes upon magnitudes worse. Despite this, it is only the right that gets prosecuted.