..

[media width=790]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDvXVtsTJoQ[/media]

United States Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY Overturns Colorado's Supreme Court 9 to 0

President Donald John Trump
Back on ALL Ballots

https://i.imgur.com/1fA7nty.png

God Bless The United States Supreme Court........God Bless AMERICA!

..

Trump can now be the next POTUS.

Greggy has promised to leave this forum if Trump even runs for president.

Bye Greggy.   ;D

Marla will be sucking on her boongs, er... I mean bongs, at this turn of events in Boulder Colorado.
Like a rolling stone, eh?

Ep 6: The Return of the Trump (Jedi)
is beginning.

.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 6:46am:

Trump can now be the next POTUS. Greggy has promised to leave this forum if Trump even runs for president. Bye Greggy.   ;D

Ban him permanently!
Strike 3 - he's out! ;D
No promises.

..

Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in
Colorado ballot disqualification dispute

Supreme Court decision to affect more than 30 states that have considered challenges to remove Trump from 2024 ballot

Source:     FOX News    
Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court sided unanimously with former President Trump in his challenge to the state of Colorado’s attempt to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot. All nine justices ruled in favor of Trump in the case, which will impact the status of efforts in several other states to remove the likely GOP nominee from their respective ballots. The court considered for the first time the meaning and reach of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars former officeholders who "engaged in insurrection" from holding public office again. Challenges have been filed to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot in over 30 states. "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," the Court wrote. Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold issued a statement Monday on the opinion saying, "The United States Supreme Court has ruled that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates." "In accordance with this decision, Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary," she said. Trump reacted to the ruling in a post on Truth Social saying, "BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!" The state of Colorado had argued that because they determined Trump’s behavior related to 2020 election interference – culminating with the Jan. 6 Capitol riots – amounted to an "insurrection," he should be removed from the state’s ballot. The Supreme Court, however, said, "state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns." "Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations," the opinion states. "The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record)." "The ‘patchwork’ that would likely result from state enforcement would 'sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States' as a whole," the opinion says. The court's majority also seemed to signal against any future attempts by states to try to invalidate Trump after he is possibly elected or inaugurated. "An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute — and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result — if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted," the opinion says. "Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration," it continues. Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a concurring opinion wrote, "The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election." "Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home," she said. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurrence which said that while they agree Colorado should restore Trump to the 2024 ballot, they disagreed with the majority which opined on "which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so." "The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment," the trio wrote. In more than two hours of spirited, often tense arguments last month, the nine justices asked tough questions of both sides about whether the president or a presidential candidate is exempt from the constitutional provision adopted after the Civil War. Justice Brett Kavanaugh spoke for colleagues when saying they were confronting "difficult questions."......continued

Quote:

US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado

Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want.

One day they are making conservative decisions.

The next they make a Originalist decision,

The next is a constitutional decision

The next may be Textualist.

They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start.

So none of the states had the right to not include Jenk Ugar on the Ballot ?

As a constitutional conservative, what do you think of the Supreme Court's arguments, Panther?


Quote:

The 14th Amendment's Section 3 bars from office any "officer of the United States" who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." "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," the unsigned opinion for the court stated.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-wins-colorado-ballot-disqualification-case-us-supreme-court-2024-03-04/

The decision effectively removes all power from the states to decide who can stand on state ballots.


Quote:

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson objected to the majority's "gratuitous" decision to announce rules limiting the way Section 3 can be enforced in the future. "Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president," the liberal justices said. "Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision."

In effect, the decision removes section 3 from the Constitution, or renders it so political as to be a moot point. It means that any future insurrectionist, traitor, spy, etc, has to be removed from federal office by a majority vote in Congress. No other court, body or state can make this decision, even after a judicial hearing. In effect, a federal officer could be jailed for insurrection and still hold federal office without a majority vote in congress to remove them.

What say you?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 9:45am:

So none of the states had the right to not include Jenk Ugar on the Ballot ?

States may no longer exclude a state representative from a ballot. SCOTUS just opened up the books.

Any corrupt, oath-breaking criminal can now run for the house, senate, POTUS - or even apply for a job as a national park ranger - if Congress doesn't vote them out.

SCOTUS has just endorsed anarchy.

Karnal wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 10:10am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:45am: So none of the states had the right to not include Jenk Ugar on the Ballot ? States may no longer exclude a state representative from a ballot. SCOTUS just opened up the books. Any corrupt, oath-breaking criminal can now run for the house, senate, POTUS - or even apply for a job as a national park ranger - if Congress doesn't vote them out. SCOTUS has just endorsed anarchy.

Bollocks, paki, as usual.

It is not for any State court to limit candidature for Federal office like the presidency. The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous, 9:0.

The main thing is that Trump is back on the ballot. A step closer to closing the border and finishing the wall ... and cracking down on crime

trump did nothing during the 2020 summer of BLM

..... and start deportations

he wont do that dream on

Jasin wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 7:09am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 6:46am: Trump can now be the next POTUS. Greggy has promised to leave this forum if Trump even runs for president. Bye Greggy.   ;D Ban him permanently! Strike 3 - he's out! ;D No promises.

Greggy has gotta pack his bags or be called a liar.

Karnal wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 10:02am:

As a constitutional conservative, what do you think of the Supreme Court's arguments, Panther? Quote: The 14th Amendment's Section 3 bars from office any "officer of the United States" who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." "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," the unsigned opinion for the court stated. https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-wins-colorado-ballot-disqualification-case-us-supreme-court-2024-03-04/ The decision effectively removes decided that the States can only decide who can stand on state ballots for state offices. [quote]Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson objected to the majority's "gratuitous" decision to announce rules limiting the way Section 3 can be enforced in the future. "Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath-breaking insurrectionist from becoming president," the liberal justices said. "Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority's effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision."

In effect, the decision removes section 3 from the Constitution, or renders it so political as to be a moot point. It means that any future insurrectionist, traitor, spy, etc, has to be removed from federal office by a majority vote in Congress. No other court, body or state can make this decision, even after a judicial hearing. In effect, a federal officer could be jailed for insurrection and still hold federal office without a majority vote in congress to remove them.

What say you? [/quote]

The Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 601 U.S. - (2024) unanimously agreed in their Final Decision that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not establish nor give the States the Constitutional power to remove or disqualify National candidates on any ballot regarding Federal Offices, only State candidates for State held office.

Constitutionally, the power to remove or disqualify a candidate from a place on any ballot for Federal election is solely held by the United States Congress via Congressional action.   

mah

all these courts and media flunkies are just noise

trump is pure signal

4 dimensional chess

everyone gets sucked into trumps frame

everyone reacts to trump

when you are reactive you are the lesser of the powers
you have given up your power to the person you are reacting too

trump has emasculated all the chodes who live in reaction to him

that includes biden who must have a testosterone so low , he has forgotten what a chubby looks like

this is the nature of the paradigm shift and trumps incredible frame control

worth studying

aquascoot wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 2:50pm:

mah all these courts and media flunkies are just noise trump is pure signal 4 dimensional chess everyone gets sucked into trumps frame everyone reacts to trump when you are reactive you are the lesser of the powers you have given up your power to the person you are reacting too trump has emasculated all the chodes who live in reaction to him that includes biden who must have a testosterone so low , he has forgotten what a chubby looks like this is the nature of the paradigm shift and trumps incredible frame control worth studying

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-begin-to-panic-as-biden-not-dead-yet

Dems Begin To Panic As Biden Not Dead Yet

Politics · Mar 3, 2024 ·


https://media.babylonbee.com/articles/65e4c4fb7b6a165e4c4fb7b6a2.jpg


U.S. — Democrats have officially begun to panic as, against all odds, President Joe Biden is still not dead.

As polls persistently show Trump leading President Biden in both the popular vote and electoral college, Democrats have become increasingly anxious that Biden may survive to November. "He was supposed to bite the dust months ago," sighed top Democratic political operative Dan Scarborough. "Everything has gone perfectly to plan these last four years. Biden wins from his basement, then his body begins shutting down right on schedule... but the guy just won't die. It's looking dire."

In lieu of Biden dying, Democrats hoped he could be reasoned with to make way for a stronger candidate. "We tried to tell Joe that he's done great and it's time to move on, but he won't budge," said Democratic strategist Lisa Hanes. "He just laughs, grabs another vanilla cone, and starts arguing with the ghost of Lyndon Johnson. We may have gotten more than we bargained for nominating a dementia patient."

With Biden holding firm on running for a second term, Democrats have begun trying to place the President in increasingly dangerous situations. "We've got sandbags strategically placed all over the Rose Garden," said Scarborough. "We installed random stairways throughout the White House. For goodness' sake, we've fed an elderly man literally gallons of ice cream every day, his arteries are half-filled with chocolate chips. How has Joe not kicked the bucket? How??"

At publishing time, Democratic strategists had been spotted placing banana peels at every doorway in the West Wing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlQbYLcSRkk

Judge Napolitano talks about the latest Supreme Court decision.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpi5sJHpOkY

aquascoot wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 2:50pm:

mah all these courts and media flunkies are just noise trump is pure signal 4 dimensional chess everyone gets sucked into trumps frame everyone reacts to trump when you are reactive you are the lesser of the powers you have given up your power to the person you are reacting too trump has emasculated all the chodes who live in reaction to him that includes biden who must have a testosterone so low , he has forgotten what a chubby looks like this is the nature of the paradigm shift and trumps incredible frame control worth studying

I'm not sure who's mentioned "Trump" here, dear. You may be the first here to mention this name.

We're here to discuss the Supreme Court's decision to rule that only Congress has the ultimate say over disqualifying a federal officer.

This includes park rangers, departmental secretaries and even congresspeople themselves.

SCOTUS is politicising the federal arena. I, for one, do not feel this to be a constitutionally conservative position.

If you'd rather discuss "Trump", you're free to join the range of threads started to do so. I believe, however, you'd rather he just go away. You're a Ron D man now, after all - or were. Remember, the Superior Man bounces out of bed with a plan.

How do we know?

You said.

Frank wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 11:03am:

Karnal wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 10:10am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:45am: So none of the states had the right to not include Jenk Ugar on the Ballot ? States may no longer exclude a state representative from a ballot. SCOTUS just opened up the books. Any corrupt, oath-breaking criminal can now run for the house, senate, POTUS - or even apply for a job as a national park ranger - if Congress doesn't vote them out. SCOTUS has just endorsed anarchy. Bollocks, paki, as usual. It is not for any State court to limit candidature for Federal office like the presidency. The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous, 9:0.

States run the ballots, old boy. You may have read that in the constitution, but that's not the point.

The Federal District courts are there to rule on federal matters - as they did. That's what courts are for.

The Congress is there to write laws, not administer them. How do we know?

That's in the Constitution too.

Ask Panther, dear. Unlike you, he's a constitutional conservative.

You're just a reactionary old wog.

Leaving it all to the Congress without judicial review is a problem.
(But it lets judges sleep at night without too much gunfire). So if an anonymous ginger staged a coup and became life president, a Repub Congress can say 'nah, not insurrection' and it's all good.
Ask Abe Lincoln. or Adolf.

Under Biden/Democraps.
American States are seeking Independence as separate Nations from the Biden/Democrap  'Not-United' America.

How bad has America become under the Biden/Democraps?

Some of the States who opposed Trump on the ballot were Republican....The Supreme Court has decided to let Trump run for President and let the people decide....The decision is justified as Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection in any court of law!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Karnal wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 5:39pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 11:03am: Karnal wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 10:10am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:45am: So none of the states had the right to not include Jenk Ugar on the Ballot ? States may no longer exclude a state representative from a ballot. SCOTUS just opened up the books. Any corrupt, oath-breaking criminal can now run for the house, senate, POTUS - or even apply for a job as a national park ranger - if Congress doesn't vote them out. SCOTUS has just endorsed anarchy. Bollocks, paki, as usual. It is not for any State court to limit candidature for Federal office like the presidency. The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous, 9:0. States run the ballots, old boy. You may have read that in the constitution, but that's not the point. The Federal District courts are there to rule on federal matters - as they did. That's what courts are for. The Congress is there to write laws, not administer them. How do we know? That's in the Constitution too. Ask Panther, dear. Unlike you, he's a constitutional conservative. You're just a reactionary old wog.

Paki crap. You know it.

Stop tapdancing.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

Some of the States who opposed Trump on the ballot were Republican....The Supreme Court has decided to let Trump run for President and let the people decide....The decision is justified as Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection in any court of law!!! :-? :-? :-?

That's right. Let the 'People' decide.
But you know, the Political Establishment doesn't like someone from 'the People' outside of the Establishment - being a President.

Northern Hemisphere Politics is for the Political people 'only', not everyone else in the country.

Frank wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 7:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 5:39pm: Frank wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 11:03am: Karnal wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 10:10am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:45am: So none of the states had the right to not include Jenk Ugar on the Ballot ? States may no longer exclude a state representative from a ballot. SCOTUS just opened up the books. Any corrupt, oath-breaking criminal can now run for the house, senate, POTUS - or even apply for a job as a national park ranger - if Congress doesn't vote them out. SCOTUS has just endorsed anarchy. Bollocks, paki, as usual. It is not for any State court to limit candidature for Federal office like the presidency. The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous, 9:0. States run the ballots, old boy. You may have read that in the constitution, but that's not the point. The Federal District courts are there to rule on federal matters - as they did. That's what courts are for. The Congress is there to write laws, not administer them. How do we know? That's in the Constitution too. Ask Panther, dear. Unlike you, he's a constitutional conservative. You're just a reactionary old wog. Paki crap. You know it. Stop tapdancing.

Paki kwap. You heard it here first, leftards.

Give the old boy a nappy.

Congress will be log-jammed by the 2nd Amendment against the 14th.
'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. Then 'infringing' could be convicting those who fought at the Battle of the 6th of the rebel / president.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 9:43am:

Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start.

How could they rule otherwise when he hasn't been charged let alone convicted of it?

wombatwoody wrote on Mar 6^th, 2024 at 11:07pm:

How could they rule otherwise when he hasn't been charged let alone convicted of it?

That wasn't their basis. They gave a judicial ruling on the hypothetical question. It allows a ruling on the question:
Can Kamala Harris, a Federal officer, be served an injunction preventing her from declaring Trump as pres on January 6, 2025 on the grounds of insurrection. Courts are very happy to jump into the 2nd Amend on gun rights.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 5^th, 2024 at 9:43am:

Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start.

:D :D :D :D

You alone are consistent, duck wit.

https://media1.tenor.com/m/9PfeY8SJNkcAAAAd/duck-wiggle.gif

Frank wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 8:30am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:43am: Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start. :D :D :D :D You alone are consistent, duck wit. https://media1.tenor.com/m/9PfeY8SJNkcAAAAd/duck-wiggle.gif

Yes and correct as well.

The court have made sect 3 of the 14th amendment unenforceable. They have basically ruled a red line through the section.

The only way to use the amendment now is through a political dominant position - corruptly.

This is not the intention of the constitution. Trump enabled a insurrection and barred himself from office - it is meant to be self executing and has been used that way historically. Anyone who put Trump's name on a ballot is in breach of the constitution until this ruling which corruptly overturns the intention of the constitution.

wombatwoody wrote on Mar 6^th, 2024 at 11:07pm:

How could they rule otherwise when he hasn't been charged let alone convicted of it?

Generals in the civil war were excluded from office without ever being charged. It was understood that they were barred by their actions it is the same with Trump and at least 10 republican politicians.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 9:42am:

Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:43am: Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start. :D :D :D :D You alone are consistent, duck wit. https://media1.tenor.com/m/9PfeY8SJNkcAAAAd/duck-wiggle.gif Yes and correct as well. The court have made sect 3 of the 14th amendment unenforceable. They have basically ruled a red line through the section. The only way to use the amendment now is through a political dominant position - corruptly. This is not the intention of the constitution. Trump enabled a insurrection and barred himself from office - it is meant to be self executing and has been used that way historically. Anyone who put Trump's name on a ballot is in breach of the constitution until this ruling which corruptly overturns the intention of the constitution.

Except there was no insurrection.

And the SCOTUS ruling is simply saying that it is not for the States to determine who runs for Federal office. It's a pretty basic pinciple of any Federation.

Not complicated, not even for a duck llike you.

Frank wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 10:20am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 9:42am: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:43am: Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start. :D :D :D :D You alone are consistent, duck wit. https://media1.tenor.com/m/9PfeY8SJNkcAAAAd/duck-wiggle.gif Yes and correct as well. The court have made sect 3 of the 14th amendment unenforceable. They have basically ruled a red line through the section. The only way to use the amendment now is through a political dominant position - corruptly. This is not the intention of the constitution. Trump enabled a insurrection and barred himself from office - it is meant to be self executing and has been used that way historically. Anyone who put Trump's name on a ballot is in breach of the constitution until this ruling which corruptly overturns the intention of the constitution. Except there was no insurrection. And the SCOTUS ruling is simply saying that it is not for the States to determine who runs for Federal office. It's a pretty basic pinciple of any Federation. Not complicated, not even for a duck llike you.

The ruling that barred Trump from the election ruled that Trump was responsible for the insurrection and that there was one. The supreme court didn't knock down that ruling in any way. The Jan 6th house investigation also found that there was an insurrection.

What happened on Jan 6th as shown below is an insurrection:


Quote:

deliberate and coordinated efforts to descend on Washington, invade the Capitol Building, physically disrupt the electoral vote count by Congress, and potentially inflict harm upon members of Congress and the Vice President

Federal Election Commission.



Quote:

Gaining ballot access: State laws and procedures govern how candidates come to appear on election ballots. Contact the Secretary of State or appropriate election office for more information. House or Senate candidates: Contact the Secretary of State or appropriate election office of the state or territory in which you seek election for more information. Presidential candidates: Contact the Secretary of State or appropriate election office in each state and territory for information on the requirements to get on the ballot in that state or territory. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-candidate/gaining-ballot-access/

Frank wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 10:20am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 9:42am: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:43am: Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start. :D :D :D :D You alone are consistent, duck wit. https://media1.tenor.com/m/9PfeY8SJNkcAAAAd/duck-wiggle.gif Yes and correct as well. The court have made sect 3 of the 14th amendment unenforceable. They have basically ruled a red line through the section. The only way to use the amendment now is through a political dominant position - corruptly. This is not the intention of the constitution. Trump enabled a insurrection and barred himself from office - it is meant to be self executing and has been used that way historically. Anyone who put Trump's name on a ballot is in breach of the constitution until this ruling which corruptly overturns the intention of the constitution. Except there was no insurrection. And the SCOTUS ruling is simply saying that it is not for the States to determine who runs for Federal office. It's a pretty basic pinciple of any Federation. Not complicated, not even for a duck llike you.

Scotus said that the Congress can make the legislation to decide how to enforce this.

Congress created the Federal Election Commission. They have said that it goes to the states. Thus Congress have already decided.

Frank wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 10:20am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 9:42am: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:43am: Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start. :D :D :D :D You alone are consistent, duck wit. https://media1.tenor.com/m/9PfeY8SJNkcAAAAd/duck-wiggle.gif Yes and correct as well. The court have made sect 3 of the 14th amendment unenforceable. They have basically ruled a red line through the section. The only way to use the amendment now is through a political dominant position - corruptly. This is not the intention of the constitution. Trump enabled a insurrection and barred himself from office - it is meant to be self executing and has been used that way historically. Anyone who put Trump's name on a ballot is in breach of the constitution until this ruling which corruptly overturns the intention of the constitution. Except there was no insurrection. ...

Really?

That's funny.

When I read the official SCOTUS opinion I found this:

(4) that the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6;

(5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an “insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and

(6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a.

..

https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Trump-boat-cry_me_a_river.jpg

https://imgur.com/zMPzIgK.png

..

It is now up to the people to do the work that the supreme court were too chicken shite to do.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 12:01pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 10:20am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 9:42am: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 8:30am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 5th, 2024 at 9:43am: Quote: US Supreme Court Overturns Colorado Disgraceful corrupt incompetent and incorrect decision. These corrupt clowns just do whatever they want. One day they are making conservative decisions. The next they make a Originalist decision, The next is a constitutional decision The next may be Textualist. They pick and choose the method they need to line up with the result that they wanted to reach from the start. :D :D :D :D You alone are consistent, duck wit. https://media1.tenor.com/m/9PfeY8SJNkcAAAAd/duck-wiggle.gif Yes and correct as well. The court have made sect 3 of the 14th amendment unenforceable. They have basically ruled a red line through the section. The only way to use the amendment now is through a political dominant position - corruptly. This is not the intention of the constitution. Trump enabled a insurrection and barred himself from office - it is meant to be self executing and has been used that way historically. Anyone who put Trump's name on a ballot is in breach of the constitution until this ruling which corruptly overturns the intention of the constitution. Except there was no insurrection. ... Really? That's funny. When I read the official SCOTUS opinion I found this: (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an “insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a.

No comment, Frank?   ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 8^th, 2024 at 11:25am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 12:01pm: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 10:20am: Except there was no insurrection. ... Really? That's funny. When I read the official SCOTUS opinion I found this: (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an “insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. No comment, Frank?   ;)

You are either very stupid or very dishonest, slimey turd. I am tipping both. You idiotically/dishonestly try to present the Colorado Supreme Court's take with the SCOTUS's reversal of that take.

THe FULL QUOTE, you dishonest, lying, slimey turd, is this:

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part by a 4 to 3 vote. Reversing the District Court’s operative holding, the majority concluded that for purposes of Section 3, the Presidency is an office under the United States and the President is an officer of the United States. The court otherwise affirmed, holding
(1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach;
(3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility;
(4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6;
(5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and
(6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a.

The Colorado Supreme Court accordingly ordered Secretary Griswold not to “list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot” or “count any write-in votes cast for him.” Id., at 114a. Chief Justice Boatright and Justices Samour and Berkenkotter each filed dissenting opinions. Id., at 115a–124a, 125a–161a, 162a–183a.
Under the terms of the opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court, its ruling was automatically stayed pending this Court’s review. See id., at 114a.

We [SCOTUS] granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we [SCOTUS] now reverse.

p 3-4 at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Now I have to go and wash my hands after interacting with you, repulsive liar.

Frank wrote on Mar 8^th, 2024 at 12:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 8th, 2024 at 11:25am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 12:01pm: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 10:20am: Except there was no insurrection. ... Really? That's funny. When I read the official SCOTUS opinion I found this: (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an “insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. No comment, Frank?   ;) You are either very stupid or very dishonest, slimey turd. I am tipping both. You idiotically/dishonestly try to present the Colorado Supreme Court's take with the SCOTUS's reversal of that take. THe FULL QUOTE, you dishonest, lying, slimey turd, is this: In December, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part by a 4 to 3 vote. Reversing the District Court’s operative holding, the majority concluded that for purposes of Section 3, the Presidency is an office under the United States and the President is an officer of the United States. The court otherwise affirmed, holding (1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach; (3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility; (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. The Colorado Supreme Court accordingly ordered Secretary Griswold not to “list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot” or “count any write-in votes cast for him.” Id., at 114a. Chief Justice Boatright and Justices Samour and Berkenkotter each filed dissenting opinions. Id., at 115a–124a, 125a–161a, 162a–183a. Under the terms of the opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court, its ruling was automatically stayed pending this Court’s review. See id., at 114a. We [SCOTUS] granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we [SCOTUS] now reverse. p 3-4 at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf Now I have to go and wash my hands after interacting with you, repulsive liar.

English not your first language?

The court otherwise affirmed, holding
(1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach;
(3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility;
(4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6;
(5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and
(6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a.

White flag accepted.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 8^th, 2024 at 1:50pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 8th, 2024 at 12:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 8th, 2024 at 11:25am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 12:01pm: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 10:20am: Except there was no insurrection. ... Really? That's funny. When I read the official SCOTUS opinion I found this: (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an “insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. No comment, Frank?   ;) You are either very stupid or very dishonest, slimey turd. I am tipping both. You idiotically/dishonestly try to present the Colorado Supreme Court's take with the SCOTUS's reversal of that take. THe FULL QUOTE, you dishonest, lying, slimey turd, is this: In December, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part by a 4 to 3 vote. Reversing the District Court’s operative holding, the majority concluded that for purposes of Section 3, the Presidency is an office under the United States and the President is an officer of the United States. The court otherwise affirmed, holding (1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach; (3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility; (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. The Colorado Supreme Court accordingly ordered Secretary Griswold not to “list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot” or “count any write-in votes cast for him.” Id., at 114a. Chief Justice Boatright and Justices Samour and Berkenkotter each filed dissenting opinions. Id., at 115a–124a, 125a–161a, 162a–183a. Under the terms of the opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court, its ruling was automatically stayed pending this Court’s review. See id., at 114a. We [SCOTUS] granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we [SCOTUS] now reverse. p 3-4 at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf Now I have to go and wash my hands after interacting with you, repulsive liar. English not your first language? The court otherwise affirmed, holding (1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach; (3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility; (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. White flag accepted.

That refers to the Colorado Court's take and what it affirmed.

The SCOTUS overturned that take as it was in error:

We [SCOTUS] granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we [SCOTUS] now reverse.

Frank wrote on Mar 8^th, 2024 at 1:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 8th, 2024 at 1:50pm: Frank wrote on Mar 8th, 2024 at 12:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 8th, 2024 at 11:25am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 12:01pm: Frank wrote on Mar 7th, 2024 at 10:20am: Except there was no insurrection. ... Really? That's funny. When I read the official SCOTUS opinion I found this: (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an “insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. No comment, Frank?   ;) You are either very stupid or very dishonest, slimey turd. I am tipping both. You idiotically/dishonestly try to present the Colorado Supreme Court's take with the SCOTUS's reversal of that take. THe FULL QUOTE, you dishonest, lying, slimey turd, is this: In December, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part by a 4 to 3 vote. Reversing the District Court’s operative holding, the majority concluded that for purposes of Section 3, the Presidency is an office under the United States and the President is an officer of the United States. The court otherwise affirmed, holding (1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach; (3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility; (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. The Colorado Supreme Court accordingly ordered Secretary Griswold not to “list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot” or “count any write-in votes cast for him.” Id., at 114a. Chief Justice Boatright and Justices Samour and Berkenkotter each filed dissenting opinions. Id., at 115a–124a, 125a–161a, 162a–183a. Under the terms of the opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court, its ruling was automatically stayed pending this Court’s review. See id., at 114a. We [SCOTUS] granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we [SCOTUS] now reverse. p 3-4 at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf Now I have to go and wash my hands after interacting with you, repulsive liar. English not your first language? The court otherwise affirmed, holding (1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents’ challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach; (3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump’s eligibility; (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump’s speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a–114a. White flag accepted. That refers to the Colorado Court's take and what it affirmed. The SCOTUS overturned that take as it was in error: We [SCOTUS] granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we [SCOTUS] now reverse.

Nope.

They only ruled that excluding him was in error - not the part about it being an insurrection.

You really need to brush up on your English comprehension skills.

SCOTUS confirmed that it was indeed an insurrection.

The district court ordered that Trump be removed from the ballot for insurrection.

The Colorado Supreme court said that the district court did not err in its order and reasoning and confirmed the decision.

The SCOTUS ruled that the district court and the Colorado Supreme Court DID err and so it reversed their judgement. Unanimously.



You can bang on about English all you like, lying, slimey turd, but it is you, in your bottomless malice and eager stupidity, who doesn't understand even fairly straightforward sentences, even if they are highlighted for you.

Go on, bitch about Trump and the rest in the comfort of your S-bend. You know you want to.
We all know you want to.

Frank wrote on Mar 8^th, 2024 at 3:34pm:

The district court ordered that Trump be removed from the ballot for insurrection. The Colorado Supreme court said that the district court did not err in its order and reasoning and confirmed the decision. The SCOTUS ruled that the district court and the Colorado Supreme Court DID err and so it reversed their judgement. Unanimously. You can bang on about English all you like, lying, slimey turd, but it is you, in your bottomless malice and eager stupidity, who doesn't understand even fairly straightforward sentences, even if they are highlighted for you. Go on, bitch about Trump and the rest in the comfort of your S-bend. You know you want to. We all know you want to.

SCOTUS said that they erred in taking him off the ballot.

They also said that Jan 6 was an insurrection and that the rapist - Donald J. Trump - engaged in that insurrection.

It's right there, in black & white, and in English.

I've honestly never seen someone struggle so much with English comprehension as you.

'the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection” and that former President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection'

chimera wrote on Mar 7^th, 2024 at 8:02am:

wombatwoody wrote on Mar 6th, 2024 at 11:07pm: How could they rule otherwise when he hasn't been charged let alone convicted of it? That wasn't their basis. They gave a judicial ruling on the hypothetical question. It allows a ruling on the question: Can Kamala Harris, a Federal officer, be served an injunction preventing her from declaring Trump as pres on January 6, 2025 on the grounds of insurrection. Courts are very happy to jump into the 2nd Amend on gun rights.

Irrelevant. Trump hasn't been charged let alone convicted of it.