barbacoa taco said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

The system is rigged against Trump!! Deep state!!!!!


…wait

---

Even some leftists can still recognize egregious govt overreach.

---

Anyone with half a brain knew the court would rule against CO and the 9-0 count is evidence of that

---

The problem is, the people on your side who wasted the court's time on this tantrum over Trump don't even have half a brain it seems.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Adding to the intrigue is that the court also announced that justices would not "take the bench" or enter the chamber and be seated while the decision is read.

---

The stakes can be no higher and this is the absolute pinnacle of 'mailing it in.'

Perhaps a tacit admission that 'we've made this decision .... but we ain't gonna like it!'

---

Someone must have liked it. It was unanimous including the leftists on the court.

Let me add this...

If Congress were to try to pass a law that specifically banned Trump from running for President at this stage, there would be a revolution...the kind with guns and people dying in the streets...

SCOTUS got this one right, and I applaud the unanimous decision... I think ACB accurately alludes to this in the decision...while the justices disagree with how they arrived at the same decision, it is not nearly as important as Americans accepting that every justice agreed that there was no consitutional grounds for removing Trump from the ballot, and that needs to be the message to the masses...

Folks are playing with matches around a powder keg if they disagree...

aggiehawg said:

---

I said a very long time ago that the 14th argument was not legally viable. It was a dumb argument to begin with.

That is not the same thing as saying that SCOTUS would agree in an unanimous decision however. The fact that it ended up as unanimous, although by different paths. And it was all of those different paths that prove it was not viable. Too many off ramps.

---

Did they get there by different paths though? From my reading, it seems like they all agreed on the reasoning as to why the states couldn't do this. Where they diverge is exactly how that should be done by Congress. The four in concurrence just said that question wasn't before us today, so we shouldn't address it.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

CNN: "This is a HISTORIC day in the taking down of our Constitutional Democracy"

MSNBC: "This decision will go down in HISTORY as the beginning of the end of free and fair elections"

These people are insane.....

---

To the extent that there are any rational thinking dems left in the world, I hope you read this tripe and wake up to the fact that everything you've been hearing from these idiots for the past 20 years is absolute horse ***** These people are clinically insane. It's not a "constitutional crisis" every time you lefty idiots don't get your way.

---

Here's a sample. WHTF?! Is Whoopi Goldberg literally suggesting Biden should "throw every Republican in jail" if Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump

WHAT?! Whoopi Goldberg even leaves libs co-hosts on The View STUNNED LIVE on-air after suggesting Biden should "throw every Republican in jail” if Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump pic.twitter.com/Socxef6Bkt

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 4, 2024

Petulant, childish name-calling. The View? Nope: The Concurrence pic.twitter.com/rYmPr9KIAU

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) March 4, 2024

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

The system is rigged against Trump!! Deep state!!!!!


…wait

---

Even some leftists can still recognize egregious govt overreach.

---

Anyone with half a brain knew the court would rule against CO and the 9-0 count is evidence of that

---

Well there is one bird brain on here who didn't realize it.

---

Oh there's a lot more than just one but they scattered like roaches when the light came on.

I don't think they're ruling Trump was an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" or not.

It's a hypothetical. Obviously the whole discussion of who decides how the Amendment is enforced is predicated on the hypothetical that someone broke an oath and participated in an insurrection.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

CNN: "This is a HISTORIC day in the taking down of our Constitutional Democracy"

MSNBC: "This decision will go down in HISTORY as the beginning of the end of free and fair elections"

These people are insane.....

---

To the extent that there are any rational thinking dems left in the world, I hope you read this tripe and wake up to the fact that everything you've been hearing from these idiots for the past 20 years is absolute horse ***** These people are clinically insane. It's not a "constitutional crisis" every time you lefty idiots don't get your way.

---

Here's a sample. WHTF?! Is Whoopi Goldberg literally suggesting Biden should "throw every Republican in jail" if Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump

WHAT?! Whoopi Goldberg even leaves libs co-hosts on The View STUNNED LIVE on-air after suggesting Biden should "throw every Republican in jail” if Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump pic.twitter.com/Socxef6Bkt

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 4, 2024

---

Benny, Whoopi is an idiot, but that is NOT what she said. She said that he COULD throw every Republican in jail, and you can also hear her say "This is not a good thing."

She is saying that Trump's claims to absolute Presidential Immunity are ... problematic ... no matter WHO is in the White House.

Quote:

---

Obviously the whole discussion of who decides how the Amendment is enforced is predicated on the hypothetical that someone broke an oath and participated in an insurrection.

---

No....it's not.

The 14th Amendment is clear. It is a Federal issue. Period.

Maybe I am misinterpreting your post.

barbacoa taco said:

---

The system is rigged against Trump!! Deep state!!!!!


…wait

---

IANAL
This seems the correct ruling.

Next up for the Democratic Party leadership will be weaponizing their control of Congress to remove conservatives from ballets in conservative flyover states. They considered sacrificing Colorado's actions for the greater good of centralized authority they will control at all costs.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I don't think they're ruling Trump was an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" or not.

It's a hypothetical. Obviously the whole discussion of who decides how the Amendment is enforced is predicated on the hypothetical that someone broke an oath and participated in an insurrection.

---

This is how I read it too. That tweet is terribly misleading. They didn't call Trump an "oath breaking insurrectionist".

What oath was broken? Was it a Civil War era oath? Was it an oath taken that is not part of the amendment?

Connect the dots.

bobbranco said:

---

What oath was broken? Was it a Civil War era oath? Was it an oath taken that is not part of the amendment?

Connect the dots.

---

The President is not an "officer of the United States," as even the new looney tunes Justice noted.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

She is saying that Trump's claims to absolute Presidential Immunity are ... problematic ... no matter WHO is in the White House.

---

This ruling has nothing to do with presidential immunity. At all.

---

No, it does not. She was discussing a different case, which is set for oral argument in April.

Did you watch the video? Did you hear "this is not set for oral argument until April?"

I ask, because you usually cannot be bothered with such trivialities.

bobbranco said:

---

You are arguing to argue. You are serving no purpose other than to troll. Anyway immunity was not part of this ruling.

---

Another poster who did not bother to watch the video or consider the context of her statement.

Unsurprising.

This thread is about the Colorado case.

Stop being tedious. We already have a poster from a tiny panhandle town who does that for us.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

This thread is about the Colorado case.

Stop being tedious. We already have a poster from a tiny panhandle town who does that for us.

---

Then tell that to the poster who posted a clip of a video about Whoopi discussing the Immunity case.

He posted it with (I suspect) the specific intent of misleading lazy individuals who would not bother to watch it. But you are FINE with that, aren't you? It is only CORRECTING him that gives you heartburn.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

CNN: "This is a HISTORIC day in the taking down of our Constitutional Democracy"

MSNBC: "This decision will go down in HISTORY as the beginning of the end of free and fair elections"

These people are insane.....

---

To the extent that there are any rational thinking dems left in the world, I hope you read this tripe and wake up to the fact that everything you've been hearing from these idiots for the past 20 years is absolute horse ***** These people are clinically insane. It's not a "constitutional crisis" every time you lefty idiots don't get your way.

---

Both sides, to a degree, whine when they don't get their way. That's just the nature of these things. However, while I'm not surprised at all legally that this is the outcome, I am glad it was 9-0 to remove what would have been an endless political attach on the Court and re-invigorated the packing the court arguments. I rarely agree with the liberal justices on the Court and often disagree with Roberts, but good on them for being unanimous today.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

What oath was broken? Was it a Civil War era oath? Was it an oath taken that is not part of the amendment?

Connect the dots.

---

The President is not an "officer of the United States," as even the new looney tunes Justice noted.

---

Was this noted in the opinions today?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

bobbranco said:
You are arguing to argue. You are serving no purpose other than to troll. Anyway immunity was not part of this ruling.

---

Another poster who did not bother to watch the video or consider the context of her statement.

Unsurprising.

---

I watched the video. But continue the derail. Please.

But let's see you unsurprisingly go through your usual mental machinations to argue incessantly.

Thus was a colorado, progressive Democrat conspiracy , Trump should have some legal recourse against the 7 and colorado.

Kozmozag said:

---

Thus was a colorado, progressive Democrat conspiracy , Trump should have some legal recourse against the 7 and colorado.

---

He should take the W, for now, and shut the **** up. After the election, sure. Right now? Keep his pie hole closed about it.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

What oath was broken? Was it a Civil War era oath? Was it an oath taken that is not part of the amendment?

Connect the dots.

---

The President is not an "officer of the United States," as even the new looney tunes Justice noted.

---

The Presidential Oath does not even include the language referenced in the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but SCOTUS did not rule on that basis. First, it would be a VERY narrow ruling. Second, it would subject them to ridicule from non-lawyers ... "What do you MEAN, the President is not a federal officer. That is CRAZY!"

Under a narrow reading of the 14th Amendment, it is not "crazy" at all, but most laymen would not understand it.