Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot

Lol, like I said libbie

 

Trump Is Back on the Colorado Ballot (townhall.com)

The Colorado Secretary of State announced plans to include former President Trump on the Colorado 2024 ballot after the state’s Supreme Court voted to remove him last week.

“By excluding President Trump from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in an unprecedented disregard for the First Amendment right of political parties to select the candidates of their choice and a usurpation of the rights of the people to choose their elected officials,” lawyers representing the Colorado GOP wrote. “Rejecting a long history of precedent, a state Supreme Court has now concluded that individual litigants, state courts, and secretaries of state in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia have authority to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

 

Saving democracy one state at a time. Or why would secession be a good idea ?

Democrat Secretary Of State Kicks Trump Off Maine Ballot, Takes MSM 'Victory Lap' | ZeroHedge

 

Republicans will never secede. Their idea of governing is to blame all the problems on Democrats. They have no interest in actually governing or trying to help people.

 

100%. I think my guy here does a great job of illustrating just that. Blame everything on the Democrats, call them every name in the book, but then act appalled and like the victim when they dare fight back. Their entire platform is blame stuff on Democrats and fight fake culture wars, they don’t actually do anything to improve the lives of their constituents. Sad that Trumpers can’t see they’re voting against their own best interests.

 

LOL, just get the un elected SOS's to scratch all the pubs from the ballots...Merica!

 

LMFAO! Sure...

 

I was joking lol

 

but, but, but my snowglobe....

 

Lol... we know...

 

This gameplan goes back decades. Flamethrowing speech is ok for righties yet they get The Vapors when Dems fight back the same way. Rinse, repeat.

 

“Trump is destroying democracy.” Proceeds to vote for an empty suit being controlled by a small inner circle whom we have no idea what their names are, who refuses to give interviews and mingle with the public. And oh yeah, has an overtly anti-conservative agenda.

 

Both, unsuitable for the office, are rancid and well past their use-by-dates in age. Impatient Americans screaming for change have forgotten or now are learning where change starts and how to make it, or are paralyzed by fear and indecision.

Meanwhile the nation teeters on the brink of disaster at the destructive hands of the intractable.

 

LOL, please stop with the YouTube School of Law nonsense. They stayed the decision because this was one the most predictable cases going up on appeal in the history of American jurisprudence. It was absolutely inevitable and they saved all the work not staying it would have created.

 

The light bulb turns on.

The light bulb turns off.

 

Wow, an elected Democratic pol has an agenda that is the opposite of the Republican agenda? Shocker, I tell you!

 

Fair questions I’d venture …

 

Yes, it's a real show of confidence that you strongly believe SCOTUS is going to take the case on appeal.

You have a funny habit of resorting to condescension and dismissiveness when I characterize something in a way that you don't like, even if it happens to be correct.

Again, rule of thumb is when the meat of someone's argument is their credentials, their argument generally sucks. This seems to be a pattern with you.

 

I don't know what this forum would do without you. You add so much to it.

 

@Gator715, my apologies if you've already answered either of these two questions. It's a long thread, and I don't want to have to read back through it.
1. Do you consider yourself an "originalist" or favor "originalism" as the mode of interpretation for the U.S. Constitution?
2. If yes, how does the Colorado decision not accord with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment? Doesn't the Amnesty Act of 1872 conclusively demonstrate the original meaning of Section 3 (i.e., that it doesn't require a conviction or an act of Congress to disqualify people)?