Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot

Thread by @DrewHolden360 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App
What happened to the media’s legal “experts” who said Colorado was right to kick Trump off the ballot? Remember them? I do. @FreeBeacon.

Quick trip down memory lane after even the liberal SCOTUS justices rejected Colorado’s claims. ⤵️

@nytimes cited an “expert” who said Colorado’s case was “legally sound” and that the only thing that could stop it was politics.

@washingtonpost repeated that “legally sound” narrative in a headline. Their “experts” also said “there’s a strong legal case” supporting Colorado.

My favorite might be @ABC, who cited “experts” to claim both that Colorado was right to kick Trump off, and that Trump and co were wrong to object to it.

 

Good post. Apparently, the standards for being an “expert” have been lowered significantly.

Of course, we need to “trust the experts”. Such a conundrum.

 

Uhmm, there is no 9-0 opinion. There is a majority opinion by 5 justices, a 3 justice concurring opinion and a single justice concurring opinion.

 

RE “expert opinions” …… we all know that old saying about everyone having opinions and how those opinions are akin to a certain part of the human anatomy.

 

So here SCOTUS is telling us that States don't have the right to control how federal elections are run.

But at the same time they have ruled that the Feds can't tell states how to run federal elections.

What a disgrace.

 

I think it needs to be said and I don’t see how it can be disputed …

Democrats, Not Trump Or His Supporters, Are The Real Extremists

Democrats Project Their Election Interference Onto The Court

 

What color is the sky in your world? Nothing you said is remotely true. I'd suggest logging off msnbc for a few...

 

So The Constitution said that insurrectionists had an electoral disability that only congress could remove.

Now in a rewriting of that document that no one asked for, congress must attach that disability to an insurrectionist for him to be barred from running. A congress mind you that has several likely unindicted (so far) co-conspirators to that insurrection.

The reasoning also was that one of the 2 major political parties in this country (not the Dems) are such bad faith actors that if this were allowed, they would just construct the flimsiest of reasons to kick someone off the ballot.

What a great country we live in.

 

Nice!!

In Major Blow To Democracy, Supreme Court Rules Voters Can Vote For Favorite Candidate


“WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a stunning unanimous decision that dealt a shocking blow to democracy, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that people can vote for the candidate they want.

The landmark ruling, issued just as the 2024 Presidential Election prepared to ramp up, presents a grave new threat to American freedom, as all nine justices declared that voters can, in defiance of what the ruling authorities may want, select their preferred candidate.

"We've never seen democracy in such danger," said (edited to avoid offending the overly sensitive) White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who is (edited to avoid offending the overly sensitive). "Today's ruling from the Supreme Court now adds credence to the belief held by fringe extremists that they are allowed to select the candidate they want in an election. This is terrifying."

 

I love seeing someone with a Christian signature cheering that an adulterer can be voted President, despite leading a clearly illegal and un-America conspiracy to disregard a legitimate election.

 

Uhmm, yes there is a 9-0 opinion. Scoring SCOTUS rulings may be "confusing" for those who want to avoid reality or mislead, but it's not difficult like scoring cricket. Here's an easy example:

Majority (5): Part A - good; Part B - good.
Concurring in part (4): Part A - good; Part B - bad.

Part A is an unanimous 9-0 opinion
Part B is a 5-4 split decision.

Herer, Part A was the unanimous decision that CO Supreme Court was wrong and Trump must be on the ballot. Part B gets into the weeds about constitutional nuance as to how far Congressional authority/control goes. Part B is still law of the land for now, but there is valid debate on both sides. Not so much Part A - unless you think the 3 liberals on the Court are corrupt or were duped.

 

You make that clear multiple times a day.

 

Well in my book on this issue there is only 9 experts and all 9, from both sides of the aisle agreed. Not a whole lot more to discuss. It was 100%, which scores even higher than the agreeing climate scientists discussing Climate change and the causes!!

 

The very last sentence:

"Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

 

Stop cramming your morals down our throats.

 

Thanks for agreeing with me.

To break it into the parts - "Because [the concurring justices] would decide only [Part A from my example - reversal of CO Supreme Court], [the concurring justices] concur only in the judgment." Thus, a unanimous reversal of CO Supreme Court. We also should not pass over the fact that this was a "Per Curiam" opinion - meaning it is issued by the Court as a whole and not authored by one justice.

I appreciate that some don't want there to be a unanimous decision in favor of Trump, but that is the reality and even CNN, MSNBC, etc. acknowledge it.

 

Attorneys reviewing WLOCP result: UGA 59 - UF 10

Georgia really didn't beat Florida to pieces. In the 2nd quarter (after Georgia was up 28-0) Florida kicked a Field Goal and UGA did not score; so, Florida won the second quarter. In Q4 Florida scored a TD on the last play of the game and outscored Georgia 7-3; so, in essence we won two quarters and UGA won two quarters - it was a tie
Truth - you simpletons just don't understand nuance.

Insert Republican/MAGA related put downs here because the argument is not strong enough to stand by itself and must be buttressed by insinuations of beastiality, low education, concerns about vaccines, etc.

 

Rather poor attempt at satire. If this guy was my favorite candidate could I vote for him? Just asking.
Congressman Maxwell Frost


Or this guy?