The Jan 6th TRAITORS

No, it will not.

They will be ruling on whether or not Colorado's decision was lawful. Clearly, it was not. They'll not have to decide or even discuss what did or didn't happen on January 6th. That isn't the point and has nothing to do with it.

It was the job of congress and the department of justice to determine whether or not Trump did anything at all unlawful on January 6th. They didn't. That doesn't give a group of liberal judges in the state of Colorado the right to say that he did without first charging, trying and convicting him of the crime.

And what makes it all so much worse is that my state of Georgia HAS done exactly that: charge Trump with trying to overthrow and interfere with the election.

If Colorado is going to be so damn lazy and chicken shit as to not bother to charge the man and convict him, the least they could have done is wait to see Trump convicted in Georgia.

After that, they would have been well within their rights to say, "Trump tried to overthrow a free and fair election, overturn the will of the people, and we do not want that in our state, so we're banning him from running for office in this state and he will not appear as a candidate for president either." and they could cite the conviction in Georgia as grounds.

And that would have been that. There wouldn't have been anything SCOTUS could do about it.

But SCOTUS can't let this bullshit ruling stand. If they do, then you will have every partisan state senate, political group and rich men with lawyers on retainer making motions to remove congressmen, Senators, mayors, governors and everything else under the sun from every ballot in the land without any due process at all.

That simply can NEVER be allowed to happen.
 
Interesting read Section 3

Section 3.​

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Click to expand...

The reasoning I'm hearing is that Section 3 specifically doesn't say "convicted of insurrection".
 
🙄

Many extraordinarily biased people say the same thing. They don't bother reading the rest of the constitution, especially the 5th ammendment, where everyone not only has the presumption of innocence, but that nobody can be punished for any crime without due process of law.

They don't have to write "found guilty of" on every single thing in the constitution because the rules are set from the very beginning that everyone accused of a crime of any kind must be given due process of law.

What they did was find Trump guilty without ever having charged him, let alone try him before a jury of his peers and rightly receive a guilty verdict.

What's more, and this is the real ass kicker, Colorado used a FEDERAL STATUTE in order to evoke a STATE LAW.

By doing that, they have given up jurisdiction of the very law they wrote to the federal government.

And since the federal government never so much as charged Trump for anything related to January 6th, the case holds no water whatsoever.

Again, partisan hacks are doing to the constitution what evangelical assholes do to the Bible: pick and choose little lines of a verse rather than taking the book/constitution as a whole.

It is doomed to failure and rightly so.

And just so we're clear, here's what the 5th says, that was written 77 years BEFORE the 14th was.
​
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."​
 
Last edited:
Gomez Adams said:
If they do, then you will have every partisan state senate, political group and rich men with lawyers on retainer making motions to remove congressmen, Senators, mayors, governors and everything else under the sun from every ballot in the land without any due process at all.
Click to expand...

And I absolutely HATE being right all the time.

Texas is going to try to kick Biden off the ballot.

www.thedailybeast.com

Texas Lt. Guv Threatens to Take Biden Off State’s Ballot After Colorado Ruling

‘Maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border,’ Patrick told Fox News.
www.thedailybeast.com

This is what happens when you do bullshit moves - it opens the door for equal levels of bullshit from the other side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeedox
Well, apparently she just acted like she could do whatever she wanted, and every time she get busted for it they'd warn her and that would be it.

This last time was the final straw. Now, she's going to prison for 4 years and 3 months since she couldn't bring herself to follow the simple rules of going to work, do your grocery shopping and go home and stay there sentence.

Fucking idiot.

She's not the first either. A good majority of them are winding up going to prison because they act like they got away with it all by getting house arrest and go back to doing whatever the hell they want.
 

The decision came after a group of former Maine lawmakers said that Trump should be disqualified based on a provision of the U.S. Constitution that bars people from holding office if they engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" after previously swearing an oath to the United States.

The ruling, which can be appealed to a state court, applies only to the March primary election, but it could affect Trump's status for the November general election.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah. It's like when California legalized pot: everyone else saw the Feds didn't do anything and they started jumping on the bandwagon.

It's all going to be for nothing because SCOTUS is going to crush it.
 
I don't think SCOTUS will. I think that's why they declined the previous push from Jack Smith (?). They don't want to have to rule against him and incur his rath and social media outbursts.

Imagine if he starts talking about removing SCOTUS judges who don't do what he wants. They may be in republican pockets but they also know crazy when they see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back