The Supreme Court did not say!!

Flash said:
That is a big "If." No state removed him from the general election ballot. If they were blocking him from holding office again blocking him from the general election ballot would be the only action that made sense.
Click to expand...

Colorado removed him from all ballots as "not qualified" due to them just saying he was part of an insurrection. Had the SCOTUS ruled he could be removed from the primary ballot it would mean they were also able to remove him from the general ballot. The only reason his name was still listed on our ballot was because they had to print them before Trump's appeal could be heard.

The reality: They tried to be judge, jury and executioner and use lawfare to make tRump ineligible. I told y'all that it wouldn't work because of section 1 of the same Amendment they were trying to remove him from the ballot with where it said no State had a right to deprive anyone of rights without due process and that he had a right to due process before losing his rights. I also told y'all then that to remove him from a ballot you would need to convict him in federal court on insurrection, which would then actually make him ineligible and would avoid the "state depriving" part. It would also be a law that passed Congress, which would fit the 5th section of the Amendment (14th) which specifically gave Congress the power to enforce the Amendment....

Anyway, your post was absurd. If he could be removed from one he could be removed from both due to the same "ineligibility".

I, like the SCOTUS, am not "ruling" or saying anyone is "not guilty" but one thing I do know is not being charged makes the presumption of innocence pretty resounding. Until you charge and then convict Trump of insurrection he will continue to be eligible to run for President, even if you (and possibly I) really really hate him a lot...
 
Damocles said:
Colorado removed him from all ballots as "not qualified" due to them just saying he was part of an insurrection. Had the SCOTUS ruled he could be removed from the primary ballot it would mean they were also able to remove him from the general ballot. The only reason his name was still listed on our ballot was because they had to print them before Trump's appeal could be heard.

The reality: They tried to be judge, jury and executioner and use lawfare to make tRump ineligible. I told y'all that it wouldn't work because of section 1 of the same Amendment they were trying to remove him from the ballot with where it said no State had a right to deprive anyone of rights without due process and that he had a right to due process before losing his rights. I also told y'all then that to remove him from a ballot you would need to convict him in federal court on insurrection, which would then actually make him ineligible and would avoid the "state depriving" part. It would also be a law that passed Congress, which would fit the 5th section of the Amendment (14th) which specifically gave Congress the power to enforce the Amendment....

Anyway, your post was absurd. If he could be removed from one he could be removed from both due to the same "ineligibility".

I, like the SCOTUS, am not "ruling" or saying anyone is "not guilty" but one thing I do know is not being charged makes the presumption of innocence pretty resounding. Until you charge and then convict Trump of insurrection he will continue to be eligible to run for President, even if you (and possibly I) really really hate him a lot...
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS is the response flash needed, not that he will acknowledge it.
 
It was not a criminal case, the SCOTUS was not asked to rule on his guilt or innocence, this is the reason that Kagan remarked that he lacked his right to Due Process. Pretending that they would just randomly declare someone not guilty without ever having any due process is absurd and any attorney should do better than this. It's like you refuse to remember things like rights and how trials work even though it is your frickin' job to know.
 
Damocles said:
It was not a criminal case, the SCOTUS was not asked to rule on his guilt or innocence, this is the reason that Kagan remarked that he lacked his right to Due Process. Pretending that they would just randomly declare someone not guilty without ever having any due process is absurd and any attorney should do better than this. It's like you refuse to remember things like rights and how trials work even though it is your frickin' job to know.
Click to expand...

The Colorado court found affirmatively that Trump engaged in insurrection. Not criminally, common understanding of the word. They did not find him guilty of a criminal statute, but they affirmatively concluded that he engaged in insurrection. (Insurrection was not a crime when the 14th was passed.) THe Supreme Court did not take issue with that finding.

What is this obsession with is being a Criminal case or a Criminal issue?

A civil case also found that Trump raped E. Jean Carrol, not criminally, but civilly, using the common understanding of the word. Not the way it is defined in a criminal statute.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
blanket immunity is absurd....but then we only need immunity from legislation directed at only one person and applied retroactively to take care of all the NY cases........immunity from prosecution only directed politically to take care of all the Georgia cases....and immunity from applying classified documents rules selectively to take care of the Florida cases......
Click to expand...

Ugh you again.

Your man is demanding something as dangerous and absurd as blanket immunity. You trust his judgement, and belief about what a President is.
 
Jarod said:
The Colorado court found affirmatively that Trump engaged in insurrection. Not criminally, common understanding of the word. They did not find him guilty of a criminal statute, but they affirmatively concluded that he engaged in insurrection. (Insurrection was not a crime when the 14th was passed.) THe Supreme Court did not take issue with that finding.

What is this obsession with is being a Criminal case or a Criminal issue?

A civil case also found that Trump raped E. Jean Carrol, not criminally, but civilly, using the common understanding of the word. Not the way it is defined in a criminal statute.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, you haven't read the decision then and are just mouthing words because you like the sound of them, the Colorado Court declared, without Due Process or him ever been charged, that he was "ineligible" because they declared that he took part in insurrection. The SCOTUS told them the ruling was rubbish and that they had no power to just declare ineligibility based on their feels and that even Trump gets Due Process.

They also ruled it had to be a law passed by Congress, that the states don't get to play in this playground. Kagan, someone you should listen to and probably even look up to though I think she often uses feels rather than law, realized that his Due Process rights were abused... and feared that the same could be done to candidates from the left. She showed an understanding of law that you fail to present yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top