Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in Colorado ballot disqualification dispute

submitted by P-38lightning from (foxnews.com)

all 14 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]HiddenFox 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Large wager on Turmp to win president 2024.

[–]Thinger 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Democrats everywhere right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

[–]HiddenFox 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The fact that it was a unanimous ruling says it all. The people who tried to remove him should now be considered political puranas, showing just how far they are willing to spin the system for their agenda. They should all lose their jobs.

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

No

A finding that Trump had himself engaged in insurrection would have been required for keeping the former president off the ballot. The clause says that a person could be disqualified from holding office again if they had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.

Although:

In Colorado, the state supreme court had concluded that he incited his followers to engage in insurrection, which met the definition for engaging in insurrection.

This has not been confirmed yet in the legal proceedings, which Trump's lawyers have been able to push down the judicial road.

The US Supreme Court decided too early on this case, because the official legal proceedings have not concluded. The best SCOTUS could do was to judge the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, which they deemed insufficient, before the January 6 legal proceedings were complete.

It's OBVIOUS Trump led an insurrection against the US and has been a traitor in other ways. That level of treachery against the US - by Donald and Jared - should be punishible with the death penalty, as per older traditions.

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Huh?

[–]Bitch-Im-a-cow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps ask someone to explain my reply and the following to you:

Jan. 6 committee issued criminal referrals against Trump on Jan 6, 2024:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-jan-6-committee-says-trump-broke-these-laws-heres-a-guide

The DOJ should decide on these referrals.

[–]weavilsatemyface 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Next step: the US government bans the Greens and Republicans to "save Democracy".

"The only democratic vote is a vote for Biden."

[–]NastyWetSmear 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Now someone should tell Germany that you can't just be bitter about the other parties so much that you simply ban them.

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They got it wrong for the reason. They say states can't control who is on the ballot. Wrong. How did founding fathers intend it? Parties or primaries didn't exist and aren't mentioned in the constitution. States nominate people. The parties are private corporations and should have no say. They should have just decided whether trump started an insurrection based on the 14th amendment. That's the question.

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But….the states could also keep someone off the November election ballot who was the party’s nominee. The courts decision makes sense considering this.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True. Maybe the states should be able to do that tho. States rights come first. The parties decide who to nominate in back room deals. At least politicians in state govts have to get elected. The primary system was set up in the south after reconstruction to make it easier to discriminate against blacks. Maybe that's now used to discriminate against all of us (votes by primary are different from regular election.) the primary is run by the private corporation parties and they say they have the right to rig them.

Anyway, this is about 14th amendment. It's like the second amendment, one may not like it but if you don't want to follow it the only thing to do is to get the votes to repeal it, or add a new amendment. Section 3 says you're disqualified from being president if you have engaged in insurrection. So did trump do that? No. So that's why the case should be dismissed, not for their reason. A state can't control who they nominate for president? Now we have that as a Supreme Court precedent.

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now we get to watch it happen one way or another.

[–]Mark_Shill 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not democracy when you have a candidate removed from a ballot, in fact it is the opposite of democracy. Imagine if the supreme court ruled the opposite, that would have really started another civil war. Liberals have no fucking clue, none.

[–]YurariYurato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This can only get worse...