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

[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

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.

Picture the SCOTUS stepping in, and forcing all States to adopt a uniform, Colorado-Style election that makes it EASY to register and vote.

Or....and this would make me happier because of the irony of R's getting what they CLAIM to want: the Fed stepping in and disallowing all absentee ballots or "ballot harvesting". And then watch as R's lose election after election because it's harder for the elderly to vote.

We'll see. This could take years or decades. But the die is cast.

[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?

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

But there was NO dissenting opinion. Doesn't dissenting mean you disagree? Spin as you will the 9 judge panel of the US Supreme Court threw the Colorado Supreme Court under the bus. I need to relook my Bills loss to the NY Giants in the wide right bowl. Upon further review the Bills actually won a moral victory. After all, Scott Norwood damn near made that field goal. I appreciate the desperation from some of you folks in a pathetic attempt to spin a loss into a win. I do understand the thought process of the Colorado Supremes. They threw it against the wall hoping it might stick.

[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.

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.

You asked the question. It's a straightforward answer.

Trump was fully represented by counsel, witnesses and documentary evidence presented by both sides. Full due process, opposite of 'kangaroo court'.

Adjudicated under the rule of law. You just hate the answer.

And no, I never supported this course of action to deal with the Trump 'problem' as it seemed so unlikely to succeed with this SCOTUS. I predicted that SCOTUS would find a technical rationale for ruling against the Republican voters who brought the case, and against the lower courts and State officials. There were multiple such possibilities.

Doesn't mean I didn't support the logic that Trump should be found ineligible to serve as President under the 14th. But the best mechanism for that would have been a conviction in the Senate...enormous fail by McConnell. Big miscalculation.

Short of that requires rejection at the voting booth, which I've consistently said would be best achieved with an ignominiously overwhelming loss that might break the cult fever.

[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.

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.

But there was NO dissenting opinion. Doesn't dissenting mean you disagree? Spin as you will the 9 judge panel of the US Supreme Court threw the Colorado Supreme Court under the bus. I need to relook my Bills loss to the NY Giants in the wide right bowl. Upon further review the Bills actually won a moral victory.

Because all agreed to overturn Colorado...their reasoning involved significant differences and disagreement, but dissents are only when that disagreement reaches a different outcome altogether.

But you know that, right?

[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.

You asked the question. It's a straightforward answer.

Trump was fully represented by counsel, witnesses and documentary evidence presented by both sides. Full due process, opposite of 'kangaroo court'.

Adjudicated under the rule of law. You just hate the answer.

And no, I never supported this course of action to deal with the Trump 'problem' as it seemed so unlikely to succeed with this SCOTUS. I predicted that SCOTUS would find a technical rationale for ruling against the Republican voters who brought the case, and against the lower courts and State officials. There were multiple such possibilities.

Doesn't mean I didn't support the logic that Trump should be found ineligible to serve as President under the 14th. But the best mechanism for that would have been a conviction in the Senate...enormous fail by McConnell. Big miscalculation.

Short of that requires rejection at the voting booth, which I've consistently said would be best achieved with an ignominiously overwhelming loss that might break the cult fever.

Trump was never charged with insurrection nor was he convicted of the crime. The SCOTUS just unanimously made that decision. The horse is way past dead MD you can stop beating it now. The Colorado Supremes gave it a good go but sadly in all legal respects they were dead wrong. I know that is a reality that is very hard for you to accept. To quote Walter Cronkite...and that's the way it is.

[ggait]

Decent logical argument Fan. But come on buddy. Have you been drinking a bit much of your very own hand crafted and delicious kool aid? : )

The most useful and important federal intervention into elections run at the state level was the Voting Rights Act. By far the most important and effective civil rights legislation in our history. Which VRA, as you know, the Roberts Court has pretty much vaporized.

The things you foreshadow will never happen until after Justice ACB's funeral. At the earliest.

Among other reasons for voting dem dem dem dem this fall is to keep/put the WH and Senate in Dem hands. To make Thomas and Alito go on strict diets and workout plans like RBG did.

Because those two rat forkers want nothing more than to retire on January 21, 2025 (at full pay fyi) and then live out their remaining days whoring welfare and luxury vacations from their plutocrat owners.

BTW, I love how John Oliver offered Clarence $1 million and a free Winnebago. Like all good comedy, it is funny because there's a lot of truth in it.

[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?

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

But there was NO dissenting opinion. Doesn't dissenting mean you disagree? Spin as you will the 9 judge panel of the US Supreme Court threw the Colorado Supreme Court under the bus. I need to relook my Bills loss to the NY Giants in the wide right bowl. Upon further review the Bills actually won a moral victory.

Because all agreed to overturn Colorado...their reasoning involved significant differences and disagreement, but dissents are only when that disagreement reaches a different outcome altogether.

But you know that, right?

I understand what 9 to zip means...do you?? Your spinning skills are in desperate need of some fine tuning.

[jhu72]

...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

... this court doesn't believe in consistency of opinion. They pull their opinions out of their asses.

[ggait]

Trump was never charged with insurrection nor was he convicted of the crime. The SCOTUS just unanimously made that decision. The horse is way past dead MD you can stop beating it now. The Colorado Supremes gave it a good go but sadly in all legal respects they were dead wrong. I know that is a reality that is very hard for you to accept. To quote Walter Cronkite...and that's the way it is.

C&S -- yes the vote was 9-0. Which I predicted the day the case was argued.

But everything else you write, however, is complete doofus troll nonsense and totally forking wrong. That's the way it is.

So do us a favor. STFU so you stop embarassing yourself.

With all due respect, ggait, esq.

[Seacoaster(1)]

They all concurred in the basic judgment that a State cannot disqualify a federal officeholder from a State ballot. Thus, no "dissenting opinions." Four of them thought five of them went beyond the minimum necessary to reverse, so they wrote or joined in separate opinions to that effect. This four wouldn't necessarily require a federal statute. Easy.

Again, one wonder why anyone tries to "debate" -- hell, even "educate" or discuss -- anything with C&S. His obtusery is on a level that is hard to even imagine.

The part that isn't in any of the opinions is pretty interesting. The Court could have tried to absolve Trump of having engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States and didn't, which is a stunning statement by the Court. So both the trial court and the Colorado Supreme Court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3, and the Supreme Court let that stand.

[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

... this court doesn't believe in consistency of opinion. They pull their opinions out of their asses.

...yer not lying. But remember, this Court will pass. And when it does...who knows, right? It's why I wrote "it might be years or decades...."

[jhu72]

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.

But there was NO dissenting opinion. Doesn't dissenting mean you disagree? Spin as you will the 9 judge panel of the US Supreme Court threw the Colorado Supreme Court under the bus. I need to relook my Bills loss to the NY Giants in the wide right bowl. Upon further review the Bills actually won a moral victory.

Because all agreed to overturn Colorado...their reasoning involved significant differences and disagreement, but dissents are only when that disagreement reaches a different outcome altogether.

But you know that, right?

I understand what 9 to zip means...do you??

The 4 women wrote opinions which said the court went too far and claiming the 5 men were legislating from the bench, you know the thing that you claim to hate. They DISSENTED, did not support the entire decision as written. The women only agreed with the decision that in this particular case the court decided correctly - THE CASE AND ONLY THE CASE! There is more going on here than you understand, clearly. The 5 men decided some things that were irrelevant in this case, not needed to be decided.

[jhu72]

They all concurred in the basic judgment that a State cannot disqualify a federal officeholder from a State ballot. Thus, no "dissenting opinions." Four of them thought five of them went beyond the minimum necessary to reverse, so they wrote or joined in separate opinions to that effect. This four wouldn't necessarily require a federal statute. Easy.

Again, one wonder why anyone tries to "debate" -- hell, even "educate" or discuss -- anything with C&S. His obtusery is on a level that is hard to even imagine. -- agreed

The part that isn't in any of the opinions is pretty interesting. The Court could have tried to absolve Trump of having engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States and didn't, which is a stunning statement by the Court. So both the trial court and the Colorado Supreme Court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3, and the Supreme Court let that stand.

[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.

But there was NO dissenting opinion. Doesn't dissenting mean you disagree? Spin as you will the 9 judge panel of the US Supreme Court threw the Colorado Supreme Court under the bus. I need to relook my Bills loss to the NY Giants in the wide right bowl. Upon further review the Bills actually won a moral victory. After all, Scott Norwood damn near made that field goal. I appreciate the desperation from some of you folks in a pathetic attempt to spin a loss into a win. I do understand the thought process of the Colorado Supremes. They threw it against the wall hoping it might stick.

For the last time - read the effing opinion completely for Pete's sake - there was a concurrent opinion authored by Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. Coney-Barrett also issued one on her own.

Lastly,, there was NO MENTION of insurrection in any of the opinions. They dodged it by ruling that Congress and not the states has the power to decide ballot qualification for Federal elections.

Diamond bit required to drill through GRANITE.

[cradleandshoot]

...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.

Picture the SCOTUS stepping in, and forcing all States to adopt a uniform, Colorado-Style election that makes it EASY to register and vote.

Or....and this would make me happier because of the irony of R's getting what they CLAIM to want: the Fed stepping in and disallowing all absentee ballots or "ballot harvesting". And then watch as R's lose election after election because it's harder for the elderly to vote.

We'll see. This could take years or decades. But the die is cast.

Well what trump will be crowing about today is how he won and helped stop the Democrats from stealing the election. Why does everyone on this forum not see or understand why this was a very bad decision by the Colorado Supremes? They just gave more ammunition to the trump people to whine about stealing the election. Optics do mean a lot. In the minds of many on the fence voters this could be seen as an attempt to punish trump. That is what it was if folks here want to be honest about it. The irony is that this tactic might come back to haunt the Dems in election ads this fall. I give the Dems credit, they are willing to go all in. IMO the Republican party whatever that represents today will be claiming far and wide the democrats were trying to cheat trump. I betcha todays decision becomes an important part of those ads.

[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.

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.

You asked the question. It's a straightforward answer.

Trump was fully represented by counsel, witnesses and documentary evidence presented by both sides. Full due process, opposite of 'kangaroo court'.

Adjudicated under the rule of law. You just hate the answer.

And no, I never supported this course of action to deal with the Trump 'problem' as it seemed so unlikely to succeed with this SCOTUS. I predicted that SCOTUS would find a technical rationale for ruling against the Republican voters who brought the case, and against the lower courts and State officials. There were multiple such possibilities.

Doesn't mean I didn't support the logic that Trump should be found ineligible to serve as President under the 14th. But the best mechanism for that would have been a conviction in the Senate...enormous fail by McConnell. Big miscalculation.

Short of that requires rejection at the voting booth, which I've consistently said would be best achieved with an ignominiously overwhelming loss that might break the cult fever.

Trump was never charged with insurrection nor was he convicted of the crime. The SCOTUS just unanimously made that decision. The horse is way past dead MD you can stop beating it now. The Colorado Supremes gave it a good go but sadly in all legal respects they were dead wrong. I know that is a reality that is very hard for you to accept. To quote Walter Cronkite...and that's the way it is.

Again, wrong.
The case adjudicated that Trump did "engage in insurrection" which is the language of the 14th Amendment.

And SCOTUS did NOT reverse that part of the decision. They did not reverse that finding.

Not sure why you're being so dense and argumentative as clearly you're overjoyed with the decision.

I'm fine with it, up to a point.

Personally, I think all four of judges writing dissenting concurrences were right that the majority should have decided on narrower grounds and not expanded the role of Congress, but that's getting into the Constitutional weeds.

Read the opinions for yourself cradle and stop parroting your Chinese news feed.

[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.

Picture the SCOTUS stepping in, and forcing all States to adopt a uniform, Colorado-Style election that makes it EASY to register and vote.

Or....and this would make me happier because of the irony of R's getting what they CLAIM to want: the Fed stepping in and disallowing all absentee ballots or "ballot harvesting". And then watch as R's lose election after election because it's harder for the elderly to vote.

We'll see. This could take years or decades. But the die is cast.

Well what trump will be crowing about today is how he won and helped stop the Democrats from stealing the election. Why does everyone on this forum not see or understand why this was a very bad decision by the Colorado Supremes? They just gave more ammunition to the trump people to whine about stealing the election. Optics do mean a lot. In the minds of many on the fence voters this could be seen as an attempt to punish trump. That is what it was if folks here want to be honest about it. The irony is that this tactic might come back to haunt the Dems in election ads this fall. I give the Dems credit, they are willing to go all in. IMO the Republican party whatever that represents today will be claiming far and wide the democrats were trying to cheat trump. I betcha todays decision becomes an important part of those ads.

The case was brought by Republican voters who had voted for Trump in 2020 but saw Jan 6 as an insurrection and believed that should make Trump ineligible to serve again. Blame it on them.

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump was never charged with insurrection nor was he convicted of the crime. The SCOTUS just unanimously made that decision. The horse is way past dead MD you can stop beating it now. The Colorado Supremes gave it a good go but sadly in all legal respects they were dead wrong. I know that is a reality that is very hard for you to accept. To quote Walter Cronkite...and that's the way it is.

C&S -- yes the vote was 9-0. Which I predicted the day the case was argued.

But everything else you write, however, is complete doofus troll nonsense and totally forking wrong. That's the way it is.

So do us a favor. STFU so you stop embarassing yourself.

With all due respect, ggait, esq.

[njbill]

If in the first two years of the Biden presidency, when the Dems controlled both Houses, Congress had passed a law that either specifically said Trump had engaged in an insurrection or that the Attorney General had the authority to determine whether someone had engaged in an insurrection and was thus disqualified from holding office, anyone think this Supreme Court would have held that law unconstitutional?

[a fan]

Personally, I think all four of judges writing dissenting concurrences were right that the majority should have decided on narrower grounds and not expanded the role of Congress, but that's getting into the Constitutional weeds.

Yes, but this is the part that folks like me that can't stand the election games that parties play (gerrymandering, making it hard for the poor) are applauding.

You can bet that a future case on gerrymandering for House Districts, etc, will cite chapter and verse from this decision....14th Amendment means that Congress, and thereby the SCOTUS, determines how Federal elections are held.

Now granted, this assumes the SCOTUS will actually follow their own freaking rulings, which is, I know, asking a lot....but I can't wait to see this decision being put into practice.