Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:14 pm

They have to find a pretext. In order to contain the mess, my guess is that they will try to fudge up some twaddle about POTUS not being an "officer", perhaps with language to make it a "oncie" as with Bush v Gore in 2000.

Ok.  I've heard that argument.  I think it is valid, but weaker than the Due Process position.  We shall see.
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:16 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:16 pm

He was afforded the Due Process allowed for under Colorado law.

Not possible.  He was never criminally charged with insurrection. Therefore, never indicted, never charged, never tried, never convicted.
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:34 pm

And, you base this on what, exactly?  One of the dissenting judges disagrees with you, and explained why.  So, you better have something better than what he has to say on that topic.  Regardless, of what you may come up with, I still think that will be a focal point of the SCOTUS's decision. 

Again, if you think there is some OTHER basis for the SCOTUS to reverse it, please do tell!  This is the third time I've asked.

One of the dissenting judges disagrees with you, and explained why

The disagreement is over the process....but it is the process in place, and it was observed - according to the majority.

I've given you the pretext I believe they will reach for.

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:39 pm

The disagreement is over the process....but it is the process in place, and it was observed - according to the majority.

I've given you the pretext I believe they will reach for.

Thanks, you did, I saw it in another post of yours.   I disagree and still maintain that they will slam Colorado on due process.
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 4:38 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:38 pm

Not possible.  He was never criminally charged with insurrection. Therefore, never indicted, never charged, never tried, never convicted.

Show me where it is a requirement under either Sec 3 or Colorado law.
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:40 pm

Show me where it is a requirement under either Sec 3 or Colorado law.

It's required under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  This Trumps Colorado law.   But, I'm sure Colorado has a whole bunch of **** on due process as well.
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:40 pm

Thanks, you did, I saw it in another post of yours.   I disagree and still maintain that they will slam Colorado on due process.

Are they going to micro manage every states process for ballot qualification?

Isn't that anathema to the states' rights crowd?

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:41 pm

It's required under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  This Trumps Colorado law.   But, I'm sure Colorado has a whole bunch of **** on due process as well.

No, it isn't...

You must qualify to be on a ballot...there is no right.
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:41 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:41 pm

Are they going to micro manage every states process for ballot qualification?

Isn't that anathema to the states' rights crowd?

No, that's why I think they are going to hit due process out of the park with an aluminum baseball bat.  If Trump was never charged, tried and convicted of insurrection, then states can't use that to keep him off the ballot.  If they want to use insurrection, they need to charge, try and convict Trump of insurrection in Federal court.

That's why I think the other position you put forth is too weak.
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:37 pm

Ok.  I've heard that argument.  I think it is valid, but weaker than the Due Process position.  We shall see.

It is the pretext with the fewesr consequences.

I am not ruling out a possibility that Alito will be ordered to cut Grifty loose.
 

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 4:44 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:44 pm

No, that's why I think they are going to hit due process out of the park with an aluminum baseball bat.  If Trump was never charged, tried and convicted of insurrection, then states can't use that to keep him off the ballot.  If they want to use insurrection, they need to charge, try and convict Trump of insurrection in Federal court.

That's why I think the other position you put forth is too weak.

If Trump was never charged, tried and convicted of insurrection, then states can't use that to keep him off the ballot

They just did.

Because he doesn't have to be charged...he only has to be "found" to have done so.

He was.

The reason why the [[[JWO MSM]]] has repeatedly lied about how MAGA murdered 5 Cops and severely injured 140 more was to fortify their ridiculous Insurrection Narrative.
They have repeated the false Insurrection Narrative to normalize it in the minds of their Goyim Flock.
The [[[JWO]]] has at least 50% of the USA believing that MAGA conspired to overthrow the US Government with a couple dozen flag poles, pocket knives, cans of bear spray and a single firecracker.
The [[[JWO]]] has their effeminately raised Goyim Masses convinced that MAGA planned in advance to drag Pence right in front of 100s of heavily armed Capitol Police and Secret Service Agents to his death at the "Home Depot Gallows". To a pick up truck  that was parked off campus ...no less....  
This false Insurrection Narrative was designed to justify the process that has led to kicking Trump off the ballot.
Looks like Newsome has enough forward thinking ability to oppose this precedent setting "End Run" .
Newsome has already encouraged so much of Califonia's tax base to move out of State that he's in Damage Control Mode now.
 
 

R.Suave » 09 Jan 2024, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 4:48 pm

They just did.

Because he doesn't have to be charged...he only has to be "found" to have done so.

He was.

Just "finding" that he has done so, without the process of charging him, trying him and convicting him, is a big freaking hole in due process, isn't it.   
 

RebelGator » 09 Jan 2024, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 10:57 am

How can a majority be singular......understand the meaning of words.

Person is singular, people are more than each ancestor adapting to space occupying the moment here since conceived to replace their previous generation gaps.

Should last to arrive die before those conceiving them, extinction has arrived before the total sum population dies off. Great great grandchildren arrive one at a time conceived by great grandchildren being the previous last generation added, one at a time now.

Native to this atmosphere and directly linked by DNA to numbers of the 5 generations living.

Universal constant some thing exists when intellectual nothing is debated or there wouldn't be debates between people of multiple generations here now.

The case was brought by four Republicans in Colorado. So it wasn't even democrats that brought it up.

Skans » 09 Jan 2024, 5:46 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 5:46 pm

Just "finding" that he has done so, without the process of charging him, trying him and convicting him, is a big freaking hole in due process, isn't it.  mg:

No...because the finding was the result of an adjudication.

Bidencrimefamily » 09 Jan 2024, 6:33 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 6:33 pm

The case was brought by four Republicans in Colorado. So it wasn't even democrats that brought it up.

Never Trumpers have the same goal as liberals. People that mind same ideas colonize around half truths and traditionally teach every added generation to serve the ideas or else.

Nostradamus'omh » 09 Jan 2024, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 6:56 pm

Never Trumpers have the same goal as liberals. People that mind same ideas colonize around half truths and traditionally teach every added generation to serve the ideas or else.

No Republicans that are constitutionalists. 
 

Bidencrimefamily » 09 Jan 2024, 6:59 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 6:59 pm

No Republicans that are constitutionalists. 
 

What constitutes institutionalism around intellectual ideas rather than figure out how evolving sustains eternal balance between 5 generation gaps adapting in space at the same time as specifically here from inception to conceiving next generation gap or not.

People ignoring how evolving works in real time adapting as displaced in a body that is an ever changing form since a fertilized cell replacing those making the conception happen now as uniquely here as geographically positioned performing social narratives cradle to grave.

"It is what it is.".

Nostradamus'omh » 09 Jan 2024, 7:04 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2024, 7:04 pm

What constitutes institutionalism around intellectual ideas rather than figure out how evolving sustains eternal balance between 5 generation gaps adapting in space at the same time as specifically here from inception to conceiving next generation gap or not.

People ignoring how evolving works in real time adapting as displaced in a body that is an ever changing form since a fertilized cell replacing those making the conception happen now as uniquely here as geographically positioned performing social narratives cradle to grave.

"It is what it is.".

If you are a constitionalists you follow the constitution and these were Republicans that brought this up not democratic people.