Saturday, December 30, 2023

Colorado Supreme Court has been smoking something



12/30/23: Update of last posted entry of 12/22/23:

The basis of the claim that Trump can be removed from the ballot rests upon the insurrection narrative. It is clear that Trump's political enemies would like to disqualify him, but can they do it based upon the 14th Amendment as they are claiming?

I have a copy of the US Constitution, and the 14th Amendment to the same, Section 3, which states how someone can be disqualified for holding office under the United States. It doesn't appear to include the President of the United States!

Was this a goof? Nope. The President is still accountable under the Impeachment Authority of the Congress. Since Trump was already impeached, twice, and was found not guilty, then there can be no disqualification for same. Certainly, no state can unilaterally decide the issue in any case, as the same amendment states that Congress shall have that authority.





end update:

the most recent entry to this post of 12/22/23 follows directly below:



12/22/23: Update of last posted entry of 12/22/23:

The article shows plainly that there are political motivations for removing Trump from the ballot.







end update:

the most recent entry to this post of 12/22/23 follows directly below:

12/22/23: Update of last posted entry of 12/20/23:

If Christie felt that way ( see daily update as of 12/20/23), as indicated below, then why is he running against Trump? He is like the Democrats. It's all about Trump hatred. It's not about anything else. Why should Christie be President? Perhaps he should answer that kind of question.

The opposition to Trump from the Romney/Cheney/Bush wing of the GOP likes to call it a cult of personality. Then why do they make it solely about Trump's personality? If they were running on what is supposed to be conservative values, then what opposition do they have to Trump? Principles? What principles are involved? Perhaps they'd like to answer that question.



end update:

the most recent entry to this post of 12/20/23 follows directly below:







Daily Update #4), 2:30 pm local time

Why pursue an avenue that is so likely to be rejected by the Supreme Court? Are the Democrats trying to make an issue out of the Court? They already have. This will just add to the list. Presidential politics often entails making an issue of the courts because the POTUS appoints Supreme Court justices.

If the Democrats can hang on to power, they'll try packing the courts. They may think that putting this kind of pressure on the court would get them to bend to their will, or they'll go to their people ( and a lot of voter chicanery) to try to get their will imposed.

This is shaping up to be a critical year in the history of the Republic.

end update #4)

Daily Update #3), 12:54 pm local time

The general reaction to this is pretty negative. Only partisan Democrats approve of this move. There are some who predict a 9-0 Scotus decision against it. The main problem is the assertion that it is self-executing. This would render a good part of our Constitution to be null and void.

Furthermore, the same amendment says something quite different regarding equality before the law. Therefore, an argument could be made using the 14th Amendment itself that would show that the intent was not to make it "self-executing". How then could "equality before the law" be determined if there were "self-executing" laws? What would prevent some arbitrary finding by some partisan entity to completely violate anybody's rights? This decision should be a slam-dunk.





end update #3)

Daily Update #2), 11:02 am local time

It was a 4-3 opinion, but an opinion from all Democrats. Well, not all Democrats are completely insane. Not yet.







Colorado SoS says that if the 14th Amendment doesn't apply, "it's a get out of jail free card". Well, at least they could wait until an IMPARTIAL jury decided the matter first. Even the Democrats are split on the issue. There is no chance that a fair trial would convict, so she's WRONG.



end update #2)

Daily Update #1, 9:35 am local time)

Sundance is laughing.

Summary:



  1.  It's partisanship in the courtroom, a 4-3 decision,
  2.  It's based upon the faulty premise of an insurrection, and
  3.  The Colorado Supreme Nutcase Court will stay its own decision if Trump appeals to Scotus



"This is all silly Lawfare."


Sundance adds that the Bushies have Nazi roots in Colorado. Whoa! If this is so, (as the link is to an article dating back to the time of George W. Bush's re-election campaign), one should ask why the Democrats are making an alliance with the Bush-Cheney faction in order to stop Trump?

end update #1)

the original post follows below:

Rocky Mountain High, ala John Denver? High on something, I'd think. Evidence continues to pour in that the J6th riot (aka "Insurrection") was a Democrat set up. But this is their only strategy to keep the government in the hands of these wack jobs. They don't have anything to run on, so this is the only thing that they can do.

The insurrection narrative should never have had any legs to begin with. It was obvious to me from the start. Who has something to gain from this fake narrative? That fakery invokes that same old "cui bono" question---who benefits? Maybe Biden's commie masters in Bejing. The Dems have been pulling these same kind of dirty tricks since Trump came down the escalator in 2015. This ruling comes in just in time for the primary season.

Are things really this bad in Colorado? Are the people there that brainwashed, or what are they smoking in Colorado? Is marijuana legal there? Marijuana can make you paranoid, you know. Can they not see through this magic smoke and pixie dust? When will all the lies finally end, and maybe the Democrats could at least try to run on something with substance. This Trump hysteria is all they've got.









Posted by Greg at 6:21 AM
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)