Colorado Sec. 3 14th Amendment arguments made. Did Trump 'engage' in an insurrection?

What rights might that be?

 

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file, or maybe the delusional thinking file, take your pick.

 

Hysterics? You no longer think that MAGA is a threat to democracy?

 

So there we were, face to face with the enemy.... And directly to my right was Donald Trump reloading his musket...

 

Election interference
Voter suppression
Constitution
Justice

 

1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments

 

You got everything wrong. Will you be issuing a retraction?

 

No, the court got it wrong, so we will just disagree.

And here's why:

Why in hell would section three say ' Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." if only congress were the sole agent to enforce section three?

Do you see? It's because the disability vote would ONLY become necessary if some other agent other than congress enforced section three, so why would disability wording be in written in section three IF the court's ruling of 'congress sole enforcer' was the intent? It couldn't possibly be the intent. Clearly, it the intent was for the states, state Secy of State, state court, or some agent other than the SC, to do it, all with the foreknowledge that it would be litigated to the SC from there, who would make the decision.

But this court, given the backlash they experienced from Gore v Bush, couldn't handle this hot potato. Yeah, it was a mighty big hot potato. Too big, too hot, to handle.

Moreover, they made stuff up, they said it was okay for a state to apply section three to state offices, but not federal (noting the voting apparatus is controlled at the state level, per the constitution), yet the constitution doesn't make this distinction. They also glossed over the point that the entire reason for CO to take Trump off the ballot, knowing in advance that the person disqualified would appeal to the Supreme Court, was that ultimately it would be SC who would make the decision, clearly, the original intent was NOT to 'merely to have a state decide' but to have the SC decide, as it should be decided. Who else? Congress is partisan as hell, This idea that a polarized congress is ever going to get it together to enforce section three is ludicrous (they legislate, they are not police) and so, their ruling was a massive cop out.

It makes NO SENSE, and what the court actually did, was drop a gargantuan hot potato, a ruling that would have disqualified the president would result in a spate of hatred from the right, death threads, and the like, and everyone on that court knew it, and so they scoured the landscape for any off ramp they could find in order to drop this monolith sized hot potato. I suppose I can't blame them. But, it wasn't a profile in courage, let's be clear on that point.

 

All 12 of them (CO minority and entire SCOTUS) but you got it right. Sure you did.

I expect Moms to determine who wins this election.

 

CO determined he engaged in insurrection.
CO supreme court determined section three applied.

USSC didn't disagree on the matter of his engaging in insurrection.

I gave an explanation why I disagree, and a lot of attorneys, judges, prominent folks, agree wtih me. The court erred.

 

That's your argument? Are you sure you want to leave it that way?

Let's try this thought exercise: I a given household it has been made a written rule that if Jimmy fails to clean his room he will be grounded. It is also written that, by a vote of 2/3, mother and father can remove the disability imposed by the prior sentence. Them's the rules that we're all gonna abide by!!!!

Later in the day Mrs. Mitchell from down the street sees Jimmy outside playing and figures he hasn't cleaned his room. By your reading of the statute Mrs. Mitchell could then ground Jimmy and he's have to wait for his parents to vote to see if he can get out of the grounding. Do you REALLY believe that Jimmy's parents intended to give the power of grounding to anyone and everyone in the neighborhood?

 

What was a riot is called insurrection by the left to open the door to political prosecutions. It is pure corruption.

 

No idea what this so called 'the left' is. Who speaks for them or what they say or don't say.

Using broad brushes like that doesn't make any point about anything. It's just made up.
And to this day, no one has been charged or convicted for insurrection. Are you, 'the left'? You're making some sort of claim.

 

Lol. You speak for them. I consider it fairly universal.

 

Then they must be the educated side.