|
Post by Tricky Grama on Feb 11, 2024 14:40:07 GMT
I'm sure most listened to the arguments/responses on removing Trump from CO ballot. It was impressive, I thought. Plus I was pretty amazed at the lefties esp the newest-Jackson.
Think it'll go 9-1 or 8-1 given Sotomeyer is a nut?
|
|
|
Post by sunny225 on Feb 11, 2024 19:49:57 GMT
Well, folks are getting tired of watching the corrupt SCOTUS go through the motions of being the 'justice' bunch. They are either bought and paid for, blackmailed/family threatened, or really believe the communist/socialist drivel. Besides, it has been said that they have ruled, let them enforce it now. Or something similar.
|
|
|
Post by Ozarks Tom on Feb 11, 2024 20:38:34 GMT
I lost faith in SCOTUS back when Roberts did contortions to agree the penalty in Obamacare was really a tax. They topped it off when they refused to hear Texas' and 8 other States objections to the 2020 election as not having "standing". What possible more standing could those States have than their citizen's votes being diluted and negated by other States unconstitutionally changing their voting laws?
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Feb 12, 2024 1:34:05 GMT
I lost faith in SCOTUS back when Roberts did contortions to agree the penalty in Obamacare was really a tax. They topped it off when they refused to hear Texas' and 8 other States objections to the 2020 election as not having "standing". What possible more standing could those States have than their citizen's votes being diluted and negated by other States unconstitutionally changing their voting laws? The Obamacare decision was not one I agreed with but I understood the narrow confines the Court applied to it. The things is, Congress did NOT want it to be ruled as a "tax" but the only way it was gonna pass was if it WAS a tax under Article I section 8 of the USC. I would've been happier had the whole thing been tossed out but as any good lawyer knows, ya gotta look for loopholes, lol. Also hated how the 2020 election suits went but I said at the time, whoever the state Attorney Generals that filed them, were idiots. They could have easily filed them correctly and Constitutionally but for whatever reason, they failed to see the mistakes that a 1st year law student should. Don't shoot the messenger, but SCOTUS was 100% right when they threw out Texas' case and several others for not having standing in the SCOTUS. It's right there in the 11th amendment. biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/stateimmunity.theeleventhamendment.html#:~:text=A%20state%20may%20not%20be,the%20state%20consents%20to%20jurisdiction. Here's what they did wrong. IF a citizen of Pennsylvania had sued his OWN state in court for violating its election laws, SCOTUS could NOT have rejected the case for "no standing". But they didn't do it that way. No one did in any 50 states and I have no idea why. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Pennsylvania#:~:text=Pennsylvania%2C%20592%20U.S.%20___%20(2020,Biden%20defeated%20incumbent%20Donald%20Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Ozarks Tom on Feb 12, 2024 12:50:38 GMT
Texas and the other States held that those States had changed their voting laws unconstitutionally had affected the citizens of the suing states. In other words, those citizens were damaged irrepairably by their votes being negated through the chicanery of unlawful practices. In a national election every citizen has standing.
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Feb 12, 2024 22:58:19 GMT
Texas and the other States held that those States had changed their voting laws unconstitutionally had affected the citizens of the suing states. In other words, those citizens were damaged irrepairably by their votes being negated through the chicanery of unlawful practices. In a national election every citizen has standing. Yes Tom, but read the 11th amendment again. I hate that Penn., Michigan, Georgia, etc. illegally changed the rules right before the election and the courts should have stopped it when it happened. But the fact is even IF another state screws your state and/or the rest of the country, a state's sovereignty ends at its border. We may not like it but you can't say the SCOTUS ruled unconstitutionally. They DID follow the USC. (11th amendment) I already told you how it could have been filed correctly, by a citizen of the offending state. A Pennsylvanian coulda/shoulda taken his OWN state to court and as long as the Penn. Gov't gave permission to be sued (I know, that part sucks too) then they WOULD have had legal standing for the SCOTUS to hear that case which WAS the reason the SCOTUS refused to hear those cases in 2020. That's the one thing that should give you comfort because whether you like how it turned out, if the SCOTUS decides cases by cherry picking which parts of the constitution they want to apply and ignoring other parts.....we ARE screwed.
|
|
|
Post by sunny225 on Feb 13, 2024 0:33:47 GMT
What you say may be true but it don't mean that it is right nor good. farmrbrown,
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Feb 13, 2024 0:47:26 GMT
What you say may be true but it don't mean that it is right nor good. farmrbrown , Of course not. The only laws that are 100% good, right and moral come from God. Why do you think He gave Samuel a warning to deliver to Israel before anointing Saul as king?
|
|
|
Post by blackfeather on Feb 22, 2024 20:01:04 GMT
I don't see how they can rule otherwise, in order for Trump to even be considered to be removed from a ballot he must be convicted of a crime, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. A man is innocent till proven guilty. So he can't be removed from a ballot for an accusation. The law in question most likely doesn't even apply to him.
|
|
|
Post by farmrbrown on Feb 23, 2024 0:04:12 GMT
I don't see how they can rule otherwise, in order for Trump to even be considered to be removed from a ballot he must be convicted of a crime, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. A man is innocent till proven guilty. So he can't be removed from a ballot for an accusation. The law in question most likely doesn't even apply to him. No, technically section 3 of the 14th amendment and depending on which state laws are cited in this case, being convicted isn't mentioned. And this is where you can find Colorado's laws they based their lawsuit on, although I don't expect the SCOTUS to agree. coloradosun.com/2023/12/20/donald-trump-colorado-case-laws/
|
|