WrestlingRasta Posted February 8 Posted February 8 Big day, a decision either way will have a major impact.........or they just punt it. Predictions? I think they punt it. Seems to be a lot of questions and that I don't think they want to set a precedent on. BUT....I do find this interesting: The question everyone in the media is circling around is did Trump commit insurrection? But the language in section 3 is not exclusive to committing insurrection. The phrases 'or rebellion' and 'support of' certainly come into play. There are definitely solid arguments on both sides. Should be interesting.
WrestlingRasta Posted February 8 Author Posted February 8 Just now, Ohio Elite said: I've been waiting for this one. Looks like he will file his immunity case with them as well, I think that one is closed book. This one though there is a lot of ambiguity, will be real real interesting to see how the court goes.
Ohio Elite Posted February 8 Posted February 8 8 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Looks like he will file his immunity case with them as well, I think that one is closed book. This one though there is a lot of ambiguity, will be real real interesting to see how the court goes. Agreed, seems like if they rule in Colorados favor it's gonna open pandoras box.
Bigbrog Posted February 8 Posted February 8 Yeah...I don't get into to much of the legal crap around Trump and little Biden, especially nowadays, but this one interests me. 1
Offthemat Posted February 8 Posted February 8 The Colorado Supreme Court poison Ivy Leaguers had a rough day in court today. 3
uncle bernard Posted February 8 Posted February 8 26 minutes ago, Offthemat said: The Colorado Supreme Court poison Ivy Leaguers had a rough day in court today. almost everybody involved in this case is an ivy leaguer, including trump lmao
Offthemat Posted February 8 Posted February 8 36 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: almost everybody involved in this case is an ivy leaguer, including trump lmao The Colorado Supreme Court is composed of four poison ivy leaguers, who all voted to remove Trump from the ballot, and three non-poison ivy leaguers, who all voted against removing Trump from the ballot.
headshuck Posted February 8 Posted February 8 “Ivy leaguer” doesn’t carry the same weight these days. 3
Paul158 Posted February 8 Posted February 8 2 hours ago, Offthemat said: The Colorado Supreme Court poison Ivy Leaguers had a rough day in court today. They sure did. They even got hammered from their own liberal judges. 2
Paul158 Posted February 8 Posted February 8 50 minutes ago, Offthemat said: The Colorado Supreme Court is composed of four poison ivy leaguers, who all voted to remove Trump from the ballot, and three non-poison ivy leaguers, who all voted against removing Trump from the ballot. I thought the vote was 4 to 3 and they were all liberal judges.
Offthemat Posted February 8 Posted February 8 16 minutes ago, Paul158 said: I thought the vote was 4 to 3 and they were all liberal judges. They all may be liberal, I believe they were all appointed by dimocrats.
Paul158 Posted February 8 Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Offthemat said: They all may be liberal, I believe they were all appointed by dimocrats. Yes they were all liberal. That's why it was surprising it was a 4 to 3 vote. 1
mspart Posted February 8 Posted February 8 Three had the temerity to consider this on the merits rather than hatred of Trump. Now that is a simplistic answer but I think it fits. Trump has not been charged with insurrection. I think that was made clear in the SCOTUS arguments. Does a state have the legal authority to drop a presidential candidate that otherwise met all qualifications to be on the ballot is another question that was asked. I think that will play into the decision. From what I read, it looked like an 8-1 vote on this saying CO cannot do what they did. But that can change obviously. This is a big big question. There is plenty of opinion on insurrection. But charges have not been leveled and Trump has not been indicted of it or convicted of it. As I said earlier, just because a few people say so in CO does not make it so. Trump was not part of the proceedings so to levy this on him is a gross miscarriage of justice. He was not able to defend himself so no due process. I think that will also come up for CO And Maine. Now if he had been convicted in federal court of insurrection, 1. he could be ineligible, 2. would be in prison and not campaigning unless allowed to be free during appeals. But this has not happened so this is putting the cart before the horse. mspart
WrestlingRasta Posted February 9 Author Posted February 9 I've read a few different pieces recapping today. (None of them quite match the description weighing in here but none the less). It appeared to me at least from what I read, SCOUTS biggest concern to be one state having such a major impact on what other states can do with their elections. If they ruled in favor of Colorado, that pretty much makes it law of the land. If they rule against Colorado, that sets a precedent should there be future incidents. Not anything I'm real confident in but I got the feeling of a punt, SCOTUS won't want to rule against State Sovereignty, and siding with state sovereignty is the easiest way for them to avoid one state's case deciding, in either direction, for the other 49 states in the nation. Just a hunch, way open to be wrong. PS-Section 3 is not exclusive to physically committing insurrection (if you believe his actions were not that of insurrection). There are other elements that disqualify under section 3.
Offthemat Posted February 9 Posted February 9 If you listen to the hearing, you’ll hear eight of the justices unravel every stance that the Kolorado Klan takes. Kavanaugh asked for a definition of insurrection and who was eligible to decide someone was guilty. They questioned the chaos of finding in Kolorado’s favor, having other states remove other names, those cases being challenged, and winding up having to take fifty cases to the Supreme Court every election. Jackson Brown blew him up on why they didn’t just say the restriction applied to the president if that’s what they meant. Mostly it seemed, they weren’t swallowing that it was self executing and didn’t require conviction at trial, or that states had any role in enforcing Section 3. They made it clear that given the restriction’s ability to be removed by Congress, it was unlike the age and natural born qualifications for president. They kicked the smell out of this case.
WrestlingRasta Posted February 9 Author Posted February 9 7 hours ago, Offthemat said: If you listen to the hearing, you’ll hear eight of the justices unravel every stance that the Kolorado Klan takes. Kavanaugh asked for a definition of insurrection and who was eligible to decide someone was guilty. They questioned the chaos of finding in Kolorado’s favor, having other states remove other names, those cases being challenged, and winding up having to take fifty cases to the Supreme Court every election. Jackson Brown blew him up on why they didn’t just say the restriction applied to the president if that’s what they meant. Mostly it seemed, they weren’t swallowing that it was self executing and didn’t require conviction at trial, or that states had any role in enforcing Section 3. They made it clear that given the restriction’s ability to be removed by Congress, it was unlike the age and natural born qualifications for president. They kicked the smell out of this case. Where can one listen?
WrestlingRasta Posted February 9 Author Posted February 9 Read a few more this morning and ironically CNN had the piece more descriptively in favor of Trump.
Offthemat Posted February 9 Posted February 9 5 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said: Where can one listen? https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719 1
Ohio Elite Posted March 4 Posted March 4 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-release-decisions-monday-trump-colorado-ruling-strong-po-rcna141567
ThreePointTakedown Posted March 4 Posted March 4 On 2/8/2024 at 7:13 AM, Ohio Elite said: Agreed, seems like if they rule in Colorados favor it's gonna open pandoras box. With regards to what? If you rebel against the country after swearing to protect it, then you can't be president? Can't see too many people getting popped for this particular violation. Unless the shaman straightens up and flies right. But maybe you mean that states run by a certain party, that has abandoned rationality altogether, will arbitrarily pull candidates of another party from the ballot. In violation of the oath, they themselves swore. Ya. I can see that happening. And the supreme courts of those states upholding it. Then maybe, just maybe, the howler monkey contingent of this SCOTUS will uphold them too. Thus, turning us into a banana republic. Because conservatives, will take their ball and go home and burn it all to the ground because they can't win at a fair game.
Offthemat Posted March 4 Posted March 4 49 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Burning things down is a libtardo thing It’s a mostly peaceful way of burning it down, though. 3
JimmyBT Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-be-kicked-off-colorado-ballot/ar-BB1jj4qD?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=8a0091fcf7db402fa38def90c4b5fa9e&ei=10 donny stays Edited March 4 by JimmyBT 1
Dylan Greenstein Northfield Mt. Herman, Massachusetts Class of 2025 Committed to Harvard Projected Weight: 285
Isabella Marie Gonzales Clovis East, California Class of 2025 Committed to Iowa (Women) Projected Weight: 117, 124
Maeve Witte Freehold Township, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Lock Haven (Women) Projected Weight: 117
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now