TRUMP WINS AGAIN! Cannot be removed for fake erection

[Pimpadeaux 2,267]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Correct call by SCOTUS.

Well done.

Yep. Otherwise, chaos would have ensued. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

1 minute ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Yep. Otherwise, chaos would have ensued. 

thats not why they voted that way

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,267]

17 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The ones that made the decision to take him off the ballot should be held accountable. Like that DEI hire traffic judge in Illinois who somehow was able to say he couldn’t be on the ballot and it took the highest court to reign her in. And any of those other state officials and judges that did it. They obviously have no clue and are activists, not stewards.  

At least this was attempted through the legal system instead of a bunch of hopped-upped rednecks crawling all over the Capitol like a bunch of cockroaches.

[Pimpadeaux 2,267]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

thats not why they voted that way

 

I didn't say it was. 

[BeachGuy23 512]

15 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

At least this was attempted through the legal system instead of a bunch of hopped-upped rednecks crawling all over the Capitol like a bunch of cockroaches.

LOL this too.

The deplorables litterally chit on the floor of our nation's capital.

Disgusting they are. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

17 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

At least this was attempted through the legal system instead of a bunch of hopped-upped rednecks crawling all over the Capitol like a bunch of cockroaches.

Libtards good with gaming our legal system, once the envy of the world. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

20 minutes ago, edjr said:

He isn't a real person with real thoughts. He is a woke AI bot

I’m glad he’s sequestered in his serious thread. But I am surprised about how many posters participate in his safe space. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

20 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

At least this was attempted through the legal system instead of a bunch of hopped-upped rednecks crawling all over the Capitol like a bunch of cockroaches.

exactly.  rednecks should do it exactly the way libtards handled crackhead overdosing and pedo attacking kid getting killed

oh wait

 

[Alias Detective 1,179]

26 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Yep. Otherwise, chaos would have ensued. 

mostly peaceful.  Bwahahahahahahaha

[Alias Detective 1,179]

25 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

At least this was attempted through the legal system instead of a bunch of hopped-upped rednecks crawling all over the Capitol like a bunch of cockroaches.

Redneck is an extremely racist term idiot.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

Libtards bringing up chaos. It’s like the summer of love never happened. But it did.  

[Fumbleweed 426]

I think Trump actually has an outside shot at winning Colorado. I don't think he can get 45% of the vote there, but I could see several states in which he gets 41% or so and all the third candidates swallow up 20% of the vote, leaving Biden with only 39% (approximately). No way Trump wins in Colorado with just him and Biden on the ballot, but with other options, those sensible enough to know that Biden is not capable of leading a country while Trump is not their choice will simply go with a different, third option, candidate. I think Virginia, Minnesota, and a few other states are in play for this very reason. 

[seafoam1 1,879]

42 minutes ago, MDC said:

You okay? You seem sad and mad.  

Love it when you lifelong liberal internet freaks project your feelers on others. Lib mdcack on tictok. 

[seafoam1 1,879]

40 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

At least this was attempted through the legal system instead of a bunch of hopped-upped rednecks crawling all over the Capitol like a bunch of cockroaches.

Speaking of cockroaches...pimpledoosh's hero!! 

 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Pretty funny you tools can’t even handle someone agreeing with you 90% of the way.

That’s MAGA for you

[IGotWorms 3,315]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Wrong.  But Congress has to pass a law.  You can't just say "insurrection" and disqualify someone is what they're saying.

Did Congress pass a law saying what “establishment of religion” is? Or what “freedom of speech” means?

How about what is a “well regulated Militia”?

Etc. Etc.

The list goes:

- Constitution

- Statutes

- Regulations

 

You can’t say a constitutional provision doesn’t hold water because there’s no statute. The constitution reigns supreme. Only way I could see that is if the constitution explicitly said that a statute was required, which it did not with this provision.

But like I said, the alternative would apparently be all 50 states deciding in their own fashion who should be allowed on the ballot or removed, and how. That’s chaos.

So I get it, and the decision is the right one, but it’s an interesting legal discussion nonetheless and we are here for discussion, are we not?

[Strike 3,979]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Did Congress pass a law saying what “establishment of religion” is? Or what “freedom of speech” means?

How about what is a “well regulated Militia”?

Etc. Etc.

The list goes:

- Constitution

- Statutes

- Regulations

 

You can’t say a constitutional provision doesn’t hold water because there’s no statute. The constitution reigns supreme. Only way I could see that is if the constitution explicitly said that a statute was required, which it did not with this provision.

But like I said, the alternative would apparently be all 50 states deciding in their own fashion who should be allowed on the ballot or removed, and how. That’s chaos.

So I get it, and the decision is the right one, but it’s an interesting legal discussion nonetheless and we are here for discussion, are we not?

 

Yeah, it's not like it says the following:

Quote

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Oh wait, it does. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

thats not why they voted that way

 

Trump argued it and the Supreme Court agreed 

“What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big, plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked Jason Murray, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Colorado voters.

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added.

Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s liberal justices, echoed Roberts’ line of questioning. While the constitution grants states an enormous amount of power, Kagan said to Murray, there are some national questions where states are not the “responsitory of authority”. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?,” she said.

…

In their briefing to the supreme court, Trump’s lawyers have claimed there will be “chaos and bedlam” in the US if a leading presidential candidate is blocked from the ballot. They gave an array of arguments to the justices for why he should not be disqualified, including that the word “officer” does not apply to the president and that he did not engage in insurrection.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/us-supreme-court-donald-trump-eligibility-2024-election

 

 

The concern ignores the federalist reality in which American elections are already conducted, with different rules, eligibility requirements, verification systems, and election management procedures existing in each state. But the Court, in the majority, feared “disruption,” which “could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result — if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”

 

Maybe focking educate yourself before spouting off 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

16 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Pretty funny you tools can’t even handle someone agreeing with you 90% of the way.

That’s MAGA for you

Mostly peaceful. That’s Libtardandia for you. 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

 

Yeah, it's not like it says the following:

Oh wait, it does. 

That’s to allow enabling legislation like the Civil Rights Act. Not to allow Congress to not act, on the basis of a simple majority (in the face of a constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3rds supermajority and ratification by the states), thereby completely undermining the Constitution. That would be stupid

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Worms is big mad lol

[IGotWorms 3,315]

18 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Worms is big mad lol

Nope, I agree in the result. Just question the rationale for getting there, but that’s all academic anyway 

[cyclone24 1,814]

You really should take a step back and reevaluate your life if you have a problem with this decision. Like it would never dawn on me even with as corrupt as Biden is to say well my state should remove him. If goofballs want to vote for whoever they want to they should be able to do it. Want to vote for Biden? Go ahead. You should have that ability to do it. 
 

Such a weird thing to take such a clear loss on as a party

[Horseman 1,514]

41 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Pretty funny you tools can’t even handle someone agreeing with you 90% of the way.

That’s MAGA for you

Only 10% dumb isn't anything to brag about.  

[Strike 3,979]

20 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s to allow enabling legislation like the Civil Rights Act. Not to allow Congress to not act, on the basis of a simple majority (in the face of a constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3rds supermajority and ratification by the states), thereby completely undermining the Constitution. That would be stupid

What?  I can't even make sense of this.  It's incoherent.  Here, go read the 14th for yourself:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

It's not that long, and it's not unclear.

[Strike 3,979]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Nope, I agree in the result. Just question the rationale for getting there, but that’s all academic anyway 

You clearly haven't read the decision, which is typical of libs.  Just like in the thread the other day when the headline said Reid's kid's sentence had been commuted and you thought he was going to serve 3 years.  Reading is not your strong suit. 

[BudBro 117]

Colorado forced to resort to cheating again.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

You clearly haven't read the decision, which is typical of libs.  Just like in the thread the other day when the headline said Reid's kid's sentence had been commuted and you thought he was going to serve 3 years.  Reading is not your strong suit. 

Rich, you getting on people about not reading something.  

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

Curiously, the decision didn't contest the lower courts ruling that DT did engage in an insurrection. 

[seafoam1 1,879]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Curiously, the decision didn't contest the lower courts ruling that DT did engage in an insurrection. 

The lower courts who are still denying that the insurrection happened throughout 2020 and was fully backed by the liberals. 

You liberals keep trying to rewrite history as it's happening. Just amazing. 

[BudBro 117]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Curiously, the decision didn't contest the lower courts ruling that DT did engage in an insurrection. 

What keeps a lower court from ruling that you engaged in an insurrection? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Curiously, the decision didn't contest the lower courts ruling that DT did engage in an insurrection. 

Why would they? He hasn’t been charged with it. Anywhere. Anymore brilliant legal observations out of you today or is this it? 

[Strike 3,979]

7 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Curiously, the decision didn't contest the lower courts ruling that DT did engage in an insurrection. 

Apparently you don't understand how courts work, especially at the appellate level.  They don't need to consider that because it never even gets that far.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why would they? He hasn’t been charged with it. Anywhere. Anymore brilliant legal observations out of you today or is this it? 

 

Quote

 

Colorado judge finds Trump engaged in 'insurrection' but allows him on ballot

A Colorado judge on Friday allowed Donald Trump to remain on the ballot in the state's election next year, but found that he "engaged in insurrection" by sparking the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

The Colorado case, which was brought by a group of voters aided by the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, was the first to go to trial and was viewed as a test case for the wider disqualification effort.

 

HT - you really should take this advice to heart. Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

HT - you really should take this advice to heart. Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

ok so if a conservative judge said Biden committed insurrection by allowing our country to be flooded with illegals you would think that meant something?

 

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

ok so if a conservative judge said Biden committed insurrection by allowing our country to be flooded with illegals you would think that meant something?

 

A  judge didn't say it, a jury did, after a trial. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Trump argued it and the Supreme Court agreed 

“What do you do with the, what would seem to be, the big, plain consequences of your position? If Colorado’s position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed,” the chief justice, John Roberts, asked Jason Murray, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Colorado voters.

“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Roberts added.

Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s liberal justices, echoed Roberts’ line of questioning. While the constitution grants states an enormous amount of power, Kagan said to Murray, there are some national questions where states are not the “responsitory of authority”. “What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?,” she said.

…

In their briefing to the supreme court, Trump’s lawyers have claimed there will be “chaos and bedlam” in the US if a leading presidential candidate is blocked from the ballot. They gave an array of arguments to the justices for why he should not be disqualified, including that the word “officer” does not apply to the president and that he did not engage in insurrection.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/08/us-supreme-court-donald-trump-eligibility-2024-election

 

 

The concern ignores the federalist reality in which American elections are already conducted, with different rules, eligibility requirements, verification systems, and election management procedures existing in each state. But the Court, in the majority, feared “disruption,” which “could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result — if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.”

 

Maybe focking educate yourself before spouting off 

so I would rather actually read from the Justices than a liberal opinion rag

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

A  judge didn't say it, a jury did, after a trial. 

so Trump went to trial in colorado?  Interesting I dont remember seeing that trial

so ok I will say then if there was a trial in Texas and it was found Biden is committing treason by allowing foreign nationals to invade the country, you would be ok with that

 

[Tree of Knowledge 835]

The more research you do you realize the 2020 election was the actual insurrection with all the fake votes.  

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

6 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

so Trump went to trial in colorado?  Interesting I dont remember seeing that trial

so ok I will say then if there was a trial in Texas and it was found Biden is committing treason by allowing foreign nationals to invade the country, you would be ok with that

 

Need to correct myself, it wasn't a jury trial, but a trail before a judge. 

Anderson v. Griswold

As to your question---no I wouldn't be okay with it, but that's because the premise is ridiculous...and again, all I'm doing is pointing out that SCOTUS did not say they were disputing the fact finding of the lower court on the issue of insurrection, which I found interesting.