Supreme Court Gives Colorado Secretary of State 10 Minutes to Argue

A Grand Jury will indict a Ham Sandwich.

Who brought the charges? That's what matters. It is very seldom that a GJ won't indict.

The defendent can't be there. He can't present exculpatory, or any other kind of, evidence, he can't cross-examine, I'm not even sure he can have a representative present. And they're held in secret. Like Sooper-Secret Little Orphan Annie Code-Ring stuff.

And you want to crow about that???

What a guy

 

The leader of the MAGA Scotus, Justice Kagan, is definitely on Trump's side. I mean when you have lost the most politically partisan left-wing justice on the court, you are in the high weeds.

 

Or the federal government by charging and convicting someone of insurrection, which of course hasn't been done. This is a lay up, colorado literally relied on a quack saying he decoded what Trump meant in his speech even though he said protest PEACEFULLY. Several lefties on here as well, and as Justice Sotomayor or Jackson asked how could it possibly be fair if a secretary of state decides a federal election because of something assumed?

 

Yes yes. Everything you don’t like is a conspiracy!

Thats such a brilliant and original point. Good job

 

Let me see if I git this correct. The SCOTUS will display evident bias if they rule opposite the way you think they should.

 

I don't like it, but that is the precedent the Democrats set.

 

And here is him doing so.

 

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress decides who;s qualified not the states because it's a federal election not a state or local election.

 

They aren't verified at all, subjective opinions. Again, it's interesting people can be so manipulated into believing the 30k mathematical impossibility lmao.

 

Yes, you do and you objectively did.

I don't cite sources because it won't convince you of things you don't want ot believe. Simple as that. And we don't have to speculate, yours ARE biased.

No one lies more than dems in power. Your sources are absolutely propaganda.

I'm not concerned with the lefts irrational perception of my debate credibility. They are allowed to incorrectly believe whatever they wish.

And there is no etiquette involved in demanding I do your research for you. The answer is no.

 

Or even elected state politicians making that decision lol. If Colorado wanted to laughably cite an insurrection against the state of Colorado. There's no proof of that but sure knock their socks off. But what Colorado CANNOT do is claim an insurrection against the federal government.

This has to be one of the dumbest cases to come before SCOTUS. It's one where litigants cannot win.

 

Honestly speaking, yes. This 'case' was frivolous. I compared it to Eastman and the Novel Election theory, because that's what it was. There was and is no basis in federal law for States to cite Federal Law. The States and litigants lacked both standing and jurisdiction(and every other state, even California ruled that that was the case).

The only reason SCOTUS took the case, I believe, is because of the importance of smacking it down themselves. They could've easily just chosen one of the other 29 federal court rulings against the theory and applied it, but they decided it was necessary to do it.

And since they'll do it, this travesty will never happen again.

 

The 14th added a prohibition, not a qualifier. Again, being an 'insurrectionist' is not an organic state(such as age and location), it is something that has to be found, proven and confirmed before it can be applied. And to whom does the responsibility lie to find, prove and confirm those facts? The Federal Government and its courts.

Not civil lawsuits, I'm afraid.

 

People watch this annoying kid on purpose?

 

So when its Trump its “subjective opinions”, but when its Biden its just “facts”

Just WOW….

VERIFIED !!!!!!!

 

Nothing about those subjective opinions were verified lies lmao.

 

You don't debate, you lash out. You always sound angry and defensive.

No one asks you to do their research for them, certainly not me. Basic, elementary, beginner-level debating begins with the concept that each side of the debate is responsible for proving any facts that they claim. What makes you think you're above all that?

 

It is a fair point to compare the Colorado case to teh dubious claims that Eastman and Navarro put in writing.

Indeed, yesterday, Trump’s lawyers argued AGAINST the very core of the legal “reasoning” behind the Trump insurrection!

The obvious hypocracy would be worth noting, were it not so common.

 

I disagree that it isn't clear. But Jason Murray made that point to Ketanji Brown Jackson. She responded that if it isn't clear, then why do you support the side that goes against democracy? So, I'll throw the question back at you. If you truly believe it is "not clear," why are you against democracy, and why are you promoting insurrectionist values? In the event that you find ambiguity in an issue, your knee-jerk reaction is to use it as an excuse to oppose our democracy. I find that odd.

 

Jackson convinced me she's an idiot in that hearing. Thomas may be a hack, but she's an idiot. Partisanship can't be used as an excuse for her "thinking."

A full answer would be pretty complicated from me as I am a technocrat who just happens to agree much more with democrats in our two-party system. But I do think people who try to block the peaceful transfer of power are insurrectionists, and so Trump is an insurrectionist, and I agree with the 14th amendment that insurrectionists should not be allowed to get in the government because of the risk of destroying it from within. Horrible people can be popular. The founders didn't trust unbridled democracy either, hence the ways to disqualify candidates, the separation of powers, and so on.

It is fortunate for Trump that SCOTUS gets to focus on the proper process for disqualifying a candidate, rather than the actual merits. On the merits of being an insurrectionist, he would be toast. But the people who are supposed to decide, Congress, would never hold him accountable for anything.

 

Watch Humpty, NOT the 'kid.'

 

But the interesting point is, as I hoped it might be, that the justices have NOT gone down the route of “he didn’t engage in an insurrection”. They have left that well and truly on the centre of the table. They appear to be taking one of the other ‘off-ramps’ that were available to them…

 

It did come up that he was never charged or convicted and they said it was a due process violation. But they didn't harp on it because it's irrelevant considering Jason Murray couldn't get past step one of proving Colorado had the authority to do what they did. If they have the authority, then step two would be to litigate that issue. But nobody sided with him and got past step one.

If there was a shred of evidence that he engaged in an insurrection he would have been charged by Jack Smith.

 

Do you have a link to his words without the annoying child's commentary?

 

The sheer hypocrisy and absolute dishonesty of the entire left has stopped being amazing or sad or even disappointing. It is disgusting.

What about your pals here, trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power? You're okay with them, huh?? betcha







https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...al-spotlight-on-inauguration-day-859451971661

What's the point? dimocraps are simply DESPICABLE