Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

Having a difficult time are ya.
I understand

 

This would qualify as a great soap opera.
Given Trumps lies and "confusion" one is hard pressed to know who he really is

 

There is no ramifications to Trump no matter how they rule.
So much for Constitutional Scholars

 

You need to catch up…the ineligibility is not determined by conviction of a crime.

 

You didn’t answer the question did you…?

What will be your response if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling…?

 

The court system is part of due process

The court found compelling evidence including audio recordings, testimony and photographs that led them to say he had engaged in insurrection against the United States when he pushed his supporters and false electors to overthrow an election result.

It’s fairly well documented.

The same cannot be said for Biden on the other hand, y’all might not like him but how would it be twisted that he has engaged in an insurrection against the United States?

 

Write in.

 

I'll take your word for it.

Have you read the judgment?

 

So now you DO agree with the 14th Amendment? I'm confused. Please settle on an actual position.

 

I'm good.

No, it's you that is having trouble "understanding".

 

How the U.S. Supreme Court rules is HUGE, to tRaitor tRump certainly. But ESPECIALLY to ALL Americans. :duh!

 

Dementia doesnt appear in the constitution anywhere, conversely insurrection does.

 

You're commenting on a judgment you haven't read.

The Colorado court doesn't say Trump is an insurrectionist.

It says Trump has lent comfort to insurrectionists.

This is easy to prove at the time of the Capitol riot and afterwards, Trump has said many times that he would pardon those who were condemned for sedition.

 

But the “will of the voters” has no bearing on the constitutionality of removing Trump from the ballot.

With all due respect, I ask this question:
Donald Trump and his team literally tried to usurp the Electoral College, and when that didn't work, he then tried to submit fake electors, and had Mike Pence not challenged that, Donald Trump would be president, literally denying the will of the voters. Do you seriously support what he did here

And when we discuss J6, can we PLEASE at least admit that the motive was to instal Donald Trump as a dictator. Thats not hyperoble, thats an adjudicated fact. We cannot allow the debate around J6 to be “they were just there to air grievance”, because thats not why they were there. Had they succeeded, they would have installed Trump as the POTUS. Whenever the right talks about J6 they claim it a peacefull protest, but the motive of that protest was to overthrow a free and fair election and install Trump. That CANNOT be glossed over when we are discussing J6 and those who were there and those who were charged

 

Neither does convicting someone of a crime without a jury.
But thats not stopping these 4 idiot Democrat judges.

 

This has nothing to do with criminal conviction. There are no criminal charges involved in the 14th Amendment.

 

You can't convict anyone of a crime without a jury no matter how they rule.
But you can turn this country into a banana republic by allowing other judges to do so

 

This isn't about being convicted of a crime. This isn't how the 14th Amendment has EVER worked.

 

Nope, won’t work. This ruling also excludes write-ins.

 

So you think the constitution, that is the basis for every law in this country, is not something that we should follow ? The punishment for the ACTION, is clearly spelled out in the constitution, which clearly states that simple “participation” is the measure of the act:

 

Yet Justice Brian Boatright dissented, that Colorado election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection,” and said he would have dismissed the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

“In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code.

Just like every other judge in every other state that shot this idiocy down.
But magically you know more than they do. lol
Now the SCOTUS will shoot it down forever showing the country, once again, how Democrats will KNOWINGLY disregard the constitution in their efforts to control an election and how Democrats think they can tell the voters who they can and can't vote for.

If I were you, I would prepare myself. After holding a trial for bank fraud, without a single bank claiming they were defrauded, and now 4 Dumbass Democrat Judges deciding they can remove a candidate because THEY declared him guilty, the blow back on all of this is going to be massive.

 

Yet Justice Brian Boatright dissented, that Colorado election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection,” and said he would have dismissed the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

“In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code.

Just like every other judge who looked at this in the country and trashed it as the idiocy it is.

But I can't even begin to tell you, once the SCOTUS shoots this garbage down, how much this country owes you guys a real debt of gratitude for helping wake up Americans to what Democrats are willing to do to get what they want and interfere in elections.

 

Another thing the "Constitutional Scholar" mentioned. "The 14th sec 3 doesn't requie conviction of insurrection:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

So there is that.

 

Wasn't it you that pointed out, when discussing Heller, Bruen and McDonald, that the dissenting opinion while sometimes interesting, doesn't count.

 

I think we will take the SCOTUS word for it instead of someone who thinks judges can rule from the bench on criminal convictions.
Thanks