PDA

View Full Version : 9-0 SCOTUS Rules Trump On CO Ballot



Kathianne
03-04-2024, 12:49 PM
Without doubt, the correct decision. The legal persecution of Trump is going to lead to his winning.

https://www.denverpost.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-ruling-donald-trump-ballot-colorado-case/

Related, Hanson:

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1764360285803118671




Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson
How To Destroy the American Legal System


By either listening to testimonies or reading transcripts of the various 2024 Trump election-related court cases and testimonies, what we are left with is an epidemic of lies.


1) Hunter Biden’s current testimonies are contradicted by his own text messages, bank records, phone records, and testimonies of some of his associates. Anytime he is trapped in inconsistencies, he falls back on his addiction. Translated, that means we are sometimes supposed to believe he is a Yale-trained lawyer, experienced corporate grandee, and skilled negotiator, and thus carefully avoided involving his father in the family’s various schemes. And then again, sometimes when the evidence is damning and overwhelming, he simply cannot remember, or claims he was addled at the time in question due to his medical “addiction”.


2) In the Georgia Trump case, lawyers Terence Bradley, Nathan Wade, and Prosecutor Fani Willis all testified under oath to events that are contradicted by either prior other witness testimonies, or their own previous statements, or electronic phone records, and thus, to square the record, either have claimed amnesia, ignorance, or larger racist forces at work. Two of the three are leading the effort to indict a former president and current leading candidate for the presidency on a racketeering charge never before used in a Georgia election interference case, and to be tried by prosecutors who have either zero experience in felony criminal cases or no experience in racketeering cases or both.


3) Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, ran for office on promises to use her office to go after Donald Trump. She used an obscure consumer fraud law to claim Trump overvalued assets to obtain a loan that was paid back with interest and on time to a bank that audited his financial statement prior to the loan and had zero complaints about its profitable loan after it was paid off. Trump now is fined $355 million for a crime that has no victim, and has lost control of his New York businesses to a court-appointed judge. No one in New York history has ever been tried under this statute for allegedly exaggerating assets to get a loan that was paid back and over which the lending agency had no complaints.


4) Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg also boasted in his campaign for office he would go after Donald Trump. He is trying Trump on multiple felonies in a state court surrounding a supposed campaign finance violation over a nondisclosure agreement that the proper federal attorneys earlier felt did not merit prosecution.


5) Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is trying Trump for removing classified files to his estate at Mar-a-Lago. Note that twin special prosecutor Robert Hur found that President Biden also removed classified files to more and less secure residences for far longer (over 30 years) but as a senator and Vice President without Trump’s statutory presidential authority to declassify such documents. Biden admitted in 2017 he possessed such classified files and yet knowingly waited years to notify authorities. He did so only on the expectation that prosecutor Smith would soon indict Trump for the same alleged crime. Smith is also trying Trump on “insurrectionary” conduct despite Trump never having been charged in the prior three years by any federal or state authority for such an offense.


6) E. Jean Carrol (won $83.3 million in a “defamation” civil suit against Trump) won her case despite: 1) having no idea what year the alleged sexual assault took place some 30 years ago; 2) claiming she remembered the assault by the designer dress she wore that did not exist at the time; 3) advancing a narrative of events nearly identical to an episode of Law and Order that aired in 2012; 4) tweeting roughly two decades later that her supposed assailant’s TV show The Apprentice was one of her favorites; 5) her ELLE editor denying Carroll was fired from the magazine due to the Carroll-Trump dispute; 6) creating an app about how to break up couples through various machinations; 7) refiling her case beyond the statute of limitations, but only once a leftwing New York legislator strangely passed a bill allowing claimants of sexual abuse to have a one time, one year window to refile beyond the statute of limitations.


7) Blue or purple states such as Colorado, Illinois, and Maine are currently all attempting to remove Donald Trump from their presidential ballots on allegations of insurrectionary activity despite the fact he has never been convicted of any such charge and there is no precedent for such presidential disqualification.


8) Note the following: All the prosecutors, and litigants are either Democratic partisans or liberals. The trials have and will take place largely in Atlanta, New York, or Washington among leftwing prosecutors, judges, and jury pools. The majority of the charges and suits—the various states’ misuse of 14th Amendment, Bragg’s bootstrapping a state indictment onto a federal charge, James’s contortion of using a consumer fraud law to try Trump for a crime without a victim, Willis’s misuse of a racketeering statute to concoct an election interference charge, Carroll refiling once a leftwing jurist passed a special law that allowed her to do so postfacto, Smith’s effort to indict a president for insurrection and removing classified files—have either never been used before in these ways, or are in the wrong jurisdiction, or could equally apply to Democratic targets such as Joe Biden (found culpable by a special counsel but exempt by cognitive disability, named in various testimonies and texts as recipient of illicit foreign payments, accused of prior sexual assault), Hillary Clinton (fined for campaign finance violations), or Barack Obama (fined for campaign finance violations).


So what is the reason for all this lying, these legal contortions, and egregious prosecutor and judicial misbehavior?


Five simple facts alone:


1) The Left both fears and detests Donald Trump.


2) Donald Trump chose to run for the presidency in 2024.


3) Donald Trump is not a man of the Left.


4) Donald Trump is currently ahead of Joe Biden in both national polls and in the majority of swing state polls.


5) The Left feels barring Trump from the presidency is worth destroying 235 years of American jurisprudence.

fj1200
03-04-2024, 02:46 PM
You know it's bad when not even Jackson could wrangle a vote against trump.

Gunny
03-04-2024, 04:51 PM
You know it's bad when not even Jackson could wrangle a vote against trump.There was dissension with Amy Coney-Barrett joining the Dems who apparently vote only in lockstep. Barrett joins liberal justices on Trump ballot ban ruling going too far | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/4506721-barrett-liberal-justices-supreme-court-trump-ballot-ban/)

The four took issue with the fact that the decision went further than it had to by defining that only Congress can invoke that particular clause in the Amendment. Soto-Mayor went as far as comparing it to the decision to go beyond the MS law to eviscerate Roe v Wade.

What they agreed upon is that final authority is Federal. IMO, that doesn't bode well for Abbott.

Gunny
03-04-2024, 05:06 PM
Even leftwingnut Justices cannot escape the far left idiots:rolleyes:

Keith Olbermann rips Supreme Court, calls liberal justices ‘inept’ | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/4507380-keith-olbermann-rips-supreme-court/)

Gunny
03-04-2024, 05:08 PM
Maine secretary of state withdraws Trump ballot ban | The Hill (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507071-maine-withdraws-trump-ballot-ban/)

fj1200
03-04-2024, 05:11 PM
Even leftwingnut Justices cannot escape the far left idiots:rolleyes:

Keith Olbermann rips Supreme Court, calls liberal justices ‘inept’ | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/4507380-keith-olbermann-rips-supreme-court/)


“Collectively the ‘court’ has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved,” Olbermann continued.

Moron. Not even a unanimous decision is enough. :rolleyes:

SassyLady
03-05-2024, 01:56 PM
Even leftwingnut Justices cannot escape the far left idiots:rolleyes:

Keith Olbermann rips Supreme Court, calls liberal justices ‘inept’ | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/4507380-keith-olbermann-rips-supreme-court/)

Typical example of TDS

Gunny
03-06-2024, 11:35 AM
Typical example of TDSNot even close. Keith Olbermann has been a drooling at the mouth, common sense, logic, fact and/or the law only convenient if it supports his loyalty to the brand of mindless leftism since before Trump was running his suck on reality TV and not even in the picture. Olbermann is one of the poster boys for radical stupidity that neither side of the aisle holds a monopoly on. Right off the top I can think of about 10 Republicans currently occupying seats in the House that belong to the same school, just the other side of the coin. In the end, one side no more or less dangerous than the other.

Trump is incidental to the question of whether or not one state gets to decide who can run for President. Because it was not going to end at one state. Texas was already lining up remove Biden from the ballot had the Supreme Court not ruled as it did. We were not the only state talking such rubbish either. So the question becomes does the Supreme Court allow one or more states to completely destroy our government and how the People are represented? Unless that was the desired result of the Court, it had no choice.

As far as TDS goes, bearing in mind my first paragraph, that is an insult used by radicals who view Trump and his supporters/non supporters in black or white only. You love the guy or you're all f-d up. That's as extremist and crazy as anything else going on in politics at the moment. There's every reason to dislike and/or disqualify him ON HIS OWN MERIT. The only thing he has going for him is he isn't the current f-kup occupying the WH.

This current crop of Democrats in behavior while wearing the Republican brand are frauds, and may as well be working for the democrats because they are destroying the party from within and guess who's leading the charge?

And guess who will be cry the loudest when the smoke clears and the Dems control everything?

Kathianne
03-06-2024, 12:31 PM
Not even close. Keith Olbermann has been a drooling at the mouth, common sense, logic, fact and/or the law only convenient if it supports his loyalty to the brand of mindless leftism since before Trump was running his suck on reality TV and not even in the picture. Olbermann is one of the poster boys for radical stupidity that neither side of the aisle holds a monopoly on. Right off the top I can think of about 10 Republicans currently occupying seats in the House that belong to the same school, just the other side of the coin. In the end, one side no more or less dangerous than the other.

Trump is incidental to the question of whether or not one state gets to decide who can run for President. Because it was not going to end at one state. Texas was already lining up remove Biden from the ballot had the Supreme Court not ruled as it did. We were not the only state talking such rubbish either. So the question becomes does the Supreme Court allow one or more states to completely destroy our government and how the People are represented? Unless that was the desired result of the Court, it had no choice.

As far as TDS goes, bearing in mind my first paragraph, that is an insult used by radicals who view Trump and his supporters/non supporters in black or white only. You love the guy or you're all f-d up. That's as extremist and crazy as anything else going on in politics at the moment. There's every reason to dislike and/or disqualify him ON HIS OWN MERIT. The only thing he has going for him is he isn't the current f-kup occupying the WH.

This current crop of Democrats in behavior while wearing the Republican brand are frauds, and may as well be working for the democrats because they are destroying the party from within and guess who's leading the charge?

And guess who will be cry the loudest when the smoke clears and the Dems control everything?

TDS seems to afflict his acolytes more than it does those that find him unacceptable, and has become more virulent and deeper over time, thanks to the Democrats. While most of us can see the law as persecution by the democrats, his minions find it proof of his Christ-like need to suffer. Like Christ, he cannot be denied, he will rise and conquer. He is to bring calm and reason out of the chaos he causes, that he gets help from his enemies, more proof of his godlike qualities. There is nothing, not a thing, that they find wrong in any real sense. Any utterances, by keystrokes or orally that seem counter to his goodness and his bringing light, well they were just hiccups, as when the other savior lost it in the Temple or wandered from his parents. Just a blip, the human side as it were.

revelarts
03-08-2024, 02:33 AM
Typical example of TDS
He's the 'Poster Child' for TDS.

Olberman actually made some very solid points during the Bush era about War, torture, unconstitutional surveillance, spying, TSA, etc.. Heck, he even made some good points about Obama's unconstitutional overreaches a hand full of times.
But when Trump became president Olberman just flat lost all his ever lovin' marbles.



But Yes, thank God, the ruling is a Great one. Leaves a bit of what we call voting intact.
Though I wonder about the nuance of the federalist premise they use as the rulings basis.
I hope the legal line was drawn narrow enough there,
So they can't pretend later that this ruling means that states have NO rights to do anything the feds don't like.

Gunny
03-08-2024, 11:51 AM
He's the 'Poster Child' for TDS.

Olberman actually made some very solid points during the Bush era about War, torture, unconstitutional surveillance, spying, TSA, etc.. Heck, he even made some good points about Obama's unconstitutional overreaches a hand full of times.
But when Trump became president Olberman just flat lost all his ever lovin' marbles.



But Yes, thank God, the ruling is a Great one. Leaves a bit of what we call voting intact.
Though I wonder about the nuance of federalist premise they use as the rulings basis.
I hope the legal line was drawn narrow enough there,
So they can't pretend later that this ruling means that states have NO rights to do anything the feds don't like. The bolded was the first thing that came to mind when I stated "doesn't bode well for Texas (Border issue). The one thing it appears the Court agrees on is Federal final control.

Gunny
03-10-2024, 04:07 PM
Just a question ... is their a difference between individual States deciding who the people can vote for, and two political parties more alike than not deciding who people can vote for? Minus all the smoke and mirrors of "you can vote for who you want to", not really. Not in any meaningful way. You get who the party shoves down your throat.

Kathianne
03-10-2024, 05:33 PM
Just a question ... is their a difference between individual States deciding who the people can vote for, and two political parties more alike than not deciding who people can vote for? Minus all the smoke and mirrors of "you can vote for who you want to", not really. Not in any meaningful way. You get who the party shoves down your throat.
Can write in. Can vote for one of obscure party guys. IMO, best to actually get involved in local politics and influence that way. That's what I did when stating at home.

revelarts
03-10-2024, 07:13 PM
Can write in. Can vote for one of obscure party guys. IMO, best to actually get involved in local politics and influence that way. That's what I did when stating at home.
Kath! Welcome to the "party"!!! :cheers2:


Just so you're ready, I've been told "i'm wasting my vote" when I write in or vote 3rd party... every year now since Bush Jr 2nd term.

Seriously,
seems to me all it'd take for the Ds &Rs to straiten up (or cheat more) is a BLOCK of voters to say H3LL NO to both parties.
20% of the vote going anywhere else. together or separately would be shock to the system.
Whoever won would know they've got a block of the public they've LOST and have actually DO Something to reach.

Gunny
03-11-2024, 05:43 PM
Can write in. Can vote for one of obscure party guys. IMO, best to actually get involved in local politics and influence that way. That's what I did when stating at home.

Write in votes are discarded.

What do you suppose would happen if, by some astronomical chance, the majority of people wrote in the same name and that person had the most votes? Not a legit candidate and didn't go through the allowable process.

Individuals getting involved locally face the same two-party system, their money and media.

I have a much bigger and more impossible desire: a politically aware and educated public. Part of the "checks n balances" is the People check the Government. They're falling down on the job.

Kathianne
03-11-2024, 06:38 PM
Write in votes are discarded.

What do you suppose would happen if, by some astronomical chance, the majority of people wrote in the same name and that person had the most votes? Not a legit candidate and didn't go through the allowable process.

Individuals getting involved locally face the same two-party system, their money and media.

I have a much bigger and more impossible desire: a politically aware and educated public. Part of the "checks n balances" is the People check the Government. They're falling down on the job.

Local leads to state leads to fed. Follow the Obama to TrumpTo Biden. Influence works. It's no longer possible to pick lesser, they're both greater bad.

Gunny
03-12-2024, 10:32 AM
Local leads to state leads to fed. Follow the Obama to TrumpTo Biden. Influence works. It's no longer possible to pick lesser, they're both greater bad.I have no problem with people who wish to get involved in the political process. Well, except that it always corrupts them, no matter how good their original intentions. They find themselves "playing the game" more and more to move up. Of course it starts at the bottom minus the "right" connections.

In my case, self-actualization comes to the fore to play. I do not have the personality nor patience for politics. I don't like people for a start :laugh: I also have this habit of keeping my mouth shut until pressed, then stating exactly what I think, let the chips fall where they will. Unlike most politicos nowadays, I will not stumble around backwards over my words looking like a fool trying to appease anyone offended. Especially lefties, but anymore rightwingnut radicals as well.

Just not my game. As a Colonel once put it, I need to be kept behind glass to be broken only in case of war:laugh: