Supreme Court Gives Colorado Secretary of State 10 Minutes to Argue

After petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for an extensive briefing to properly argue the extensive rationale for her kicking Trump off the Colorado ballot, the Colo Secretary of State was given ten minutes to present her case. The Court commented that they would like to hear why she thinks that, when President Trump told his supporters to demonstrate “peacefully and patriotically” before Congress, he was overthrowing the government. Talk about telegraphing your punches!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/su...FgAqYMp9PiTU16FTO5UH5rtt7Woag6ntPjrYzNiS4qlzt

 

The overthrowing the will of the voters was done with fraudulent electors trying to act legitimate, pushing the VP to not certify the election and demanding governors “find” him more votes.

His magapatriots trying to stop the vote was just one of many straws, but that’s on those idiots.

 

Hardly surprising since she is an amateur bit player in the matter. Far more qualified people will be listened to for longer.

 

The main charges against Trump are for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power in the weeks PRIOR to Jan 6th. The fake elector scheme
being number one on that front. I doubt the Court will uphold the ban though since Trump has not yet faced the jury trial.

 

It never happened, but so much of the left is lost in irrational hate of Trump so they dont care.

 

Dude - we all lived through it. You can't pretend 2020 didn't happen.

 

Same.

 

Bahahahahahah Sounds like they're not just questioning the throwing him off the ballot? They're gonna say he didn't engage in insurrection too

Bahahahahahah

 

Which was completely legal.

 

So let's say for a moment the SCOTUS actually says that without a trial and conviction for insurrection, the court can't use that as a justification for keeping him off the ballot.

Does that mean Trump can sue anyone claiming he engaged in insurrection for slander?

If so, talk about backfiring on the democrats bigly. CNN and msnbc won't know what the hell to say then lol

 

Like what other plaintiffs?

 

Except the plaintiff's assertion was insurrection.

 

I don’t think so either. Back in 1861 the congress passed legislation stating the south was in insurrection in July of that year, President Lincoln signed the declaration in August. Which met the specifics of section 5 of the 14th. With Trump there’s been no legislation passed, no declaration of 1-6 being an insurrection nor has any federal government agency, the president, the DOJ, homeland security etc. stated it was. None of the 91 federal charges does either. Also, Trump hasn’t been convicted or even charged with insurrection. Election interference, yes along with a wheel barrel full of other stuff.


Basically, Trump being an insurrectionist or 1-6 being an insurrection has been in the public opinion arena. A state supreme court along with a state secretary of state have deemed Trump an insurrectionist causing his removal from their state primary ballots. But do they have that authority, that power? I don’t know. I do think section 5 is pretty specific as to enforcement of the 14th and to what guidelines that amendment will be enforced. But who knows what will happen? I’m usually wrong when it comes to rulings from the SCOTUS. They speak and interpret in lawyerese, me, in plain English.

 

Enforcement is also the prevailing sense of legal authority. If it couldn't be enforced, then it wouldn't be a law. That's why this whole thing is so funny. This is gonna be 9-0'd so much, because the only ones with that authority is Congress and/or the DOJ.

It takes extraordinary measures to defeat democracy's ballot box. The attempt to do so makes it no different than 1/6. Both sides should respect the elections.

 

There is that other little legal thing, that thee 14th amendment doesn't even include the president. Federal officers, congresspersons, state legislatures, state executives, and presidential electors are stated, but not presidents or vice presidents.

It is nigh on impossible for a well-known public figure to win a slander suit.\, especially a national politician.

 

Especially Trump, to whom the courts have allowed such attacks against him, meanwhile 'liar' and 'crazy' is defamatory(I am STILL lost at this inconsistency LMAO)

If they protected CNN's Hitler-gate, they'll twist as a pretzel to protect the insurrection thing, although thinking about it they'll have to twist harder because they presented their claims as though factual, not based on opinion.

 

I won’t pretend to know or even guess how the SCOTUS will rule on this. But I do think Section 5 – The congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Which section 3 is a provision of this article or amendment.

Whereas the congress through legislation stated, declared the south in a state of insurrection, no such action, legislation was done for 1-6. As you stated, the DOJ or Homeland Security or the president hasn’t either nor has any federal government agency asked congress to do so.

 

The anti-Trump democrats do not care about section 5 or the 14th amendment, or the constitution for that matter. It is about winning.
The laws, predicates, constitution are meaningless if they miss their goal of instant amnesty of those who might become reliable democrats, or at least bother to get absentee ballots.
Remember, they threatened to pack the courts to mould the law to fit Trump, illegal immigration, and environmental social engineering without voters getting in the way and mucking things up.
We are back to the Obama years of a cooperative press focusing in "the hand you see, and ignoring the hand you don't"

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Sure they can!

Trump nation knows few bounds when it comes to self delusion!

They don’t have any arguments, and the facts are very clear.

So they have to pretend that what the world saw on Jan 6th didn’t happen.

It’s all they have.

 

Actually, the people who filed the lawsuit will be given 20 minutes, and the Sec of State 10.

She only asked for 15, which the Epoch Times conveniently forgot to mention.

 

The Epoch Times said otherwise. If they erred it is one of the few times.

 

Indeed. We already know which way our maga scotus will vote since they conveniently forgot to mention that trump also told his mob that they were being robbed and that they needed to fight.

 

Since “anti Trump Democrats” brought the suit to begin with, your claim is obviously false!

 

I’m sure it will come up.

The idea of giving any President absolute immunity from prosecution based on the parsing of one word in the 14th Amendment may appeal to the disciples of Trump, but it’s not good for democracy.

In the short run, it would embolden a candidate who makes no secret of his dictatorial ambitions.