|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Mar 4, 2024 14:50:29 GMT -8
Pretty decisive, democracy gets restored just in time for Super Tuesday.
A bad day for Biden and the Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 4, 2024 14:54:16 GMT -8
Pretty decisive, democracy gets restored just in time for Super Tuesday. A bad day for Biden and the Democrats. While a victory for Trump, there are caveats regarding the SCOTUS decision today. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 4, 2024 15:02:12 GMT -8
Pretty decisive, democracy gets restored just in time for Super Tuesday. A bad day for Biden and the Democrats. There's already a thread on this. The decision was not entirely unanimous. Nobody expected SCOTUS to hold up the ban. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Mar 4, 2024 18:34:27 GMT -8
Pretty decisive, democracy gets restored just in time for Super Tuesday. A bad day for Biden and the Democrats. There's already a thread on this. The decision was not entirely unanimous. Nobody expected SCOTUS to hold up the ban. I started a new thread because this is a Supreme Court ruling, not some kook politician in Colorado flagrantly nullifying voting rights. Nobody expected SCOTUS to up hold the ban because it was: A). Wildly Unconstitutional B). An unprecedented abuse of power and authority. C). A Disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of Coloradoans and potentially tens of millions of Americans. Even liberal members of the court saw the potentially disastrous consequences of keeping candidates off ballots based on political vendettas. That’s why it was a quick and unanimous decision. The Democratic Party is not going to retain political power just by outlawing the Republican nominee. This isn’t Venezuela. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 4, 2024 18:58:35 GMT -8
There's already a thread on this. The decision was not entirely unanimous. Nobody expected SCOTUS to hold up the ban. I started a new thread because this is a Supreme Court ruling, not some kook politician in Colorado flagrantly nullifying voting rights. Nobody expected SCOTUS to up hold the ban because it was: A). Wildly Unconstitutional B). An unprecedented abuse of power and authority. C). A Disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of Coloradoans and potentially tens of millions of Americans. Even liberal members of the court saw the potentially disastrous consequences of keeping candidates off ballots based on political vendettas. That’s why it was a quick and unanimous decision. The Democratic Party is not going to retain political power just by outlawing the Republican nominee. This isn’t Venezuela. It's the same case, it doesn't require a separate thread. There was a trial. The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump was guilty of insurrection, therefore ineligible to be on their ballot. Elections are under the authority of the state. Not unconstitutional, not an abuse of power. Article 1, Section 4 expressly states that elections are administered under state law. This was for the primary ballot, not for the general election. You can celebrate another nothingburger which you've wildly misinterpreted again. Trump was always going to be eligible to run. And once again, the entire opinion was *not* unanimous. Actually read. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Mar 4, 2024 21:08:26 GMT -8
I started a new thread because this is a Supreme Court ruling, not some kook politician in Colorado flagrantly nullifying voting rights. Nobody expected SCOTUS to up hold the ban because it was: A). Wildly Unconstitutional B). An unprecedented abuse of power and authority. C). A Disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of Coloradoans and potentially tens of millions of Americans. Even liberal members of the court saw the potentially disastrous consequences of keeping candidates off ballots based on political vendettas. That’s why it was a quick and unanimous decision. The Democratic Party is not going to retain political power just by outlawing the Republican nominee. This isn’t Venezuela. It's the same case, it doesn't require a separate thread. There was a trial. The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump was guilty of insurrection, therefore ineligible to be on their ballot. Elections are under the authority of the state. Not unconstitutional, not an abuse of power. Article 1, Section 4 expressly states that elections are administered under state law. This was for the primary ballot, not for the general election. You can celebrate another nothingburger which you've wildly misinterpreted again. Trump was always going to be eligible to run. And once again, the entire opinion was *not* unanimous. Actually read. Just the fact that there was a trial was absurd. Why not prosecute Hillary or Biden? With the creative charges being brought, certainly those two “have it coming to them.” Thankfully we will still have an election, inspite of the democrat’s skullduggery and other political dirty tricks. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 4, 2024 21:13:36 GMT -8
It's the same case, it doesn't require a separate thread. There was a trial. The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump was guilty of insurrection, therefore ineligible to be on their ballot. Elections are under the authority of the state. Not unconstitutional, not an abuse of power. Article 1, Section 4 expressly states that elections are administered under state law. This was for the primary ballot, not for the general election. You can celebrate another nothingburger which you've wildly misinterpreted again. Trump was always going to be eligible to run. And once again, the entire opinion was *not* unanimous. Actually read. Just the fact that there was a trial was absurd. Why not prosecute Hillary or Biden? With the creative charges being brought, certainly those two “have it coming to them.” Thankfully we will still have an election, inspite of the democrat’s skullduggery and other political dirty tricks. The case was brought forth by a group of Republicans, as you're well aware. Prosecute Hilary and Biden....for what? They didn't engage in an insurrection. They didn't pre-plan and coordinate a multi-week campaign to overturn the certification of votes. They didn't have their vice president nearly attacked. "Hang Mike Pence!" You need to turn off Fox. You're part of the misinformation vacuum, absorbing fallacy after fallacy. And for what? The payoff is chaos, disruption and instability. You're not winning here. Everyone loses. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Mar 5, 2024 4:03:01 GMT -8
Just the fact that there was a trial was absurd. Why not prosecute Hillary or Biden? With the creative charges being brought, certainly those two “have it coming to them.” Thankfully we will still have an election, inspite of the democrat’s skullduggery and other political dirty tricks. The case was brought forth by a group of Republicans, as you're well aware. Prosecute Hilary and Biden....for what? They didn't engage in an insurrection. They didn't pre-plan and coordinate a multi-week campaign to overturn the certification of votes. They didn't have their vice president nearly attacked. "Hang Mike Pence!" You need to turn off Fox. You're part of the misinformation vacuum, absorbing fallacy after fallacy. And for what? The payoff is chaos, disruption and instability. You're not winning here. Everyone loses. I imagine, based on past experiences, liberal democrat supporters will begin to picket and harass various SCOTUS members at their private residences. Thats how crazy those people are. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Mar 5, 2024 7:13:52 GMT -8
The case was brought forth by a group of Republicans, as you're well aware. Prosecute Hilary and Biden....for what? They didn't engage in an insurrection. They didn't pre-plan and coordinate a multi-week campaign to overturn the certification of votes. They didn't have their vice president nearly attacked. "Hang Mike Pence!" You need to turn off Fox. You're part of the misinformation vacuum, absorbing fallacy after fallacy. And for what? The payoff is chaos, disruption and instability. You're not winning here. Everyone loses. I imagine, based on past experiences, liberal democrat supporters will begin to picket and harass various SCOTUS members at their private residences. Thats how crazy those people are. weak..... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 5, 2024 7:51:58 GMT -8
The case was brought forth by a group of Republicans, as you're well aware. Prosecute Hilary and Biden....for what? They didn't engage in an insurrection. They didn't pre-plan and coordinate a multi-week campaign to overturn the certification of votes. They didn't have their vice president nearly attacked. "Hang Mike Pence!" You need to turn off Fox. You're part of the misinformation vacuum, absorbing fallacy after fallacy. And for what? The payoff is chaos, disruption and instability. You're not winning here. Everyone loses. I imagine, based on past experiences, liberal democrat supporters will begin to picket and harass various SCOTUS members at their private residences. Thats how crazy those people are. I think that's enough. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Mar 5, 2024 10:52:11 GMT -8
Did you see where Keith Olbermann wanted the SCOTUS to be "dissolved"? Not that he speaks for all Democrats, but his attitudes likely represent a good portion. And I know most were already on board for the stacking of the Supreme Court (going from 9 to 15) to ensure that Democrats dominate. This is a case where they say their totalitarian goals out loud. But with the 9-0 ruling and the disparaging of the three left SCOTUS Judges by the likes of Olbermann, do the progressive power mongers now want 19 Justices on the Supreme Court?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 5, 2024 10:55:10 GMT -8
Did you see where Keith Olbermann wanted the SCOTUS to be "dissolved"? Not that he speaks for all Democrats, but his attitudes likely represent a good portion. And I know most were already on board for the stacking of the Supreme Court (going from 9 to 15) to ensure that Democrats dominate. This is a case where they say their totalitarian goals out loud. But with the 9-0 ruling and the disparaging of the three left SCOTUS Judges by the likes of Olbermann, do the progressive power mongers now want 19 Justices on the Supreme Court? The reactionary comments will always be there, outrage sells. Once again, the 9-0 stuff is way overblown if you actually read the opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Mar 5, 2024 11:29:22 GMT -8
Did you see where Keith Olbermann wanted the SCOTUS to be "dissolved"? Not that he speaks for all Democrats, but his attitudes likely represent a good portion. And I know most were already on board for the stacking of the Supreme Court (going from 9 to 15) to ensure that Democrats dominate. This is a case where they say their totalitarian goals out loud. But with the 9-0 ruling and the disparaging of the three left SCOTUS Judges by the likes of Olbermann, do the progressive power mongers now want 19 Justices on the Supreme Court? Keith Olbermann, really? How many people does he affect? So what do you think about trump calling the Lt. Gov. of North Carolina "MLK Jr. on Steroids" and "better than MLK Jr.". So, you take an icon and historic person who is revered by many with comparisons to a conspiracy theorist? Of course someone who can use critical thought and understands history simply sloughs this off. But there is a substantial percentage of Americans who can't....sadly. So what this is...is the trump / Bannon strategy of "flood the zone with $#!+". You diminish everything, and everyone, historically important until a segment of the population believes everything you say. "I'm better than Lincoln, every artist is "overrated" ...diminish diminish diminish. You can create a bunch of off balance, confused, populace doing this. Its sad for me to see this happening. The saddest part is just how f****** easy it is. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 5, 2024 12:19:34 GMT -8
It's the same case, it doesn't require a separate thread. There was a trial. The Colorado Supreme Court held that Trump was guilty of insurrection, therefore ineligible to be on their ballot. Elections are under the authority of the state. Not unconstitutional, not an abuse of power. Article 1, Section 4 expressly states that elections are administered under state law. This was for the primary ballot, not for the general election. You can celebrate another nothingburger which you've wildly misinterpreted again. Trump was always going to be eligible to run. And once again, the entire opinion was *not* unanimous. Actually read. Just the fact that there was a trial was absurd. Why not prosecute Hillary or Biden? With the creative charges being brought, certainly those two “have it coming to them.” Thankfully we will still have an election, inspite of the democrat’s skullduggery and other political dirty tricks. Speaking of dirty tricks.... projection much? |
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Mar 5, 2024 13:33:23 GMT -8
Trump qualified meeting the ballot access requirements in Colorado. The disqualifying caveat in Colorado is “shall have engaged in insurrection.” There’s been a Federal indictment without conviction. This is the United States of America, innocent until proven guilty. Colorado has not the right to deny an innocent Trump without conviction to be on the ballot, he’s innocent by law. If convicted, he pays the legal consequences defined by a court. Not by some person consumed with hate or a wild hair up their rear. Not sure why Colorado is fearful, let the people of Colorado decide. That’s the way it must be if we are going to embrace freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 5, 2024 13:44:37 GMT -8
Trump qualified meeting the ballot access requirements in Colorado. The disqualifying caveat in Colorado is “shall have engaged in insurrection.” There’s been a Federal indictment without conviction. This is the United States of America, innocent until proven guilty. Colorado has not the right to deny an innocent Trump without conviction to be on the ballot, he’s innocent by law. If convicted, he pays the legal consequences defined by a court. Not by some person consumed with hate or a wild hair up their rear. Not sure why Colorado is fearful, let the people of Colorado decide. That’s the way it must be if we are going to embrace freedom. There's no criminal charge or conviction required for disqualification. I feel like this has been covered about 800 times. Your entire analysis is contrary to the Constitution and its original text. Elections are governed by the states they are held in. "The Disqualification Clause’s text, history, and existing precedents make clear that disqualification does not require a prior criminal conviction. Therefore, it is unsurprising that between 1869 and 2022 none of the individuals formally disqualified under that constitutional provision were charged under the criminal insurrection statute or its predecessor statutes. The lack of charges under the criminal insurrection statute against January 6th insurrectionists reflects the DOJ’s prosecutorial judgment to pursue charges under other criminal statutes that are used more frequently and carry higher maximum prison sentences. For example, the DOJ has successfully prosecuted leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, violent extremist groups who participated in the January 6th insurrection, under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, the “seditious conspiracy” statute. Not only does Section 2384 criminalize similar conduct as Section 2383, but it also carries a 20-year maximum prison sentence, compared to Section 2383’s 10-year maximum. The Supreme Court took the lazy offramp out and passed the buck to Congress to act. They erred in interpreting what the original amendment states. They played political chess. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 5, 2024 14:03:45 GMT -8
Basic point of fact: Trump's *conduct* on January 6th meets the legal threshold for insurrection.
"The act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government."
Also. : "The crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States."
Clear as day.
- National Guard was not deployed by Trump.
- Trump wanted magnometers removed from rally points, indicating he knew his supporters were armed.
- Pence had to be urgently removed to a secure location - Trump responded with "So what?" per deposition testimony from one of his aides.
- Pre-planned, coordinated event involving dozens of people including members of Congress, Trump's inner circle, Ginni Thomas, etc.
Simplistic, but accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Mar 5, 2024 14:14:47 GMT -8
Trump qualified meeting the ballot access requirements in Colorado. The disqualifying caveat in Colorado is “shall have engaged in insurrection.” There’s been a Federal indictment without conviction. This is the United States of America, innocent until proven guilty. Colorado has not the right to deny an innocent Trump without conviction to be on the ballot, he’s innocent by law. If convicted, he pays the legal consequences defined by a court. Not by some person consumed with hate or a wild hair up their rear. Not sure why Colorado is fearful, let the people of Colorado decide. That’s the way it must be if we are going to embrace freedom. There's no criminal charge or conviction required for disqualification. I feel like this has been covered about 800 times. Your entire analysis is contrary to the Constitution and its original text. Elections are governed by the states they are held in. "The Disqualification Clause’s text, history, and existing precedents make clear that disqualification does not require a prior criminal conviction. Therefore, it is unsurprising that between 1869 and 2022 none of the individuals formally disqualified under that constitutional provision were charged under the criminal insurrection statute or its predecessor statutes. The lack of charges under the criminal insurrection statute against January 6th insurrectionists reflects the DOJ’s prosecutorial judgment to pursue charges under other criminal statutes that are used more frequently and carry higher maximum prison sentences. For example, the DOJ has successfully prosecuted leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, violent extremist groups who participated in the January 6th insurrection, under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, the “seditious conspiracy” statute. Not only does Section 2384 criminalize similar conduct as Section 2383, but it also carries a 20-year maximum prison sentence, compared to Section 2383’s 10-year maximum. The Supreme Court took the lazy offramp out and passed the buck to Congress to act. They erred in interpreting what the original amendment states. They played political chess. Haha, You are so predictable and wrong for the 800th time. It is Colorado, not Federal. That's all the reply your opinion is worthy of. Next time I won't waste the keystrokes. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 5, 2024 14:26:20 GMT -8
There's no criminal charge or conviction required for disqualification. I feel like this has been covered about 800 times. Your entire analysis is contrary to the Constitution and its original text. Elections are governed by the states they are held in. "The Disqualification Clause’s text, history, and existing precedents make clear that disqualification does not require a prior criminal conviction. Therefore, it is unsurprising that between 1869 and 2022 none of the individuals formally disqualified under that constitutional provision were charged under the criminal insurrection statute or its predecessor statutes. The lack of charges under the criminal insurrection statute against January 6th insurrectionists reflects the DOJ’s prosecutorial judgment to pursue charges under other criminal statutes that are used more frequently and carry higher maximum prison sentences. For example, the DOJ has successfully prosecuted leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, violent extremist groups who participated in the January 6th insurrection, under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, the “seditious conspiracy” statute. Not only does Section 2384 criminalize similar conduct as Section 2383, but it also carries a 20-year maximum prison sentence, compared to Section 2383’s 10-year maximum. The Supreme Court took the lazy offramp out and passed the buck to Congress to act. They erred in interpreting what the original amendment states. They played political chess. Haha, You are so predictable and wrong for the 800th time. It is Colorado, not Federal. That's all the reply your opinion is worthy of. Next time I won't waste the keystrokes. What is Colorado? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Mar 5, 2024 15:20:55 GMT -8
Did you see where Keith Olbermann wanted the SCOTUS to be "dissolved"? Not that he speaks for all Democrats, but his attitudes likely represent a good portion. And I know most were already on board for the stacking of the Supreme Court (going from 9 to 15) to ensure that Democrats dominate. This is a case where they say their totalitarian goals out loud. But with the 9-0 ruling and the disparaging of the three left SCOTUS Judges by the likes of Olbermann, do the progressive power mongers now want 19 Justices on the Supreme Court? Keith Olbermann, really? How many people does he affect? So what do you think about trump calling the Lt. Gov. of North Carolina "MLK Jr. on Steroids" and "better than MLK Jr.". So, you take an icon and historic person who is revered by many with comparisons to a conspiracy theorist? Of course someone who can use critical thought and understands history simply sloughs this off. But there is a substantial percentage of Americans who can't....sadly. So what this is...is the trump / Bannon strategy of "flood the zone with $#!+". You diminish everything, and everyone, historically important until a segment of the population believes everything you say. "I'm better than Lincoln, every artist is "overrated" ...diminish diminish diminish. You can create a bunch of off balance, confused, populace doing this. Its sad for me to see this happening. The saddest part is just how f****** easy it is. Please tell me what Democratic institution and Co-Equal branch of the US Government Trump hoping to destroy with his inarticulate praise of the NC Governor? Do you actually think the desire to pack the Supreme Court is only from the oddball 'fringe" of the Democrat party like Olbermann? www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132 |
|
