re: What's scary is that people are too stupid to understand how scary the Colorado ruling i

quote:

---

Regardless of how you feel about Trump, if you have a brain or an ounce of morals, this should chill you to your core.

---

I think anyone who sees this ruling as chilling, nefarious, or any other hyperbolic adjective you want to use, doesn't understand the legal basis of the ruling.

I posted in another thread, so I won't repeat the details here. The Colorado Supreme Court is not making up its own qualifications for President. The Court is attempting to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies insurrectionists from holding political offices.

I believe SCOTUS will rule Colorado is misinterpreting the Amendment. But what CO has done isn't crazy. And has the support of a lot of Constitutional scholars.

quote:

---

If SCOTUS affirms, it will pave the way for other states, no doubt.

---

Yes…towards a one party authoritarian state.

Just like Nazi Germany, or the Communist countries (including the CCP).


Serious question, do you support the removal of Trump from the ballot?

quote:

---

Serious question, do you support the removal of Trump from the ballot?

---

Of course he does, by any means necessary, legit or not.

The question is, does he have the guts to admit it.

quote:

---

What's scary is that people are too stupid to understand how scary the Colorado 

---

Suppose they'd be fine with every Red State saying "we didn't majority vote for Biden, so we don't recognize him as President and won't put him on the ballot this time around".

Not a good look. Our Constitutional Republic is made up of many State Democracies. Denying the people the right to choose between two (or more) of the nationally qualified candidates is both oppressive and dystopian.

But oppressive and dystopian is the SOP of the Establishment Uniparty and their totalitarian, Etatist ideology.

Colorado judges are being faithful to the constitution.

Trump, knowing full well that he lost, rallied a bunch of gullible morons to disrupt the transfer of power- for the first time in American history.

No one that has critically and objectively assessed the evidence thinks the election was stolen. Including multiple Trump judges and officials. It’s a false premise used by Trump to foment insurrection.

He’s a traitor.

quote:

---

I think anyone who sees this ruling as chilling, nefarious, or any other hyperbolic adjective you want to use, doesn't understand the legal basis of the ruling.

---

Just frickin stop you idiot!

The trial court, without a jury and using a civil standard effectively convicted trump of a federal crime defined by a federal statute- yet they didn't

They created their own definition and the judge found him civilly liable with the effect of removing a constitutional right from a person without sue process

quote:

---

Did I miss where they even charged Trump with insurrection, much less convict him of it?

---

Exactly - but Dday and ilk already assume guilt w/o conviction. Soooo 'Democratic'.....

quote:

---

I think anyone who sees this ruling as chilling, nefarious, or any other hyperbolic adjective you want to use, doesn't understand the legal basis of the ruling.

---

You have gone from engaging the point to insulting those that disagree with you or the ruling.

quote:

---

I posted in another thread, so I won't repeat the details here. The Colorado Supreme Court is not making up its own qualifications for President. The Court is attempting to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies insurrectionists from holding political offices.

---

I responded to you in another thread. I don't like making the hyperbolic claims of "anyone" as you do above, but I expect that most of the people you see discussing this item do understand that all the rulings are based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

quote:

---

I believe SCOTUS will rule Colorado is misinterpreting the Amendment. But what CO has done isn't crazy. And has the support of a lot of Constitutional scholars.

---

And a lot of Constitutional Scholars do not believe that the Colorado decision has the necessary legal support. Indeed, if we count jurists, then its tied in Colorado. When we factor in other states, then most jurists have not found the application to be disqualifying. Now those jurists may have had a different basis for their decisions, but your cited law review article would have empowered them, indeed mandated, that they make a different conclusion.

It isn't about name dropping a scholar or a popular vote. Those that see the problems in implementation (and I'm not sure they are using "chilling" or "nefarious") are doing so based on the implications of the decision, their own potentially sound legal reasoning, and the weight of the overuse of the legal system to try to impact what should be a matter of popular vote.

quote:

---

What caused you to go full Nazi?

---