It's down to us.

I'm confused by what isn't new. Far-left support for an insurrection or sheer hypocrisy? Specificity would be helpful here.

You won't find a single post of mine on this forum in support of an insurrection or any form of election interference. The most senior liberal justices have never said any of my positions threaten our democracy. Wouldn't it be great if you could say the same?

Yawn. Sorry, the opposition candidate is on the ballot and eligible for Americans to engage in a free and fair election. Highly illegal means to overrule that have been prevented. Insurrection subverted. And, I don't think anyone should take the opinion of people who supported an insurrection to remove their opposition candidate when it comes to matters of additional election interference and cases surrounding said opposition candidate. The political bias has been demonstrably proven to be too strong to the point of their opinion no longer being relevant.

 

Your tortured use of the word insurrection, trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole in order to childishly counter the facts surrounding Don's plot to subvert the people's will, couldn't be more obvious.
Why was it acceptable for Don to unleash the Kraken to pursue a remedy to his false claims of voter fraud in the courts, but "highly illegal" for both Dems and Repubs to seek enforcement of the 14th A by way of a legal process?
Glad to see you refer to our elections as free and fair. They are, and Dear Leader hates that, having expended considerable energy to convince Americans they are not in contradiction to the evidence. Had he accepted said evidence and not orchestrated an insurrection you wouldn't be twisting yourself in knots disingenuously accusing Dems of doing the same.

 

If words that are thought to interfere in the election and appointment process are an insurrection, then many leftists have engaged in an insurrection here. The facts surrounding your desire to "subvert the people's will" (your standard) when it comes to "Don's" election qualify for an insurrection the same as 1/6. Basic facts: you strongly advocated for a highly illegal process of taking your opposition candidate off the ballot for the sole purpose of subverting the people's will in the election. That's a threat to our democracy. And we are lucky that your desires were not fulfilled and our democracy was saved from such a radical and illegal means to determine the outcome of an election. Now please spare us your legal analysis on the next legal case against the same candidate you advocated an insurrection over.

 

There was nothing illegal about the process. You continue to fail at trying to make a factual argument.

 

The SCOTUS justices are remaining true to their oaths of office and performing their Constitutional duty.

 

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Nobody had the legal authority to do what they did, so it was overturned. They violated the Constitution and interfered in a free and fair election. The Constitution says Congress can make determinations and enforce Section 3. Additionally, Section 3 does not apply to the President and never has. This insurrection that you supported was highly illegal and a clear attempt to illegally subvert the peoples' will in an election in order to remove your opposition candidate from the ballot. Putin is blushing at these attempts to rig an election and threaten our democracy. If only he thought of this. Nothing he has ever done has threatened our democracy in such an extreme fashion.

 

Not really, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

No it doesn't. Those who petitioned their respective states to have Trump removed from the ballot did so by following their state's legal procedures. When did the Court say otherwise?

 

Sigh, asking the state to remove a candidate is not illegal. A Secretary of State removing a candidate, without the authority, is illegal. Everyone supporting this illegal effort to subvert the will of the people in an election engaged in an insurrection. And it's telling that when the SCOTUS struck down this leftist insurrection attempt that threatened our democracy we have this new thread bleating about the Supreme Court taking a case to define boundaries of presidential immunity. You don't want due process and boundaries defined because the past insurrection attempt failed and now we've moved on to lawfare election interference.

 

Thank you.

 

The various Sec.'s of State delayed removal in favor of having the SC weigh in on a matter that was unprecedented. An oath breaking insurrectionist running for prez. A designation the Court did not dispute.

 

This is the worst cop-out in the history of cop-outs. You have admitted, and seemingly delighted in, the fact that the appeals and legal challenges might not have completed in time. Additionally, the harm was already done. It's still illegally acting without authority and required citizens to spend their time, money, and effort fighting the state all the way to the Supreme Court for their right to vote in an election that you wanted to be illegally subverted for partisan political gain. They violated the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, to your delight. It was a 9-0 decision that they violated the Constitution. It's a losing argument for you. The weird defenses in support of an insurrection are getting absurd. The law, the history, and the precedent all said they acted illegally when they attempted to remove Trump from the ballot. Just because fringe hyper-partisan radicals supported it doesn't make it legal. We have enough threats to our democracy without generating more dangerous ones within our borders. No amount of Russian troll farms have ever been such a perilous risk to our national security and our free and fair elections.

 

Biden administration discovered to have solicited and flown 320K migrants over the border from various regions throughout the globe. This is a bombshell as it is a blatant violation of US law well beyond turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants who arrive by their own volition. Alone this amounts to serious prosecutable felonies. A further potential bombshell relates to the substantial sums of money paid to obtain seats on these Biden administration sponsored flights designed to circumvent customs.
Apparently money which flows into high level coffers instead of the routine payments made when illegals are extorted by Mexican cartels. Payments upwards of $20,000/seat funneled through mysterious channels to unknown officials. The money trail may prove to be the downfall of corrupted officials. So far it is unclear where the money paid ended up. That's a lot of cheddar!!!

 

Source please.

 

Any browser (except Google - actively scrubbing it). Most major news outlets are running the story AP/UPI. And a close friend brought family members over from Somalia.

 

Then providing a source should be easy.

 

What harm was done since the respective Sec.'s of State delayed removal of the Orange Rapist's name until the SC made its ruling? The constitutionality of the matter was not decided on until the Court ruled so the Constitution was not violated. The process of the state's coming to a decision on the ballot challenge was legally conducted in accordance with the state's laws. Your argument is entirely specious. Hyperbolically claiming "Just because fringe hyper-partisan radicals supported it doesn't make it legal" is just noise. Unless you believe Judge Luttig qualifies as one.

Here's something you may find enlightening. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case

Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.

There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.

 

What harm was done since Biden was inaugurated? See how silly this sounds? Wasn't 1/6 an illegal attempt to overthrow the will of the people in an election? Yeah, the same thing you advocated for. Just because they were lucky enough to get an appealed verdict from the US Supreme Court in time for the primary, over the desires of fellow insurrectionists, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal (as you falsely claimed) or an attempt to subvert the will of the people in an election. Additionally, when you have to sue your state all the way up to the Supreme Court to have a free and fair election, you were harmed. It's effectively lawfare and an illegal attempt to violate your rights. You shouldn't have to sue the state to be able to fully exercise your Constitutional rights.

 

Do your own research. What am I your byatch? Its a headline story. Here, how about "Biden administration Flies 320K over border".

 

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to prove you are wrong. You really should do some research before posting factually inaccurate info.

Fact Focus: Claims Biden administration is secretly flying migrants into the country are unfounded
https://apnews.com/article/fact-che...n-trump-musk-dbd634820b3f8d07b859b8a05b2b20a7

 

This is incompatible with your posts in this thread.

 

Really? Again. What about the PROCESS of states adjudicating the issue of Trump's eligibility to be on ballots was illegal? The states in question were following state law.

 

Unelected Democrat officials had no legal authority to remove a Presidential candidate from the ballot in a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution. Why is this difficult to comprehend? The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that this was a violation of the supreme law of our land, and these actions were incompatible with our democracy. "You should really do some research" on why the positions you advocated for were illegal and a threat to our democracy.

Supporting an insurrection, claiming it was legal despite a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling saying it violated the Constitution, and then telling others to "do some research before posting factually incorrect info" is laughable. This thread is just another bleating of a strong desire to interfere in the election now that the Supreme Court thwarted an insurrection supported by so many extreme partisan leftists. The SCOTUS ensured Americans would again be allowed to vote in a free and fair election, and it has these extreme partisans all riled up.

And now that the SCOTUS is hearing an appeal as part of a defendant's due process rights, you're making a new thread because you're upset that this case, which was timed to interfere in the election, might not have a resolution until after the election. The constant bleats about a complete and total lack of desire for due process and destroying our legal right to free and fair elections are getting old, especially when scolding others to "do some research."

 

States followed entirely legal procedures, as permitted by state statutes, rights afforded electors to do so, and so forth. And, in doing so there was no "clear and blatant violation" of anything, by anyone, because the Supreme Court had not yet deliberated, let alone reached any conclusion on the matter, meaning that the situation was not as yet "clear". Hence they stayed their rulings. And given that it was not yet clear, there being as yet no SCOTUS ruling, they cannot be said to have purposefully violated the constitution - whether they had or had not would not be known until after the SCOTUS opinion. Which is why, again, they stayed their rulings. This lack of clarity was WHY it went to SCOTUS. Nor was the matter clear when it was taken up by the SCOTUS - the Court's conclusions were not foregone or ready-formed, but the product of much argument and deliberation.

There is nothing in any of this that remotely approaches illegality, let alone insurrection.

Nor did the Supreme Court characterize Colorado, Main or illinois' actions as a "violation of the supreme law of our land" or "actions incompatible with our democracy".

In fact, they did not take issue with their actions at all, provided they apply to state officers only, not federal.

 

He thinks he's on to something so he keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over. Nice rebuttal.