Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

My post had ZERO to do with immunity, it was merely a "sample" of the insanity of the left right now.

But as my Paw paw use to say, "un zorrillo no puede oler su olor" - a skunk can't smell his on scent.....

Kozmozag said:

---

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

---

Geez dude you can't sue sitting judges for opinions they make from the bench, judicial immunity generally extends to all judicial decisions and opinions from the bench as long as the judge has proper jurisdiction, even if a decision is made with corrupt or malicious intent. It's just the way it is.

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

You of all people should not be lamenting the lack of knowledge amongst laymen.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

It's not a "constitutional crisis" every time you lefty idiots don't get your way.

---

To them it is. It's engrained in them, particularly the younger generation of progressives.

They were spoiled and entitled little punks as children, and now they are spoiled and entitled punks as adults.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

8-1

The diversity hire will be the 1

---

You'll need to be more specific.

---

Haha. Just saw this.

Fair point. I was referring to the last one.

Foreverconservative said:

---

My post had ZERO to do with immunity, it was merely a "sample" of the insanity of the left right now...

---

Your words:

Quote:

---

Is Whoopi Goldberg literally suggesting Biden should "throw every Republican in jail" if Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump"

---

And you posted a clip of Whoopi Goldberg discussing a SCOTUS case ABOUT Presidential Immunity.

The entire POINT of her diatribe was that if a President indeed DOES have the absolute immunity for which Trump is arguing, he COULD (not "should" as you suggested) jail political rivals.

Don't post video clips, if you do not want to discuss them.

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

---

A fine example of the "tolerance" preached by the left...

CDUB98 said:

---

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.

---

Maybe so. The whole opinion is about who can enforce the amendment and how they can do it.

doubledog said:

---

These fools just got ***** slapped. We would hope that a judge that has reached this level in the judiciary would have read the constitution. Back to law school for this bunch.

---

One think that has stuck with me about these fools is the three that ruled for keeping him on the ballot all went to law school at U of Denver. The other four, the ones that thought they had the authority to remove him from the ballot, are all ivy league.

He said here's a sample.

You are being ridiculous again.

Kozmozag said:

---

Trump should have some legal recourse against the 7 (Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court) and colorado.

---

Should EVERY litigant have a cause of action against EVERY lower court that gets reversed on appeal?

If an intermediate appellate court reverses a district court, but the highest court then reinstates the district court ruling, should the litigant be able to sue the intermediate court as well?

Or is this just a TRUMP thing?

bobbranco said:

---

He said here's a sample.

You are being ridiculous again.

---

I'm not going to waste any more time with a purposely obtuse twit that bounces from thread to thread daily attempting to derail all of them

What prevents state judges from declaring that Rep A or Senator B are "insurrectionists" under their own state laws, and preventing them from being on ballots? While I applaud SCOTUS for getting this one categorically correct, it sure seems to me that nothing prevents a state court from declaring someone seeking to represent the state in Congress an "insurrectionist" and keeping them off of the ballot...

For example...the way this decision reads, it appears that a Travis County judge could declare that Ted Cruz was an insurrectionist because he tweeted something pro-Trump on Jan 6, 2020, and if the Texas SC agrees, then the state could prevent Ted Cruz from being on the ballot...

Am I wrong?

(note the example above is just a hypothetical not based on any actuall fact or event)

Im no Trump fan, but this is the correct call under Democracy.

Foreverconservative said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

He said here's a sample.

You are being ridiculous again.

---

I'm not going to waste any more time with a purposely obtuse twit that bounces from thread to thread daily attempting to derail all of them

---

Thankfully, the plain language of the Constitution won out this time. Unfortunately, pinhead lawyers are making it more and more likely that it won't be the case for that much longer.

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.

---

Nah. I think these arguments are essentially dead unless I've missed something in the opinion.

If one reads between the lines of the opinion, because they don't explicitly cover this (unless I missed it) I think its fairly clear the Justices believe the 14th Amendment applies to the President. Not the other way around. It seems entirely built in to the opinion that it applies to the Presidency.

And "Looney Tunes" Jackson's concurrence would make no sense if she ultimately decided it didn't apply to the President.

bobbranco said:

---

He said here's a sample.

You are being ridiculous again.

---

But it was NOT a "sample" of the Left being ... stupid, or whatever. It was a rare instance of Whoopi Goldberg actually being CORRECT.

If Trump's notion of absolute Presidential Immunity were to be accepted by the Court, a President COULD jail political rivals.

If you want to use Whoopi Goldberg as an "example" of Lefty foolishness, you should probably not use a rare "example" in which she is CORRECT.

Antoninus said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

Trump should have some legal recourse against the 7 (Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court) and colorado.

---

Should EVERY litigant have a cause of action against EVERY lower court that gets reversed on appeal?

If an intermediate appellate court reverses a district court, but the highest court then reinstates the district court ruling, should the litigant be able to sue the intermediate court as well?

Or is this just a TRUMP thing?

---

It's not a TRUMP thing. Vast majority of lawyers hate loser pays. Not surprising. Greed and frivolous lawsuits march along hand in hand.

Quote:

---

Am I wrong?

---

yes you are wrong. the court spelled out clearly that a state can't disqualify persons with respect to federal offices.

He said it was a sample.
Do you English?

Foreverconservative said:

---

derail

---

Did you post the video?

Did I address the point raised by the speaker IN the video?

Please explain how that is a "derail?"

If there was any derail here, it was YOUR decision to post a video totally-unrelated to the Colorado case, Skippy.

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

---

You could fill a dumptruck with all the stupid in that clip.

They really believe the President is a King and has the power to do whatever he or she wants. At least when a Democrat is President. If Trump were President and tried to do 10% of what Goldberg is suggesting, they would be losing their minds.

The fact that this show is still on the air is such a sad statement about the intellect of the American public. They know so much that isn't so, and they are proud of it.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Am I wrong?

---

yes you are wrong. the court spelled out clearly that a state can't disqualify persons with respect to federal offices.

---

No...it says states can't disqualify persons from the presidency...

It does not say that a state can't pass its own laws to disqualify someone from representating their particular state...

A Senator or Representative is a state offical sent to serve at a federal level on behalf of the state in question...this rulling does not prevent a state from disqualifying an individual from respresenting a state...

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Am I wrong?

---

yes you are wrong. the court spelled out clearly that a state can't disqualify persons with respect to federal offices.

---

Correct.

And I agree with the concurrence they didn't need to go that far in this case. I also believe some of the majority's reasoning is relatively weak when it comes to Senators/Congressmen (If they're "federal officeholders) considering they only represent one state.

bobbranco said:

---

Vast majority of lawyers hate loser pays.

---

Otherwise, you would NEVER see the "close cases" litigated. How many people would be afraid to protect their own rights, if they faced NOT ONLY their own fees and expenses, but those of the other side.

Don't get me wrong. Courts under-utilize the penalties available to them for the pursuit of truly frivolous claims, but that is an implementation problem. Judges SHOULD be using those tools on truly frivolous cases. But our system should NOT have the net effect of making people fear person ruin for attempting to assert their rights in a "close case."

FireAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Am I wrong?

---

yes you are wrong. the court spelled out clearly that a state can't disqualify persons with respect to federal offices.

---

No...it says states can't disqualify persons from the presidency...

It does not say that a state can't pass its own laws to disqualify someone from representating their particular state...

A Senator or Representative is a state offical sent to serve at a federal level on behalf of the state in question...this rulling does not prevent a state from disqualifying an individual from respresenting a state...

---

The majority talks about "federal officeholders." The concurrence was written because they didn't think the majority needed to decide anything about any offices except the Presidency.

I guess if a Senator/Congressmen isn't a "federal officeholder" then you're right.

FireAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Am I wrong?

---

yes you are wrong. the court spelled out clearly that a state can't disqualify persons with respect to federal offices.

---

No...it says states can't disqualify persons from the presidency...

It does not say that a state can't pass its own laws to disqualify someone from representating their particular state...

A Senator or Representative is a state offical sent to serve at a federal level on behalf of the state in question...this rulling does not prevent a state from disqualifying an individual from respresenting a state...

---

Did you read the opinion?

Quote:

---

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency

---

senator is not a state office or a state official.

the section of the amendment literally starts off with "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress..."

to argue that states could disqualify them in spite of this ruling has no basis whatsoever on the opinion issued today.

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

Ugh.

Another lawyer blowhard, Olbermann, who is always trying to show us how smart he is with his idiotic takes. He like many only likes to hear his voice.

eric76 said:

---

If states do not have the ability to determine which candidates for federal office can be on the ballot, does this mean that every every state must include every third party and independent candidate on the ballot?

---

nope.