cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:42 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:25 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:18 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 1:00 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:45 pm
Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:02 am
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:44 am
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.