Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Supreme Court hearing arguments about Jan. 6 is interesting.
Supreme Court hearing arguments about Jan. 6 is interesting.
By PhiloBeddo
8 Feb 2024 10:48 am in No Holds Barred Political Forum
8 Feb 2024 1:34 pm
8 Feb 2024 1:35 pm
Reverend Jim Jones was very effective in eliminating about 400 stupid, **** Communists. Thank you Reverend Jim for culling the stupid.
"ONE PROVEN WAY TO EXTERMINATE COMMUNISTS
IS TO BE A COMMUNIST AND FORCE YOUR FOLLOWERS
TO DRINK THE GRAPE KOOL-AID"
8 Feb 2024 1:44 pm
He's a piker next to Grifty...Skans » 08 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Reverend Jim Jones was very effective in eliminating about 400 stupid, **** Communists. Thank you Reverend Jim for culling the stupid.
"ONE PROVEN WAY TO EXTERMINATE COMMUNISTS
IS TO BE A COMMUNIST AND FORCE YOUR FOLLOWERS
TO DRINK THE GRAPE KOOL-AID"
https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/stud ... ntroduced/
8 Feb 2024 1:51 pm
There certainly was.Skans » 08 Feb 2024, 2:31 pm » wrote: ↑ I say they will. They will challenge it on the fact that there was no due process for a judicial determination of "insurrection" by Trump.
It was a civil procedure in which Grifty was "ably" represented.
8 Feb 2024 1:52 pm
You don't understand what courts do...Majik » 08 Feb 2024, 2:30 pm » wrote: ↑ They have no factual finding's .....just partisan opinions .
8 Feb 2024 2:18 pm
Another worthless opinion by you....
Colorado is trying to make the case that Trump should not be allowed on the ballot due to INSURRECTION......according to the Insurrection clause of the constitution ....
And that the state has the right to bar him due to that clause.....in a federal election.
Now, spanky....what happens to the legal notion of Insurrection if the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump.....?
huh?
8 Feb 2024 2:22 pm
MIght need to toss in some Swiss Miss Hot Cocoa and a few Therapy Puppies as well to get this job done.ConsRule » 08 Feb 2024, 1:30 pm » wrote: ↑ My unsolicited advice to you, maineman and other liberals is to purchase crayons and coloring books. It appears you will need them for your emotional well-being and recovery when the decision is handed down.
8 Feb 2024 2:30 pm
What's so funny is ol' Jimmy was sheets deep in bed with the San Francisco political machine of the time prior to going completely off the deep end.R.Suave » 08 Feb 2024, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑ He's a piker next to Grifty...
https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/stud ... ntroduced/
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
8 Feb 2024 3:26 pm
It would only challenge the procedure to invalidate, not the finding.Majik » 08 Feb 2024, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑ Another worthless opinion by you....
Colorado is trying to make the case that Trump should not be allowed on the ballot due to INSURRECTION......according to the Insurrection clause of the constitution ....
And that the state has the right to bar him due to that clause.....in a federal election.
Now, spanky....what happens to the legal notion of Insurrection if the SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump.....?
huh?
8 Feb 2024 3:38 pm
Whose finding?R.Suave » 08 Feb 2024, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑ It would only challenge the procedure to invalidate, not the finding.
8 Feb 2024 3:40 pm
Of fact issued by the Colorado courts.
8 Feb 2024 3:46 pm
There are no facts ....
You need an investigation to claim facts ......and Colorado did not Investigate a damn thing .....
Post a link to their supposed investigation ......
8 Feb 2024 3:47 pm
You don't understand what courts do.Majik » 08 Feb 2024, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑ There are no facts ....
You need an investigation to claim facts ......and Colorado did not Investigate a damn thing .....
Post a link to their supposed investigation ......
8 Feb 2024 3:51 pm
Post a link to their findings that lead to their decision ...
The motivation for their findings ...
8 Feb 2024 3:57 pm
Griswold v. Anderson.Majik » 08 Feb 2024, 4:51 pm » wrote: ↑ Post a link to their findings that lead to their decision ...
The motivation for their findings ...
You can read through the Colorado Supreme Courts analysis.
There was no "motivation", the courts are supposed to be "neutral"
The suit was brought by Republicans.
8 Feb 2024 3:58 pm
Never mind ....coward here is what the decision was based on ......hahahahahaha!The plaintiffs’ case, as presented over the course of a five-day evidentiary hearing earlier this month and in Wednesday’s closing arguments, resembled the proceedings of the House of Representatives’ select Jan. 6 committee in both style and substance, complete with dramatic video exhibits of Trump’s election-denying rhetoric and the mob’s assault on the Capitol.Much of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs consisted of that committee’s findings — over frequent objections by Trump’s attorneys, who renewed their attack on the credibility of the committee and its final report on Wednesday.“What this case comes down to is whether or not the court is going to follow the Jan. 6 report,” said Scott Gessler, Trump’s lead counsel in the case and a former Colorado secretary of state, describing the committee as “heavily biased” and the footage played by the plaintiffs as “curated and highly edited videos.”“The petitioners’ evidence relies on the Jan. 6 report,” Gessler said. “It relies on the inferences of the Jan. 6 report. It relies on the conclusions and the characterizations of the Jan. 6 report.”
8 Feb 2024 4:02 pm
Link?Majik » 08 Feb 2024, 4:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Never mind ....coward here is what the decision was based on ......hahahahahaha!The plaintiffs’ case, as presented over the course of a five-day evidentiary hearing earlier this month and in Wednesday’s closing arguments, resembled the proceedings of the House of Representatives’ select Jan. 6 committee in both style and substance, complete with dramatic video exhibits of Trump’s election-denying rhetoric and the mob’s assault on the Capitol.Much of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs consisted of that committee’s findings — over frequent objections by Trump’s attorneys, who renewed their attack on the credibility of the committee and its final report on Wednesday.“What this case comes down to is whether or not the court is going to follow the Jan. 6 report,” said Scott Gessler, Trump’s lead counsel in the case and a former Colorado secretary of state, describing the committee as “heavily biased” and the footage played by the plaintiffs as “curated and highly edited videos.”“The petitioners’ evidence relies on the Jan. 6 report,” Gessler said. “It relies on the inferences of the Jan. 6 report. It relies on the conclusions and the characterizations of the Jan. 6 report.”
8 Feb 2024 4:09 pm
So, what...The plaintiffs’ case, as presented over the course of a five-day evidentiary hearing earlier this month and in Wednesday’s closing arguments, resembled the proceedings of the House of Representatives’ select Jan. 6 committee in both style and substance, complete with dramatic video exhibits of Trump’s election-denying rhetoric and the mob’s assault on the Capitol.Much of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs consisted of that committee’s findings — over frequent objections by Trump’s attorneys, who renewed their attack on the credibility of the committee and its final report on Wednesday.“What this case comes down to is whether or not the court is going to follow the Jan. 6 report,” said Scott Gessler, Trump’s lead counsel in the case and a former Colorado secretary of state, describing the committee as “heavily biased” and the footage played by the plaintiffs as “curated and highly edited videos.”“The petitioners’ evidence relies on the Jan. 6 report,” Gessler said. “It relies on the inferences of the Jan. 6 report. It relies on the conclusions and the characterizations of the Jan. 6 report.”R.Suave » 08 Feb 2024, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Griswold v. Anderson.
You can read through the Colorado Supreme Courts analysis.
There was no "motivation", the courts are supposed to be "neutral"
The suit was brought by Republicans.
Last time I checked ....
The Jan.6th commitee is not a legal ruling by a legal authority ......
but a theatrical highly partisan political production that did not allow any real republicans on their commitee.....and did not afford Trump any due process.
So, the ruling is based on Conjecture and not any real Legal findings......
8 Feb 2024 4:10 pm
8 Feb 2024 4:19 pm
Also...R.Suave » 08 Feb 2024, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Griswold v. Anderson.
You can read through the Colorado Supreme Courts analysis.
There was no "motivation", the courts are supposed to be "neutral"
The suit was brought by Republicans.
The Jan.6th commitee is now under investigation by a Congressional commitee.....
Who is online
In total there are 3109 users online :: 11 registered, 14 bots, and 3084 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, ROG62, RebelGator, jerra b, SouthernFried, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, Fuelman
Bots: MQQBrowser, DuckDuckGo, YandexBot, proximic, DuckDuckBot, CensysInspect, ADmantX, CriteoBot, Mediapartners-Google, curl/7, Googlebot, bingbot, facebookexternalhit, Applebot