Liberal Forum

Are you ready for this, boys and girls.  I just read the Colorado Supreme Court case.  I'm going to re-print here the entire basis for that court claiming Trump lead an "insurrection".

"President Trump held a rally that morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which  he, along with several others, spoke to the  attendees.  In his speech, which began  around noon, President Trump  persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that “[w]e won in a landslide” and “we will never concede.” He urged his supporters to “confront this egregious assault on our democracy”; “walk down to the Capitol. . . [and] show strength”; and that if they did not  “fight like hell, [they would] not. . . have a country anymore.” Before his speech ended, portions of the crowd began moving toward the Capitol."

That's it.  That's all the Colorado Supreme court has to justify its bogus claim that Trump conducted an insurrection.  Sometimes you just have to read the source document for yourself to see just how bogus the claim being made really is.    

Skans » 20 Dec 2023, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:40 pm

Are you ready for this, boys and girls.  I just read the Colorado Supreme Court case.  I'm going to re-print here the entire basis for that court claiming Trump lead an "insurrection".

"President Trump held a rally that morning at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. at which  he, along with several others, spoke to the  attendees.  In his speech, which began  around noon, President Trump  persisted in rejecting the election results, telling his supporters that “[w]e won in a landslide” and “we will never concede.” He urged his supporters to “confront this egregious assault on our democracy”; “walk down to the Capitol. . . [and] show strength”; and that if they did not  “fight like hell, [they would] not. . . have a country anymore.” Before his speech ended, portions of the crowd began moving toward the Capitol."

That's it.  That's all the Colorado Supreme court has to justify its bogus claim that Trump conducted an insurrection.  Sometimes you just have to read the source document for yourself to see just how bogus the claim being made really is.  

Remarkably, both Cato and the Federalist Society agree.

Had you clicked on the links I provided you earlier, you wouldn't look like a leaking asshole now..

 

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm

Remarkably, both Cato and the Federalist Society agree.

Had you clicked on the links I provided you earlier, you wouldn't look like a leaking asshole now..

Some societies agree?  Who cares.  Trump was never charged with insurrection.  He was never tried for insurrection.  And, Trump's statements are protected 1st Amendment speech.  There is no evidence that Trump plotted, planned, coordinated, funded, or armed any insurrection.  He made a speech.  Four sentences all about the election.  You may not like what he said, may disagree with it, but it was by no means an insurrection. 

Because, if it were a genuine insurrection, Trump would have been arrested, charged and tried for the crime.  No such thing ever occurred. 
 
 

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm

Remarkably, both Cato and the Federalist Society agree.

Had you clicked on the links I provided you earlier, you wouldn't look like a leaking asshole now..

You have two members of the Federalist Society that agree.  The article was published by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4532751#

From the Federalist Society:

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.The Sweep and Force of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: The Constitution's Disqualification from Office of Oath-Taking, Oath-Breaking Insurrectionists
https://fedsoc.org/events/the-sweep-and ... ectionists
 

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm

Remarkably, both Cato and the Federalist Society agree.

Had you clicked on the links I provided you earlier, you wouldn't look like a leaking asshole now..

Uni-party never Trumpers don't like Trump, go figure.
 

Cedar » 20 Dec 2023, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 2:04 pm

Uni-party never Trumpers don't like Trump, go figure.

I don't know about Cato but it appears the Federalist Society has not taken a position. 

Huey » 20 Dec 2023, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 2:07 pm

I don't know about Cato but it appears the Federalist Society has not taken a position.

The authors whose legs Blackvagina is humping were both against Trump's candidacy before the 2020 election even took place.
 

Huey » 20 Dec 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 2:02 pm

You have two members of the Federalist Society that agree.  The article was published by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4532751#

From the Federalist Society:

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.The Sweep and Force of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: The Constitution's Disqualification from Office of Oath-Taking, Oath-Breaking Insurrectionists
https://fedsoc.org/events/the-sweep-and ... ectionists

You didn't read the paper.

Did you read the link from the Times?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Skans » 20 Dec 2023, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:57 pm

Some societies agree?  Who cares.  Trump was never charged with insurrection.  He was never tried for insurrection.  And, Trump's statements are protected 1st Amendment speech.  There is no evidence that Trump plotted, planned, coordinated, funded, or armed any insurrection.  He made a speech.  Four sentences all about the election.  You may not like what he said, may disagree with it, but it was by no means an insurrection. 

Because, if it were a genuine insurrection, Trump would have been arrested, charged and tried for the crime.  No such thing ever occurred.

Read the link and don't be such a **** brick.
 

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 3:16 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:16 pm

You didn't read the paper.

Did you read the link from the Times?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

I read the actual source of the paper, not what someone told me to think about it.    

And I posted a link to that source.

I also posted on link from the Federalist Society.  You read what they said.

If you would be so kind as to post where that is the Federalist Society's opinion I will pick up my spork.  If not, start licking yours. 

 

Huey » 20 Dec 2023, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:18 pm

I read the actual source of the paper, not what someone told me to think about it.    

And I posted a link to that source.

I also posted on link from the Federalist Society.  You read what they said.

If you would be so kind as to post where that is the Federalist Society's opinion I will pick up my spork.  If not, start licking yours.

Stop.

You didn't read the paper.

You didn't read the citation.

Stop digging and do it.
 

Skans » 20 Dec 2023, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:57 pm

Some societies agree?  Who cares.  Trump was never charged with insurrection.  He was never tried for insurrection.  And, Trump's statements are protected 1st Amendment speech.  There is no evidence that Trump plotted, planned, coordinated, funded, or armed any insurrection.  He made a speech.  Four sentences all about the election.  You may not like what he said, may disagree with it, but it was by no means an insurrection. 

Because, if it were a genuine insurrection, Trump would have been arrested, charged and tried for the crime.  No such thing ever occurred.

Some societies agree?

Known SCOTUS Justices who are Federalists...

• Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
• Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
• Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
• Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:31 pm

Known SCOTUS Justices who are Federalists...

• Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
• Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
• Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
• Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett

The pubs don't know what they support. 

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 3:25 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:25 pm

Stop.

You didn't read the paper.

You didn't read the citation.

Stop digging and do it.

Again, all you have to do is post where is says that is the position of the Federalist Society, not just the two members who had that published by the  University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

And this is what is said at the Federalist Paper by those speaking about it:

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.The Sweep and Force of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: The Constitution's Disqualification from Office of Oath-Taking, Oath-Breaking Insurrectionists

Balls in your court, Askholio. 

 

Huey » 20 Dec 2023, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:34 pm

Again, all you have to do is post where is says that is the position of the Federalist Society, not just the two members who had that published by the  University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

And this is what is said at the Federalist Paper by those speaking about it:

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.The Sweep and Force of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: The Constitution's Disqualification from Office of Oath-Taking, Oath-Breaking Insurrectionists

Balls in your court, Askholio.

No...not until you actually know something.

Huey » 20 Dec 2023, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:34 pm

Again, all you have to do is post where is says that is the position of the Federalist Society, not just the two members who had that published by the  University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

And this is what is said at the Federalist Paper by those speaking about it:

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.The Sweep and Force of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: The Constitution's Disqualification from Office of Oath-Taking, Oath-Breaking Insurrectionists

Balls in your court, Askholio.

I don't have to do a **** thing.

You have to inform yourself.

Remember, on this topic you've taken some of your most legendary beatings.


 

Bidencrimefamily » 20 Dec 2023, 3:32 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:32 pm

The pubs don't know what they support.

They're idiots....

R.Suave » 20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm

Remarkably, both Cato and the Federalist Society agree.

Had you clicked on the links I provided you earlier, you wouldn't look like a leaking asshole now..

No doubt an easily terrified little ****** Bitch like you would be easy to convince that the following list of weapons was capable of overthrowing the US Government

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ters-carry

GHETTOBLASTER » 20 Dec 2023, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 3:53 pm

No doubt an easily terrified little ****** Bitch like you would be easy to convince that the following list of weapons was capable of overthrowing the US Government

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ters-carry

If they aren't weapons, why did they bring them?
 

Cedar » 20 Dec 2023, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 2:04 pm

Uni-party never Trumpers don't like Trump, go figure.

The World against Donald Trump.

You have it bad, girl.