Pimpadeaux 2,266 Posted March 4 1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said: Correct call by SCOTUS. Well done. Yep. Otherwise, chaos would have ensued. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585 Posted March 4 1 minute ago, Pimpadeaux said: Yep. Otherwise, chaos would have ensued. thats not why they voted that way Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pimpadeaux 2,266 Posted March 4 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. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pimpadeaux 2,266 Posted March 4 1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said: thats not why they voted that way I didn't say it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeachGuy23 512 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,653 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,653 Posted March 4 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585 Posted March 4 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias Detective 1,179 Posted March 4 26 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said: Yep. Otherwise, chaos would have ensued. mostly peaceful. Bwahahahahahahaha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias Detective 1,179 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,653 Posted March 4 Libtards bringing up chaos. It’s like the summer of love never happened. But it did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fumbleweed 426 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 1,879 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 1,879 Posted March 4 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!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,315 Posted March 4 Pretty funny you tools can’t even handle someone agreeing with you 90% of the way. That’s MAGA for you 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,315 Posted March 4 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,979 Posted March 4 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,315 Posted March 4 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,653 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,315 Posted March 4 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iam90sbaby 2,125 Posted March 4 Worms is big mad lol 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,315 Posted March 4 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cyclone24 1,814 Posted March 4 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horseman 1,514 Posted March 4 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. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,979 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,979 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BudBro 117 Posted March 4 Colorado forced to resort to cheating again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,035 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,035 Posted March 4 Curiously, the decision didn't contest the lower courts ruling that DT did engage in an insurrection. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seafoam1 1,879 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BudBro 117 Posted March 4 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,653 Posted March 4 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? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,979 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,035 Posted March 4 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585 Posted March 4 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? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,035 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585 Posted March 4 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,585 Posted March 4 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tree of Knowledge 835 Posted March 4 The more research you do you realize the 2020 election was the actual insurrection with all the fake votes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,035 Posted March 4 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites