Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado case over Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility

No, I am merely pointing out the obvious. Politics has nothing to do with it.

To prove my point, you didn't question my reasoning.

 

Well since I wasn't actually talking to you, I'm hoping there's a good chance that you confused me for someone else.

 

Bribed Joe Says Vote For Me Or Hitler Wins

'Team Biden favors a version of "Guardian Democracy" where voters are only permitted to cast ballots for candidates that the ruling class approves.'

Pathetic and Desperate.

Bribed Joe delivered an 'absurdly overheated speech last Friday near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Biden draped himself in Revolutionary War virtue as he demanded that Americans quiver in fear at the prospect of his reign ending. Biden invoked the third anniversary of the January 6 Capitol clash to effectively call for canceling the 2024 presidential election.'

He's such a pathetic fraud.

'Biden wants to turn the November election into a referendum on Adolf Hitler. Biden boasted, “We are still a nation that gives hate no safe harbor.” A few minutes before that uplifting assertion, Biden accused Donald Trump of “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” CNN reported last week that Biden campaign aides plan to go “full Hitler” on Trump, making “a direct comparison to the Nazi leader rather than couching their attacks by saying Trump ‘parroted’ him.” A few weeks ago, the Biden campaign posted a graphic on Twitter comparing Trump and Hitler’s rhetoric.'

And yet, it's Bribed Joe who is trying to rig the election through ballot stripping and by jailing his opponent that is beating him in the polls.

Bribed Joe 'declared, “Democracy means having the freedom to speak your mind.” Unless Team Biden disapproves of your thoughts, of course.'

Floundering and flailing.

 

What is strange is you make an allegation that if it were true he would have been successfully prosecuted 3 years ago. Timing is everything, right?

 

They will be shot down by a large majority in the Supreme Court.

It is not even worth debating.

 

Supreme Court might decide to simply pass the buck, and say the states can do as they like.

or cite 14th Am section 5 and say this is for Congress to deal with.

 

Dems are running a guy who thinks he talks to dead people, and tries to shake hands with invisible people and thinks he can take the election out of the hands of the voters.

Trump finally get a day in Court in front of Justices of Integrity rather than Corrupt Prosecutors in Cahoots with politicized Judges in Kangaroo Courtrooms

'"Very Beautiful Process" - Trump Pleased After SCOTUS Ballot-Ban Hearing Ends'

“I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas.”

The Colorado Chief Justice and the minority opinion got the issues right. The politicized majority were on an acid trip.

The justices were largely skeptical of Colorado’s arguments.

SECTION THREE DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT:

'Murray was repeatedly grilled by justices about why Section 3 of the amendment should apply to the presidency when that office isn’t explicitly listed in the provision'

OPEN THIS BOX AND BET YOUR ASS THAT A WHOLE PILE OF RED STATES ARE GOING TO TOSS DEMOCRATS OFF THEIR BALLOTS. This the longstanding legal doctrine of Si pascis, canino, edes, canino (If you feed it bitches, you'll eat it bitches.)

'Several of the justices also expressed concern that allowing Colorado to ban Trump from the ballot could result in retaliatory efforts by other states to keep a Democrat off the ballot under the same provision.'

'Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point that Trump, who’s been criminally charged' for protesting the election, 'isn’t accused of insurrection in that case, even though the Justice Department could have done so.'

Even Lying Jack Smith has never charged him with Insurrection.

Even if you can't figure out what a woman is, you can still figure out this one:

'Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Mr. Murray about the lack of uniformity this decision could create. “Why should a single state get to decide who gets to be the President of the United States?” asked Justice Elena Kagan.
“That means is quite extraordinary.”'

These Dems trying to wrest the election from the voters are an existential threat to our Constitutional Liberal Democracy.

'Trump was pleased with the arguments, calling it a “beautiful thing to watch in many respects:” “I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas.”'

Professor Jon Turley Summarizes: 'The argument is now over. The disqualification advocates may have expected a cold reception, but this was perfectly glacial. Notably, some of the toughest and most skeptical questions came from the left of the Court.'

Justice Kagan Wonders: "What's a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for president?"

Justice Roberts Wonders: "Since the 14th Amendment was designed to limit the power of States, why are you interpreting it to expand the powers of a State?"

That was a shot below the water line for the Crazy Coloradans, and they are taking on water, fast.

Justice Jackson Wonders: If they meant this to apply to the President: "Why didn't they put president . .. on the list."

Well, they demanded this humiliation, and it looks like it's only going to get worse from here.

 

Looks like the Supreme Court doesn't agree. Bummer

 

One way or the other it's going to be 5-4, MAYBE 6-3, IF they go against Colorado and Roberts goes with the majority.

IMHO it all depends on Gorsuch which ever way he votes will decide it. If he goes with Colorado, Roberts will certainly go that way too. Colorado is right, Roberts knows this but he may vote with the majority if they go against Colorado.

So 5-4, either way if Roberts votes with the Constitution, or 6-3 if he want's to show solidarity.

 

I would be shocked if it were 5-4 or even 6-3.

There is no sense in arguing our opinions/predictions. Time will tell.

 

Colorado is right, of course. Roberts knows this but he may vote with the majority if they go against Colorado. So, 5-4, either way if Roberts votes with the Constitution, or 6-3 if he want's to show solidarity. It all hinges on Gorsuch, I don't see a possibility of any other conservative breaking with trump.

IF the court sides with the Constitution, "I" think they will not apply Colorado's decision to ALL States. But, leave it to the States to decide whether or not to put trump on their ballot. Theoretically this wouldn't put trump out of the running yet still honor the Constitution's putting States in charge of their elections.

 

You have said what you think. I have said what I think.

Which takes us full circle to my originial question that has been left unanswered...If what you think is wrong and this gets rejected by the court 8-1, or even 9-0, would you then acknowledge that this move was a RIDICULOUS legal overreach?

How could you possibly argue against a unanimous or near-unanimous result?

 

I am partisan but an objective opinion is this....If the SCOTUS doesn't shut this down, our future elections will be determined by who is allowed on the ballot.

 

That's NOT going to happen. (I'll bet my account against yours)

But, it's not, Article 1, Section 4, Clause one puts States in charge of their elections and Amendment 14, Section 3 disqualifies trump.

I won't have to, it will be 5-4 either way, OR 6-3 against Colorado.

 

OK lets make this official. How about

if the SC decision is 7-2, 8-1, 9-0 , you lose.

Anything lower, he wins.

Sound good ?

 

I understand that you believe it will not happen, and suggesting betting accounts is shockingly silly and childish.

But the question remains, if it were to happen, would you then acknowledge that this is a ridiculous legal overreach and that you grossly misjudged the legal fundementals in play? Or would you just find another way to excuse away that result?

I will happily say in reverse, if it were 8-1 or 9-0 in favor of Colorado, I would have grossly misjudged the situation. There is not a shred of equivocation involved.

 

They don't have to "shut" anything "down". Just leave elections to the States as the Constitution stipulates.

 

No, it was 8-1 or 9-0.

 

OK. if the SC decision is 8-1, 9-0 , you lose.

Anything lower, he wins.

Sound good ?

 

No, my position would be that the Court has lost it's mind.

But that's not going to happen.

It's gong to be:

Thomas
Aliedo
Kavanaugh
Barret

Aginst Colorado

Sotomayor
Kagan
Brown

For Colorado

Gorsuch

Deciding

Roberts

Will go with the Constitution or the Court

 

That's what I figured. This is consistent with my perception of how you approach politics.

 

Oh you die hard Rebel! You would deprive 50% of Americans the right to select who they want for President. What, can't win at the ballot box? After the SCOTUS wraps this up, and they will, just watch President Trump's numbers rise after America sees another partisan sham put down!

If it were to pass, challenges could and would work both ways. Biden guilty of conspiracy at the border, for instance......your state might not like it but mine probably would.

 

Why did you leave out the funtional part:

"IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN"

About your perception, in general, but especially pertaining to me.

 

Being a complete and utter A hole is not a reason to leave a candidate off a ballot.

 

So

Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown all asked some pretty damning questions to your cause. It's going to be 9-0 with Colorado going down in favor of all the Trump supporters in that state where you would deprive them of their candidate!