mspart

I think it is the opinion of many people that Trump led an insurrection. It is my opinion that he did not. He is on video saying that they should peacefully let Congress hear their voices. He did not tell them to break down doors. He did not tell them to go in with weapons (which they didn't), he did not tell them to kill anyone (which they didn't), and he did not tell them to overthrow the government that is his government (which they didn't). So no, I do not think it was an insurrection and I don't think Trump led the activities that happened after his speech. And there has been no court case trying to establish that. You don't have to be a credentialed legal scholar to know a hose job when you see one. Again, would it be permissible to keep Biden off the ballot due to merely someone's allegation of corruption? I think you would say No and I would say the same. But it is different when the name is Trump. mspart

There are lots of allegations made by lots of people against lots of people. There is nothing legal regarding this case that Trump was involved in an insurrection. Name the court case. There is none. So the CO supremes made the decision that Trump did this with no underlying court cases to show evidence that he did. It is just as bad of reasoning as Biden and corruption which you just said should not happen. There are lots of people alleging it and that seems to be your threshold here. That's what I'm doing right now. mspart

There you have said it. Bad thing to do to Biden. There is a lot of evidence but no court case. Nothing legally done about it, just like Trump. Trump was not found on video in the capitol that day. He made a speech, told them to peacefully march on the capitol (that is on video too). If it is bad to do to Biden, it is bad to do to Trump. But according to you, a court could keep Biden off the court for this corruption and it would be perfectly rational legal reasoning to do so. Bullocks to that. mspart

This means the people understand that the courts will abide by the law, not make up things to go with what they want to happen. They made up that Trump was part of an insurrection. There is no court case that makes that allegation. So they made up their minds on their own. That does not comport to democracy and this is a terrible precedent for judicial review. I do not want Trump to be President. But this is a railroading of a candidate that has never happened before in the history of our nation. Bad precedent to set. mspart

Yes, they waited until it was an emergency issue that has very little time to get weighed. Perhaps the SCOTUS can't take it up in time to allow Trump on the ballot. But where here do the people of Colorado get a say? That is democracy. Democracy is government by the voice of the people. A republic is where the people vote in representatives that have the time to consider such things. Did this go before the CO legislature? No. So the people either in a democracy or republic did not have a say. I would be shocked if the SCOTUS allows this as it sets a new precedence that candidates can willy nilly be kept off a ballot if the courts agree. And now that is judicial political activism. Something I don't think anyone wants to see. mspart

Please answer the question I asked you. I don't care that you are fine the what SCOTUS does, I asked a very similar question that I would like you to respond to. mspart

It is when there is no remedy readily available. This was timed such there is very little time to get this reversed. There is no time for the people to have a say in this. That is demonstrably not democratic. mspart

So you would be happy if a court keeps Biden off the ballot for corruption. There is ample evidence of it but no case has been made about it. But any court can just say it because that is sound legal reasoning? mspart

So based on zero evidence, zero judicial review, and zero convictions, a court can legally say anyone did anything they want to. That does not sound like perfectly sound legal reasoning. That sounds like an authoritative and statist kind of thing. We definitely need more of this sound legal reasoning in our courts today. This is why the optics look terrible on this. It is a case where a court can say a person did something with no evidence, or judicial cases making that claim. They just came up with it out of thin air. Sound legal reasoning? Yeah right. mspart

Trump has not be charged with insurrection other than the rushed impeachment in 2021. The Senate acquitted him of that. In no other place has he been anything other than charged or opined to have been a part of an insurrection. The High court in CO decided that he was part of an insurrection and therefore disqualified. I think SCOTUS gets this and asks this very question and and votes to disallow the CO courts ruling. The optics of this look bad because it is a brazen attempt to keep someone off the ballot and using any explanation for it. The ruling should hold no water at SCOTUS. The reasoning is suspect and not legal. If SCOTUS allows this then it will be a real problem. mspart

That's an insurrectionist!!! Look at the weapon he is wielding. And look at the other hoodlums with guns galore. Yep, this was an insurrection. msaprt

As you noted, it is a few people that did this. That is not democracy, that is judicial rule. Democracy is people voting. Did the people of CO vote to keep Trump off the ballot? The answer to that is NO. But that would be democracy. mspart

Thanks, the flow article is what I was looking for. mspart

I've been looking. Maybe not hard enough. mspart

There is that, but the Feds do not enforce it, so on it goes. In my mind, sanctuary entities need to not receive any federal funds of any kind. But there is not a chance that would pass right now. But that is what is needed. WA is a sanctuary state and actively tries to subvert federal attempts to capture illegals. mspart

I need to amend what I said and I can't edit it. It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch in the first instance, it is that he allowed it to continue by taking no action. The underlined items are the changes. mspart

Someone(s) already died and he did nothing to stop more from being killed. It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch, it is that he allowed it to happen by taking no action. I don't think that is an insane precedent. mspart

DOJ will try to strike it down. It will be up to the courts to do so. No doubt DOJ will sue to get this stopped like they did last time. mspart

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/ Illegals in the states: AZ 275,000 TX 1,600,000 FL 775,000 CA 2,200,000 NY 725,000 So TX, FL, and CA have more than all of NY. AZ has less. So technically you are correct. mspart

If the state law is equal to the fed law, then there is no problem. I believe that is how the laws are written. It's just that the executive branch has decided not to enforce the law. And that is creating all this mess. This is a new problem, not something we've had a lot problem with except in the recent past to now. And that is because of a decision not to enforce federal law. mspart

Can we agree he had no obligation to serve and protect the people inside the school? mspart

Exactly. mspart

For me it is if the Fed abdicate their lawful responsibility as in this case. Then the state can act and I think TX is well within their rights to do so. How does the law cover work visas? I don't know. mspart

TX, AZ, FL, and CA are housing many times more than that. TX and FL only send a small portion of what they receive everyday. What does the federal law say about giving immigrants work visas? What does federal law say about allowing everyone that wants across the border to come across the border? I don't know about the visa deal but the law on immigration has a certain amount of qualified people that can come into the country. That has been abdicated. If everyone that comes into the country per the law gets a visa, then I suppose the city could give them a visa. But now you have too many workers and wages will go down and this will be a huge economic issue everywhere, which is why we have immigration law in the first place. There are intended and unintended consequences to abdicating responsibility at the border. mspart

So this is why I am not sure I believe you when you say in your opinion, it is not good to have tens of thousands crossing the border daily. You say it is not good. Yet TX is doing something about it and you are now questioning their authority to do so. So do you really think it is a bad thing for so many people to come over? If you do, but don't think a state has the authority to stop it, then what are you doing to get the Federal government to stop it? From what I have seen, you are pretty much a rah rah for the feds and what they are doing. As far as I am concerned, the Federal government has abdicated their duty. By doing so they authorize the states to do it for them. Period. mspart