January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[cradleandshoot]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

[cradleandshoot]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Any legals wanna clarify the ruling?

Basically they're saying that states can't remove someone who has engaged in insurrection from the federal ballot, just congress? Or that congress has to pass a law clarifying rules?

Didn't see anything in there overturning the ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection.

[CU88a]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

Well bummer CU88. Based on my comments a couple months ago and considering the SCOTUS ruling... who is ignorant?

https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/176467 ... 82380?s=20

Easy there Francis, my comment had nothing to do with the validity of the claim, rather to which party the initial claimants belonged. You need to go back to middle school level reading comprehension to understand what I wrote.

Boy, I bet that you have been waiting to make this post too.

LOL "...who is ignorant"

[cradleandshoot]

Any legals wanna clarify the ruling?

Basically they're saying that states can't remove someone who has engaged in insurrection from the federal ballot, just congress? Or that congress has to pass a law clarifying that?

Didn't see anything in there overturning the ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection.

The legals on this forum already enlightened me on this weeks ago. Unless they want to backtrack they made it VERY clear that the decision by the Colorado Supremes was valid in every respect. I'll let them clarify because their opinion was just repudiated by a decisive 9 to zero opinion with no justice dissenting. Kinda tells you everything you need to know. The following sarcastic comment is mine and mine alone. It looks like the Democratic attempt to steal the election failed miserably in phase one. Like most Americans I'm looking forward to phase two. That is where the American people are allowed to decide which of these 2 morons best represents this country.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

over the top hate-filled diatribe

yes, you missed the disagreement among the Justices. Undoubtedly neither read the decision nor any of the commentary outside of MAGA propaganda from your phone feed from the Chinese.

You are also incorrect, likely purposefully, about your fellow posters, who pretty much universally predicted that the Colorado decision would be overturned on one or more rationales.

Not that the insurrection didn't occur or that Trump incited it and gave comfort to it, but the technical details as to who gets to reach the judgement when it pertains to the ballot. This clause.

As I understand it, it's a huge reversal for the conservative side's notion that "states rights" include the principle that the states have the ability to manage their own election processes as they wish...though arguably limited to this one clause...I'm not sure exactly when this clause would be validated, but presumably if Congress had voted that insurrection had occurred, it would be upheld.

It's probably the right answer for the pro-democracy folks as well, as we don't want "states" to decide elections, we want voters to do so.

[cradleandshoot]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

Well bummer CU88. Based on my comments a couple months ago and considering the SCOTUS ruling... who is ignorant?

https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/176467 ... 82380?s=20

Easy there Francis, my comment had nothing to do with the validity of the claim, rather to which party the initial claimants belonged. You need to go back to middle school level reading comprehension to understand what I wrote.

Boy, I bet that you have been waiting to make this post too.

LOL "...who is ignorant"

Back up the bus there son. Alot of people myself included vehemently disagreed with a myopic politically inspired decision by the Colorado Supremes. I understand why they made their decision. The Democrat party will unabashedly throw anything against the wall in the hope that something will stick. In this case it bounced back off the wall and struck the democrats right square in the face. You Democrats appear to be certain you'll kick trumps ass in November. Why the need to try and steal the election your certain you will win? What you just succeeded in doing was handing trump a victory he can gloat about and prove to some voters that y'all are the ones trying to steal the election. Good job Democrats..good job. Your doing everything possible to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm glad poor Peter Jennings isn't around to witness this abberhation of justice. He would define it as the SCOTUS having a snit.

[jhu72]

... the only news in this ruling is the 4 ladies not agreeing totally with the 5 men. This was a totally expected ruling including the 9-0. We discussed this a couple weeks ago on this thread and the unanimous or near unanimous opinion of those discussing it was that this was going to go as it did and it should have. It occurs to me that if this had been a democratic ex-president the only thing that would have been different is it would have been a 7-2 decision.

Obviously C&S missed this discussion.

[cradleandshoot]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

over the top hate-filled diatribe

yes, you missed the disagreement among the Justices.

You are also incorrect about your fellow posters, who pretty much universally predicted that the Colorado decision would be overturned on one or more rationales.

Not that the insurrection didn't occur or that Trump incited it and gave comfort to it, but the technical details as to who gets to reach the judgement when it pertains to the ballot. This clause.

As I understand it, it's a huge reversal for the conservative side's notion that "states rights" include the principle that the states have the ability to manage their own election processes as they wish...though arguably limited to this one clause...I'm not sure exactly when this clause would be validated, but presumably if Congress had voted that insurrection had occurred, it would be upheld.

It's probably the right answer for the pro-democracy folks as well, as we don't want "states" to decide elections, we want voters to do so.

Was trump ever charged legally with mounting an insurrection? Was trump ever convicted in a court of law for mounting an insurrection? Why don't you ask your brother in law? He was there for the entire protest. Your representing an asinine position that only the thought police can dream up. Your proving every single day to be way more dangerous than trump. You'll willing to disregard the rule of law to get your pound of flesh against someone you dislike intensely. You of all people as an alleged life long conservative should know better.

[Kismet]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

more proof that you didn't read the complete opinions - won't waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Doh!!!

Orange Fatso was determined by a court to have engaged in insurrection by virtue of the evidence presented to them. Constitution does not mention a conviction requirement.

Supremes took a pass on that.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

over the top hate-filled diatribe

yes, you missed the disagreement among the Justices.

You are also incorrect about your fellow posters, who pretty much universally predicted that the Colorado decision would be overturned on one or more rationales.

Not that the insurrection didn't occur or that Trump incited it and gave comfort to it, but the technical details as to who gets to reach the judgement when it pertains to the ballot. This clause.

As I understand it, it's a huge reversal for the conservative side's notion that "states rights" include the principle that the states have the ability to manage their own election processes as they wish...though arguably limited to this one clause...I'm not sure exactly when this clause would be validated, but presumably if Congress had voted that insurrection had occurred, it would be upheld.

It's probably the right answer for the pro-democracy folks as well, as we don't want "states" to decide elections, we want voters to do so.

Was trump ever charged legally with mounting an insurrection? Was trump ever convicted in a court of law for mounting an insurrection? Why don't you ask your brother in law? He was there for the entire protest. Your representing an asinine position that only the thought police can dream up. Your proving every single day to be way more dangerous than trump. You'll willing to disregard the rule of law to get your pound of flesh against someone you dislike intensely. You of all people as an alleged life long conservative should know better.

yes, the case was adjudicated in a 5 day trial in Colorado...Trump had full due process. Trump was found by that court to have engaged in insurrection. That Court and on appeal the Colorado Supreme Court found that such meant that Trump could not serve as POTUS thus could be removed from the ballot as ineligible.

The SCOTUS ruling does not refute that Trump engaged in insurrection, rather it decided, as predicted, that Congress needed to act, the decision couldn't simply be at the state level.

That's probably the right answer, it certainly was predicted on here by many...certainly by me.

[cradleandshoot]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

over the top hate-filled diatribe

yes, you missed the disagreement among the Justices.

You are also incorrect about your fellow posters, who pretty much universally predicted that the Colorado decision would be overturned on one or more rationales.

Not that the insurrection didn't occur or that Trump incited it and gave comfort to it, but the technical details as to who gets to reach the judgement when it pertains to the ballot. This clause.

As I understand it, it's a huge reversal for the conservative side's notion that "states rights" include the principle that the states have the ability to manage their own election processes as they wish...though arguably limited to this one clause...I'm not sure exactly when this clause would be validated, but presumably if Congress had voted that insurrection had occurred, it would be upheld.

It's probably the right answer for the pro-democracy folks as well, as we don't want "states" to decide elections, we want voters to do so.

Was trump ever charged legally with mounting an insurrection? Was trump ever convicted in a court of law for mounting an insurrection? Why don't you ask your brother in law? He was there for the entire protest. Your representing an asinine position that only the thought police can dream up. Your proving every single day to be way more dangerous than trump. You'll willing to disregard the rule of law to get your pound of flesh against someone you dislike intensely. You of all people as an alleged life long conservative should know better.

yes, the case was adjudicated in a 5 day trial in Colorado...Trump had full due process. Trump was found by that court to have engaged in insurrection. That Court and on appeal the Colorado Supreme Court found that such meant that Trump could not serve as POTUS thus could be removed from the ballot as ineligible.

The SCOTUS ruling does not refute that Trump engaged in insurrection, rather it decided, as predicted, that Congress needed to act, the decision couldn't simply be at the state level.

That's probably the right answer, it certainly was predicted on here by many...certainly by me.

You mean a kangaroo court type of proceeding? If I was trump I wouldn't have show up either? He was just vindicated by a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS. Your like Captain Smith at the helm of the Titanic grasping on to the wheel as the ship slinks slowly into the icy North Atlantic. You still believe in your heart that proceeding forward at full speed with icebergs all around was a prudent and rational course of action.

[jhu72]

^^^^^ fool!

[cradleandshoot]

When Doc 72 wants to call me a fool I will gladly wear that label as a badge of honor. Considering the source of course. .

[cradleandshoot]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

more proof that you didn't read the complete opinions - won't waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Doh!!!

Orange Fatso was determined by a court to have engaged in insurrection by virtue of the evidence presented to them. Constitution does not mention a conviction requirement.

Supremes took a pass on that.

The decision was 9 to nothing with no dissent from any justice. Your the guy wanting me to read the box score when MDs Orioles get shut out 10 to nothing while noting if you look really deep at the stats the Orioles didn't really get their asses beat that badly. A loss is a loss is a loss grasshopper. Suck it up and move it along. Would you prefer some cheese with that whine?

[youthathletics]

[Kismet]

Nine to zippo. Even the 3 libs agreed. Gonna be hard for the usual suspects here to have a hissy fit. Y'all remember who you are? Your the ones who screamed at me at the top of your lungs telling me this decision by the Colorado Supremes was perfectly fine. Guess y'all were wrong for the first time ever.

Read the effing opinion Einstein, there was disagreement on how to resolve the issue going forward whether it be Congress or some other method but NOT the states.

Nuance is something you don't possess. Typical from you to miss the entire point.

There was no dissenting opinion Oppenheimer. I'm sorry the SCOTUS burst your bubble. Get over it and I suggest you get some therapy. The Supremes, all 9 of them bent the Colorado Supremes over at the waist and gave them a hard spanking. Too bad your own stupidity left you dazed and confused. That is a state of being you are all to familiar with.

The actual nuance was, and your not going to like this was the Colorado Supremes attempted to subvert the United States Constitution. When your done whining, crying and b****ing about it then change your diaper, get a fresh pair of pants, wipe your runny nose and pretend to be a grown up for a few minutes.
All folks liberal and conservative are entitled to the occasional hissy fit.

more proof that you didn't read the complete opinions - won't waste any more time trying to explain it to you. Doh!!!

Orange Fatso was determined by a court to have engaged in insurrection by virtue of the evidence presented to them. Constitution does not mention a conviction requirement.

Supremes took a pass on that.

The decision was 9 to nothing with no dissent from any justice. Your the guy wanting me to read the box score when MDs Orioles get shut out 10 to nothing while noting if you look really deep at the stats the Orioles didn't really get their asses beat that badly. A loss is a loss is a loss grasshopper. Suck it up and move it along. Would you prefer some cheese with that whine?

Failure to read the opinion fully - Three justices filed a concurring opinion. You're on a wrong roll today.

[a fan]

...and now we know why it was Unanimous: the SCOTUS just opened the barn door, telling Americans that when it comes to Federal elections (as opposed to State), the 14th Amendment hands power to the Federal Government. They cite the 14th again and again.

This is FANTASTIC, and will kill State Gerrymandering if anyone is smart enough to sue. It will also allow the Federal Government to step in, and ensure that Federal elections are fair.....so now the ol' Republican game of making it easy for the rich to vote, and hard for the poor is in question.

Awesome outcome. I'll take it.


Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

[MDlaxfan76]

...and now we know why it was Unanimous: the SCOTUS just opened the barn door, telling Americans that when it comes to Federal elections (as opposed to State), the 14th Amendment hands power to the Federal Government. They cite the 14th again and again.

This is FANTASTIC, and will kill State Gerrymandering if anyone is smart enough to sue. It will also allow the Federal Government to step in, and ensure that Federal elections are fair.....so now the ol' Republican game of making it easy for the rich to vote, and hard for the poor is in question.

Awesome outcome. I'll take it.


Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

yup, though the conservative SCOTUS may ignore this line of reasoning, though that would be opposed by the pro-democracy folks on the Court.

But definitely a powerful line of reasoning.

[ggait]

Nailed it.

The legal pin heads who brought this case (many of them non-MAGA GOP conservatives fyi) should apologize for wasting all of our time.

Re: Orange Duce
Post by ggait » Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:08 pm

Yup.

This Colorado insurrection case is a completely pointless waste of time. Idiotic to have filed it in the first place. I really hope the morons from my home state get squashed 9-0.

The important SCOTUS case starts Monday. The future of the Republic hangs in the balance.