Colorado Supreme Court removed Donald Trump from the primary ballot

Zurn wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Could you point to the part of the clause that says the have to have been convicted?

So all I have to do is accuse Joe Biden of insurrection and you would be okay throwing him off the ballot?    Interesting democracy you are in favor of.

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Trump remains eligible to return to the White House.

The Colorado Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that blocks former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot.

Welch also outlined how Michigan law was different from that in Colorado, whose state Supreme Court ruled Dec. 19 that Trump was ineligible to appear on that state’s primary ballot.

“Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan,” she said, noting that Colorado requires an affidavit by candidates affirming they are eligible to run.

“The appellants have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office,” wrote Welch.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson on Thursday formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a “clear and quick decision” on whether former president Donald Trump is eligible to serve as president under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The case, Trump v. Anderson, et.al., appeals a ruling barring the former president from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado. Oral arguments in the case begin on Feb. 8.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Well, did he actually engage in insurrection? It's actually quite simple. Did he whip up a riot of people to march on the capital, vandalize government buildings, beat cops with american flags, break windows, break into a government building in an effort to stop government proceedings, and then refuse to do anything about it as it was happening for many hours? Did he do something like that? Because Trump did that, clearly. We all saw it that fateful day. Live unedited video feeds of guttoral screaming and rioting and cop beating, and attacks on our government building and proceedings.

Your argument is basically: everything you heard and saw is actually not what you think, so he can't be thrown off the ballot because, well, what really is an insurrection? (throws up hands)

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://michiganadvance.com/blog/benson-asks-u-s-supreme-court-for-quick-decision-on-trump-eligibility-for-2024-ballot/

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://michiganadvance.com/blog/benson-asks-u-s-supreme-court-for-quick-decision-on-trump-eligibility-for-2024-ballot/

Kicking people off the ballot:  the Democrat way of protecting democracy.  

Zurn wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Well, did he actually engage in insurrection?  It's actually quite simple.  Did he whip up a riot of people to march on the capital, vandalize government buildings, beat cops with american flags, break windows, break into a government building in an effort to stop government proceedings, and then refuse to do anything about it as it was happening for many hours?  Did he do something like that?  Because Trump did that, clearly.  We all saw it that fateful day.  Live unedited video feeds of guttoral screaming and rioting and cop beating, and attacks on our government building and proceedings.

Your argument is basically: everything you heard and saw is actually not what you think, so he can't be thrown off the ballot because, well, what really is an insurrection? (throws up hands)

You would think that with all this, somebody by now would have actually been convicted of insurrection.  

Based on past disqualifications under the 14th amendment, that fact has little bearing on the Disqualification Clause. Of the eight people who have been disqualified under this part of the Constitution, at least five were not convicted of any crime. Past disqualifications also suggest that Jan 6. could constitute an insurrection.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus says Niet, trump back on ballot

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus says Niet, trump back on ballot

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

Village Idiot wrote:Can't imagine this being legal.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://michiganadvance.com/blog/benson-asks-u-s-supreme-court-for-quick-decision-on-trump-eligibility-for-2024-ballot/

Kicking people off the ballot:  the Democrat way of protecting democracy.  

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
dude, you're on record proclaiming that US judicial system, the Constitution and democracy "doesn't really mean anything", so you probably should sit this one out.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus says Nyet, trump back on ballot

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Kicking people off the ballot:  the Democrat way of protecting democracy.  

dude, you're on record proclaiming that US judicial system, the Constitution and democracy "doesn't really mean anything", so you probably should sit this one out.

of course, you won't... because 'pro-life' christian republican/libertarians don't think rules apply to you.

Zurn wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus says Nyet, trump back on ballot

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

Letting voters vote on their preferred candidates sounds like a victory for democracy.

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty of RWNJ's who believe the Bush v Gore was decided correctly even though Gore won the popular vote.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus says Niet, trump back on ballot

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

me from December:

Village Idiot wrote:Can't imagine this being legal.

how fucked up of a country do we have when and idiot like me has a more reasonable view of the legal system than the fine folks on the Colorado Supreme Court?

also, it'll be interesting to see if the 'pro-life' christian republican/libertarians who think that the US Judicial System "doesn't really mean anything" support this judicial decision.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty of RWNJ's who believe the Bush v Gore was decided correctly even though Gore won the popular vote.

Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College. That's how our constitutional republic is set up.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty of RWNJ's who believe the Bush v Gore was decided correctly even though Gore won the popular vote.

Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College.   That's how our constitutional republic is set up.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

me from December:



how fucked up of a country do we have when and idiot like me has a more reasonable view of the legal system than the fine folks on the Colorado Supreme Court?

also, it'll be interesting to see if the 'pro-life' christian republican/libertarians who think that the US Judicial System "doesn't really mean anything" support this judicial decision.

While I wish DT was removed, the provision doesn't designate who exactly has authority to do this so this seems to be another example of this scotus picking and choosing winners and making up rules.  Now, unfortunately, there is very little deterrence for somebody engaging in insurrection so long as we remain divided like we are where one party will NEVER vote against their own no matter the crime.  Having the states carry out the 14th amendment would have been a massive deterrence for anyone even remotely engaging in insurrection.  While I understand the problems with that (i.e. one state loosening the definition, to say, perhaps, a rousing political speech = insurrection, the answer to that is quite simple - specifically define the actions and limitations in Congress and keep the power at the state level.  If a state still takes liberties, it gets appealed to scotus anyways.  Instead, sadly, now we have a 14th amendment that can for all intents and purposes never be used and therefore an ineffective waste of space.  I'm sure the writers of that one never intended for this to be the case, either, so this scotus is again short sighted and absurd. This ruling makes it so that for the 14th to be used, there is a prerequisite that our L and R politicians maintain some dignity and objectivity when it comes to actual anti American insurrectionist behavior.

The issue is that we know already that that is not possible, our politicians have proven time and time again to not care about truth or objective judgements when it is something that harms their own party. This is true of both sides to some extent but especially true for Republicans as Democrats have proven every now and again to be capable of exercising harmful judgement against one of their own (see all franken as ane example). Whether or not they would do so in a serious case like this remains to be seen, however

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
dude, you're on record proclaiming that US judicial system, the Constitution and democracy "doesn't really mean anything", so you probably should sit this one out.

Dude, I am not on record proclaiming that.   Why the need to lie?    My observation has always been that leftists don't care about the truth when "proclaiming" their preferred narrative.   I guess this is a good example of that.  

Zurn wrote:  the findings of a court (especially a NY court) aren't really proof of anything.  

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College.   That's how our constitutional republic is set up.

Not so fast my toilet tech friend   you are arguing the wrong point.  What you should be doing is defending the scotus case over the Florida recount, not explaining how we are a republic, like an idiot

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Not so fast my toilet tech friend   you are arguing the wrong point.  What you should be doing is defending the scotus case over the Florida recount, not explaining how we are a republic, like an idiot

it's pretty entertaining how he thinks that, in this instance - when it comes to his racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist hero - the finding of a court really is proof of something.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
it's pretty entertaining how he thinks that, in this instance - when it comes to his racist, bigoted christian sexual predator convicted rapist hero - the finding of a court really is proof of something.

Indeed. We need to come to terms here that Zurn is literally a step below everyone else in his thinking. He makes unrelated arguments all the time thinking he's actually arguing something valid. It's proof that he doesn't truly understand the issues, much less some of the variables at play here.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Dude, I am not on record proclaiming that.   Why the need to lie?    My observation has always been that leftists don't care about the truth when "proclaiming" their preferred narrative.   I guess this is a good example of that.  

in reference to your racist, bigoted christian hero sexual predator convicted rapist being convicted of rape:

Zurn wrote:  the findings of a court (especially a NY court) aren't really proof of anything.  

I only work with what I'm given, dude.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

in reference to your racist, bigoted christian hero sexual predator convicted rapist being convicted of rape:



I only work with what I'm given, dude.

Are you really this dense Bob, or do you just act that way as  part of your hippie schtick?

I stand by my statement that jury verdicts aren't proof of anything.    I have been very clear in that yet you keep lying about what I said.   I never said jury verdicts don't mean anything nor have I extrapolated my comment to the Constitution and all of democracy.

A jury verdict didn't proof Carlos Deluna murdered someone yet it sure meant a helluva lot to him and his family.  

Your hippie schtick response to Carlos Deluna was to mock him.   Pathetic.    

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

in reference to your racist, bigoted christian hero sexual predator convicted rapist being convicted of rape:



I only work with what I'm given, dude.

Are you really this dense Bob, or do you just act that way as part of your hippie schtick?

I stand by my statement that jury verdicts aren't proof of anything. I have been very clear in that yet you keep lying about what I said. I never said jury verdicts don't mean anything nor have I extrapolated my comment to the Constitution and all of democracy.

A jury verdict didn't proof Carlos Deluna murdered someone yet it sure meant a helluva lot to him and his family.

Your hippie schtick response to Carlos Deluna was to mock him. Pathetic.

Zurn wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

in reference to your racist, bigoted christian hero sexual predator convicted rapist being convicted of rape:



I only work with what I'm given, dude.

Are you really this dense Bob, or do you just act that way as  part of your hippie schtick?

I stand by my statement that jury verdicts aren't proof of anything.    I have been very clear in that yet you keep lying about what I said.   I never said jury verdicts don't mean anything nor have I extrapolated my comment to the Constitution and all of democracy.

A jury verdict didn't proof Carlos Deluna murdered someone yet it sure meant a helluva lot to him and his family.  

Your hippie schtick response to Carlos Deluna was to mock him.   Pathetic.    

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:

Are you really this dense Bob, or do you just act that way as  part of your hippie schtick?

I stand by my statement that jury verdicts aren't proof of anything.    I have been very clear in that yet you keep lying about what I said.   I never said jury verdicts don't mean anything nor have I extrapolated my comment to the Constitution and all of democracy.

A jury verdict didn't proof Carlos Deluna murdered someone yet it sure meant a helluva lot to him and his family.  

Your hippie schtick response to Carlos Deluna was to mock him.   Pathetic.    

 

A jury verdict, just like a judge's verdict is proof that the winning side PROVED its case in court.

You can, and people often do, disagree from afar as to if the events are "true" or not, but 10 times out of 10, if you were a jury member you would vote the same way the jury members voted.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:
 

A jury verdict, just like a judge's verdict is proof that the winning side PROVED its case in court.

You can, and people often do, disagree from afar as to if the events are "true" or not, but 10 times out of 10, if you were a jury member you would vote the same way the jury members voted.

10 times out of 10 Zurn will use his head and vote on a jury like other juries would? I find that a little far fetched.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:
 

A jury verdict, just like a judge's verdict is proof that the winning side PROVED its case in court.

You can, and people often do, disagree from afar as to if the events are "true" or not, but 10 times out of 10, if you were a jury member you would vote the same way the jury members voted.

10 times out of 10 Zurn will use his head and vote on a jury like other juries would? I find that a little far fetched.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
you're not wrong that verdicts don't mean you were necessarily 100% guilty

For all intents and purposes though, in our society, you are convicted you are considered guilty and have done it.

 To say otherwise is pandering to your lord and savior, DJT. Whilst his gonads you fondle vigorously in your hand.

Trapper Gus wrote: but 10 times out of 10, if you were a jury member you would vote the same way the jury members voted.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:


during the jury selection process, he would simply say that the US judicial system, the Constitution and the court/jury decisions "didn't really mean anything" and would be told his services were no longer needed.

unless, of course, he was being voir dire'd by his racist, bigoted, christian sexual predator and convicted rapist hero's attorney for one of his many trials. In which case, they'd love to have him on the jury.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote: but 10 times out of 10, if you were a jury member you would vote the same way the jury members voted.

I've been on a jury twice. Once the verdict was unanimous and once I voted with the minority in a civil trial.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:

I've been on a jury twice.   Once the verdict was unanimous and once I voted with the minority in a civil trial.  

So, this is all about your hurt feelings from the second trial...