"Colorado Supreme Court gives GOP a chance to save itself"
...from the attached article...
-------------------
The big winner from tonight’s decision is not President Joe Biden. The Colorado Supreme Court decision is not about the general election in November 2024. It’s about Colorado’s Republican primary. If the decision stands, the principal beneficiaries will be Trump’s Republican rivals, one of whom—Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, or the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy—will win Colorado’s delegates to the national Republican convention. If the decision is extended to other states, one of that roster will win those delegates too.
-------------------
The GOP should be sending 'signals' to the SCOTUS that it wouldn't break their heart if the Justices sided with Colorado's Supreme Court...here's some discussion on that view...
Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/colorado-court-decision-trump-14th-amendment/676905/
Replies to: "Colorado Supreme Court gives GOP a chance to save itself"
GOP=GOVERNMENT OF PUTIN! All Republicans are scum. Take them all off the ballot & save Democracy.
Thank God for Joe Biden and the Democrats.
I read the court's ruling - laughably lacking in basic logic
I'm more and more convinced there are no liberals capable of using logic correctly. See it every day on this board, too.
The Court's ruling is not based on logic. It's a legal interpretation relying on selected precedents
This is actually how the legal system words. Law is not math. Legal opinions are a bit like an Escher sketch.
SCOTUS might rule to the contrary... but it's decision would be formulated in the same fashion.
Link: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=o258LIB%2b&id=C9B76809EB5D7624CD8C432225FECA3999A441D5&thid=OIP.o258LIB-Omzr2ySe7MktjwHaHR&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fi.pinimg.com%2foriginals%2f1d%2f96%2fce%2f1d96ce8140f7493459e25e6f8864ee77.jpg&cdnurl=h
Common law tradition, yes, base on precedents. Continental law tradition is based on logic.
(no message)
The Colorado Supreme Court Opinion is replete with citations.
These are used to "interpret" the language in the State's Election Law AND in the Constitution.
There are a lot of terms in the Consitution that are never defined.
In this case, the most important is the word "insurrection,"
Move to Russia then, asswipe.
(no message)
I think you are certainly qualfied to render that judgment
(no message)
That's interesting, Mark...give us some specific examples from the ruling that explain how you
reached that conclusion...
Too easy. Where to begin?
Trump did not participate in an insurrection. The Colorado court conveniently omits a key fact, that he told his supporters to go down to the Capitol and make their voices heard "peacefully." He did zero planning to organize an "insurrection."
Furthermore, it would seem to me that a state court has zero jurisdiction to decide a matter that is entirely federal. We keep hearing from your side immigration is entirely a federal matter and that the states have zero say in it. Same thing here.
I'll also have to take a look at what Turley said, since he is a learned legal scholar who knows the precedents and laws and dusagrees with the decision.
Here's testimony under oath that supports the involvement of DJT in the Jan. 6th insurrection...
Mark Meadows...Trump's Chief of Staff...was in contact with Trump aides in a Willard Hotel "War Room" on the day before...it begs the question of why a "War Room" would be necessary for a peaceful demonstration...your logic doesn't appear to account for this factual evidence...
I've attached the Colorado Supreme Court ruling...you say you read it...now show us the "laughable"
parts that lack logic...
Link: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
I already did. And what will you think when SCOTUS overturns this ruling?
For the exact same reasons I gave. Are you going to tell me they don't know what they're doing? Of course you will.
Maybe you should try having this discussion w/ Jonathan Turley. Let us know how it went.
This razzle dazzle routine of yours on an anonymous free message board probably won't work with someone who actually knows what he's talking about. Look up his opinion on the ruling. Then shoot him an email.
Haven't heard from you re: Johnathan Turley, so I got this article referencing his comments about
the Colorado Supreme Court decision...seems he doesn't agree that the evidence supports the claim of an Insurrection...that's it...no specific repudiation of the evidence provided...not a very convincing rebuttal IMO.
Link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12883629/Trump-Colorado-disqualified-legal-Jonathan-Turley-Supreme-Court.html
You are a piece of work.
(no message)
Terms of endearment aside, you don't appear to like doing any work supporting your multiple claims..
seems like all you care to do is scream vacuous memes and tropes...without ever standing up and defending them against an opposing point of view.
Actually, my post is directed to Mark...still waiting for a reply...but since you mentioned
Mr. Turley, how about you providing his opinion...you must have it at your fingertips.
"Radical Leftist Rag says anti-Trump propaganda."
(no message)
Think a little more deeply about this...
This whole '14th Amendment, Section 3' thing started with 2 deeply conservative Federalist Society Constitutional Law scholars arguing in FAVOR of it...then, Republicans, no less, filed suit in Colorado...using that argument...to keep DJT off their ballot...no Dems involved with that effort. Why did this happen?
The author of the Atlantic article sees the potential benefit to the GOP of a SCOTUS decision upholding the Colorado Supreme Court decision...perhaps the GOP does as well, especially given that all of the conservative majority Justices are card-carrying members of the Federalist Society.
Why do you think "Republicans" filed suit in Colorado? Think a little more deeply.
(no message)
No thanks.
(no message)
Son of a gun...I forgot...you only make claims...defending them is not your responsibility ;-)
(no message)
You are pedophile, a pervert, and an imbecile.
Why would I read anything you have to share.
Clean up your posts jakers. Way over the line.
(no message)
He also posts racist shit like the “Congolese Hippo”post. Dunno why a Board that calls itself
the Unofficial Home of ND puts up with it.
You should be more concerned he didn't deny anything that Jakers said.
(no message)
LOL...none of that is true...are we done now? ;-)
(no message)
Deny? He relishes being called those attributes, because they are true
(no message)
Nah. And your defense of him speaks volumes.
(no message)
Because this is a "Forum" for an 'Exchange' of opinions...hopefully based on facts, rationale and
certainly truth....perhaps even a dash of civility ...do I not provide substantive material to back up my commentary?...If you spent as much time working on quality responses, instead of epithets, you might not get so frustrated...one can only hope.
Frum is no leftist...and he is making the case for your boy, or for Nikki
(no message)
Interesting' bio' on David Frum...definitely not a leftist...but certainly not a MAGA, either...
(no message)
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
That's. Dead on arrival at US Supreme Court, no use discussing
(no message)
There's a non-zero chance that you're wrong on that, so would you change your mind
about DJT if the SCOTUS agrees with Colorado's Supreme Court?...
No, in that case they would obviously think that Biden had gotten to the SCOTUS
(no message)
Of course they would...but what's your take on the theory that the GOP feels the need to rid itself
of DJT's baggage, yet can't get legislators to risk their jobs directly opposing him and alienating the MAGAs...so, they found a way to let a deeply conservative SCOTUS majority using Constitutional language do the job for them?...After all, as I noted above, this whole 14th Amendment, Section 3 argument started with Federalist Society Constitutional Law scholars back in August of.this year...followed up with GOP electors in Colorado using that argument as the basis of their suit to keep DJT off the ballot.
I said it before and will say it again, on his worst day,
DJT is eons better than that nut in the WH
.
Many Republicans disagree with you...strongly...just ask those Federalist Society Congressional Law
scholars who are pushing the 14th Amendment, Section 3 argument...
I think it is an opportunity that GOP leaders should jump on
They won't, of course, because they can't afford to lose their moron base.
Exactly. Zero moral courage.
(no message)
Not wanting to drag this out, but it's my take that the 14th Amendment vector is a conscious effort
to save those leaders from having to publicly alienate the MAGA base...i.e. let the SCOTUS do it for them, while they feign support for DJT.