Jump to content

SCOTUS Will Hear Colorado Removing Trump From Ballot Case Update SCOTUS Reverses CO SC 9-0.


Recommended Posts

Not much to “hear”.

 

The 14th amendment doesn’t apply here, NO ONE has been charged with insurrection. 
 

Let me know if anyone ever is. 
 

 

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, B-Man said:


Comprehension problems again. 

no one cares.  especially kavanaugh....uncle tom will not recuse.  the world as we know it, with all it's graft and warts, goes on.  no new game to learn.  take my bet.  non answer is concession of the inevitable.  what odds u want?

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:


Comprehension problems again. 

 

Yeah, that would be you, Bonnie.

 

Post the text to the Fourteenth Amendment - Section 3

 

We all wait in anticipation. You can even plagiarize.

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I’m not sure that he should be off the ballot anyway
 

People should be allowed to vote for whoever they want and live with the consequences of it


Then why have a constitution?

 

Should Elon Musk or Josh Allen be allowed to run for the office of the presidency?

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BillStime said:


Then why have a constitution?

 

Should Elon Musk or Josh Allen be allowed to run for the office of the presidency?

 

 

 

 

Which Josh Allen? One of them yes, the other... no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillStime said:


Then why have a constitution?

 

Should Elon Musk or Josh Allen be allowed to run for the office of the presidency?

 

 

 

 

It just into the hole we’re not going to let Trump win by any means necessary thing
 

I’m tired of their excuses I believe the American people will do the right thing. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

I also think that I would feel much differently about this if he was actually convicted of one of these crimes right now he’s indicted

 

I can’t believe I just said that now I need a bath

Edited by John from Riverside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

It just into the hole we’re not going to let Trump win by any means necessary thing
 

I’m tired of their excuses I believe the American people will do the right thing. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

I also think that I would feel much differently about this if he was actually convicted of one of these crimes right now he’s indicted

 

I can’t believe I just said that now I need a bath

Until there's a conviction, it's a banana republic circus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

It just into the hole we’re not going to let Trump win by any means necessary thing
 

I’m tired of their excuses I believe the American people will do the right thing. Maybe I’m wrong.

 

I also think that I would feel much differently about this if he was actually convicted of one of these crimes right now he’s indicted

 

I can’t believe I just said that now I need a bath

Now you’re getting it, John.  It’s the problem some people have with “…any means necessary”.   It shouldn’t be that way, should it?  You believe he should be on the ballot, yet don’t seem particularly perturbed by the fact that a small group of judges are trying to keep him from the ballot of a national election. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Now you’re getting it, John.  It’s the problem some people have with “…any means necessary”.   It shouldn’t be that way, should it?  You believe he should be on the ballot, yet don’t seem particularly perturbed by the fact that a small group of judges are trying to keep him from the ballot of a national election. 
 

 


F the constitution, right? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


Please point to where it requires a conviction. 


We are still waiting for our resident plagiarist and constitutional scholar, @B-Man, to provide that information.

 

Apparently it requires a specific comprehension.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BillStime said:


We are still waiting for our resident plagiarist and constitutional scholar, @B-Man, to provide that information.

 

Apparently it requires a specific comprehension.

 

 


I wonder if it requires a conviction of being under 35 to keep someone off the ballot. 
 

Does someone need to be convicted of having not lived in the US long enough? Or convicted of being born elsewhere?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:


I wonder if it requires a conviction of being under 35 to keep someone off the ballot. 
 

Does someone need to be convicted of having not lived in the US long enough? Or convicted of being born elsewhere?


I’m not sure, I really wish Bonnie would come back and clear this up for us. 
 

He’s an expert.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:


I’m not sure, I really wish Bonnie would come back and clear this up for us. 
 

He’s an expert.

 

 

 


Maybe he needs to be convicted of being wrong in order to respond 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I’m predicting a 5-4 decision…😉

I'm going with 6-3, but I think they punt the whole insurrection part, and make some ruling on a different issue, that overturns.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I’m not sure that he should be off the ballot anyway
 

People should be allowed to vote for whoever they want and live with the consequences of it

So …disregard the constitution?

Scotus just going to say this doesn’t apply to the Office of the Presidency

Edited by TH3
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

A political cartoon, so some of the dullards here might understand the argument.

 

363235_image.jpg

 

 

.


What if they were voting for someone under 35?

 

What if they were voting for someone who wasn’t a natural born citizen?

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 1/5/2024 at 7:13 PM, B-Man said:

Not much to “hear”.

 

The 14th amendment doesn’t apply here, NO ONE has been charged with insurrection. 
 

Let me know if anyone ever is. 
 

 

 

 

.

 

 

raised-palms-up-unanimous-decision-votin         UNANIMOUS !

 

 

 

.

  • Shocked 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The King and Daz come to mind...

 

Not sure where Finding Qanon came down on this, but likely took the commie position.

 

PER CURIAM, *****.

 

It's certainly gratifying that @dhillonlaw client Donald Trump won the Colorado case before the Supreme Court. (I was not part of the superb SCOTUS advocacy, but I was very involved in DJT's challenge to Colorado's actions which SCOTUS upheld.)

 

HAVING SAID THIS,

It is no less gratifying to witness the unanimous bench slap delivered to all the wise-ass academic, corporate media and Twitter constitutional law experts

who got this so, so wrong.

 

 

Edited by BillsFanNC
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

raised-palms-up-unanimous-decision-votin         UNANIMOUS !

 

 

 

.

Add all nine members of the US Supreme Court to the list of people the mental patients on the American left believes are "threats to democracy". 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...