Think of the logic for a second. The SC is concerned that individual or a group of states will control who our president is, but that is the EXACT effect of the electoral college-a few states choosing the presidency.

I wish my vote for president, senator or congressmen counted.

Do you honestly believe a state should to be able to control who their residents vote for in a FEDERAL election?

That makes more sense then a system where the vast majority of American's votes don't matter.

Just something to consider.

Assume ------- wins in November (god forbid).

Assume the HoR REFUSES to count any electoral votes for him, him being an insurrectionist and all.

Won't THAT be pretty.

Just reason 2184 why the can should NOT be kicked down the road.

OH, unanimous decision btw, including an unnamed co-conspirator's spouse

god bless america

Let voters decide what government they want. The government you elect is the government you deserve.

#6 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

We will eventually (and sooner rather than later) get a government no one elected.

So, the states have no authority to keep people off the ballot for federal elections?

So, are we to now expect 500 candidates for president on each ballot? Cause state's have no authority to keep them off, right SC?

I am sure the SC will remain consistent regarding state power when Texas throws out federal immigration officials.

I hope you are wrong Joe, I hope the Dems are waking up to the danger the republicans pose.

Terrorism has become such an integral part of our country that it's effect isn't even recognized and succumbing to it is deemed a virtue.

How far we have fallen.

The decision of the entire Supreme Court leaves Trump a convicted Insurrectionist and does not overturn the Colorado Court's judgement on that matter."
That's not what the word "convicted" means.

#177 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Would the word adjudicated satisfy you?

"Particu- larly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. "

They don't get it; they REALLY don't get it.

The decision did NO SUCH THING.

All it did was kick the conflict down the road and increased the pressure.

I said it yesterday.

This decision did not suddenly make ------- not an insurrectionist.

He still is an obvious insurrectionist and at some point there will HAVE to be a reckoning with that.

180
what reckoning? Other than the civil and criminal cases still ongoing....he has an election coming up...let's assume he loses it.
Besides all of that, what reckoning has to happen?

#181 | POSTED BY EBERLY

If ------- loses, the reckoning is the criminal trial. If ------- loses he will most certainly try to foment another insurrection. Violence that will not be avoided by this current decision and in fact will make that violence worse (as both sides will feel more urgency).

If ------- wins, the reckoning will need to come at some point between election day and inauguration day to prevent seating an obvious insurrectionist as President. It will get especially interesting should ------- chose another insurrectionist as VP.

But this is all obvious and you know it. Not sure why you question it.

Only a gutless ----- or liar is afraid to say what they mean. So what are you saying I am implying you bag of dicks

Yes it was before the court and of the utmost importance.

Colorado found it was an insurrection and that he committed insurrection.

To argue otherwise is an out and out lie.

So, this decision ONLY kicked the can down the road.

Fine, ------- can't be on the ballot.

That does not mean he is eligible to take office.

At some point Congress will likely weigh in, say at certification of electoral votes.

Assume for a second a Democratic controlled house on certification day.

What will happen if they chose to not certify the votes for an obvious and adjudicated insurrectionist?

Shouldn't the court have addressed that?

Fine, ------- can't be on the ballot.

Should be Fine, ------- can't be taken OFF the ballot.

"He hasn't been charge with, much less convicted of insurrection." In fact, it could be argued that given the SC's silence on the issue that they are affirming ------- is an insurrectionist.

That issue isn't what was brought before the court.

#203 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance.
From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition. The court held that Section 3 did not apply because the Presidency, which Section 3 does not mention by name, is not an "office . . . under the United States" and the President is not an "officer of the United
States" within the meaning of that provision. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a"284a.

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part by a 4 to 3 vote. Reversing the District Court's operative holding, the majority concluded that for purposes of Section 3, the Presidency is an office under the United States and the President is an officer of
the United States. The court otherwise affirmed, holding (1) that the Colorado Election Code permitted the respondents' challenge based on Section 3; (2) that Congress need not pass implementing legislation for disqualifications under Section 3 to attach; (3) that the political question doctrine did not preclude judicial review of former President Trump's eligibility; (4) that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a congressional Report on the events of January 6; (5) that the District Court did not err in concluding that those events constituted an "insurrection" and that former President Trump "engaged in" that insurrection; and (6) that former President Trump's speech to the crowd that breached the Capitol on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment. See id., at 1a"114a.

We granted former President Trump's petition for certiorari, which raised a single question: "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering
President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?"

" Assume for a second a Democratic controlled house on certification day."
That's a lame duck period. The GOP will still have a majority in the House.

#202 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Does it hurt to be this stupid?

January 6, 2025"Congress counts electoral votes
The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand at this time.

The 119th United States Congress is the next meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It is scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C., from January 3, 2025, to January 3, 2027, during the final weeks of Joe Biden's term. The elections of November 2024 will decide control of both houses.

You are truly magnificent in your ignorance, never change.

jfc you're ignorant.

That is not how the SC works.

The SC took up the case, dumbass, the entire case, the facts of the case were laid out in their decision, part of which I listed above.

The SC upon reviewing the case, and hearing what the parties said, decided one aspect of the case "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?"

That was the QUESTION that the SC answered.

Their ANSWER was that States do not have the authority to keep a federal candidate off the ballot. (which is inconsistent with a vast number of statutes and with the constitution mind you).

They COULD have chosen to ANSWER THE QUESTION, by stating ------- did not commit insurrection, which was a PREREQUISITE for Colorado to keep them off the ballot. IoW those facts were there for the court to use to answer the question.

They CHOSE NOT to answer the question based on that logic. IOW they were silent on the issue. And as I originally said, that actually SAYS something.

You are just stupid thinking that issue wasn't before the court.

Because you're an ignorant ass.

Which all means my original point is as valid now as when I posted it. ------- is still an insurrectionist, this decision did not resolve anything it only punted it down the road.

At some point, either the courts or congress will have to decide whether ------- committed insurrection-that will be

1. If he wins, on January 6, 2025.
2. If he loses, in court.

Are you man enough to admit it is the new congress that will certify the election?

" it could be argued that given the SC's silence on the issue that they are affirming ------- is an insurrectionist."
#201 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2024-03-05 01:35 PM | FLAG: "
No, it can't. They haven't weighed in on that issue. That issue isn't what was brought before the court.

#203 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

If you are in agreement then why did you say they didn't? I certainly don't see you agreeing that ------- is still an adjudicated insurrectionist and the future concerns that raises.

Maybe you could simply admit you were wrong.

talk about stubbornly stupid.

Seriously, can you read?

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

The SC did not refute that.

Do I need to repeat myself?

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

You do understand that when the SC doesn't OVERTURN the specifics of a low court's rulings, those specifics stand right?

The SC acknowledged the following:

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

You understand that, correct?

Should I restate it another way?

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

LOWER court, not low court

btw did you know:

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

------- is an adjudicated insurrectionist. That is a FACT.

The SC did not say ------- is NOT an insurrectionist thus put him on the ballot.

The SC said, ------- IS an insurrectionist, but states do not have the power to keep him off the ballot.

You get that right? That is the decision. You understand? You keeping up?

5 justices went FURTHER and stated ONLY Congress has the power to enforce the 14th, Article 3.

Is your brain on?

BTW

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

Are you aware that Colorado had a trial. You KNOW that right? ------- had ample opportunity to fight the charge that he is an insurrectionist. He couldn't defend himself against the charge, thus:

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

--------adjudicated insurrectionist.

Now, what are we as a nation going to do about it.

The SC says only Congress can do something about it.

Are you content with that?

Would you be content if Biden was the one who tried to overthrow the government?

And where does that leave things come this next November-January?

Cause, as you may be aware: From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

Once again, for the cheap (and stupid) seats.

A Colorado court found (after a trial) that ------- is an insurrectionist.

This case was sent to the SC who decided ONLY that Colorado does not have the power to keep him off the ballot (which, as an aside, completely screws up the whole getting on the ballot process in every state, but who cares about consequences, amiright?)

Since the SC did NOT comment on the FINDING that ------- is an insurrectionist, that FINDING STANDS!

Now, surely ------- does have the right to appeal THAT part to the SC to see if they will get him off the hook.

BUT...

From the SC decision: "After a five-day trial, the state District Court found that former President Trump had "engaged in insurrection" within the meaning of Section 3, but nonetheless denied the respondents' petition.

Since ------- has been adjudicated, in a court of law as an insurrectionist.

What will happen?

He is not suddenly NOT an insurrectionist, despite your ignorance, he IS an insurrectionist.

At some point that will come to a head.

So, no, all the SC did was kick the problem down the road to a far less opportune time.

Like Garland, Like McConnell, Like the Republican party, like the republican presidential wannabes, no individual is taking the steps to stop that insurrectionist.

And keep in mind that everyone who has worked with ------- ends up regretting it. How many former ------- administration officials now condemn the "man"?

I ask that because if ------- gets in office, do you think he will be restrained from following congress or the SC, IDK say on Immigration? or the use of the military in American cities?

For your education:

Now that you have been educated, go forth and sin no more.

I see Jeff refuses to admit he's wrong. Typical