Technically, nothing really changed, as this was a foregone conclusion. The court suspended their own ruling in the event it was inevitably challenged. It was always empty - but extremely dangerous - virtue signaling. Basically, the only thing the original ruling did was make things more confusing, and shake faith in Our Democracy™ (good!).
It was extremely stupid. You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed, let alone a conviction, when the conduct in question was prima facia perfectly legal.
The Dems always think that they're the only one who will use their dirty tricks, and they never learn. Dems removing the filibuster for judicial appointees is how Trump was able to get so many federal judges in office during his presidency.
If they had gotten away with this there's nothing stopping a state like Mississippi from just declaring the Democratic party to be a terrorist organization under the federal definition and criminalizing contributions to them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The Dems always think that they're the only one who will use their dirty tricks, and they never learn.
To be “fair,” it’s often worked out well for them. Like how it was completely illegal and unconstitutional for Trump to use federal resources to stop the Summer of Love in states, and then it’s perfectly legal for the Capitol Police to set up office in Tampa (among other agencies and other states) under the Democrats.
They won’t stop until the costs outweigh the benefits. And that means the Republicans have to successfully respond in kind consistently, not every once in a while when they feel like it.
They won’t stop until the costs outweigh the benefits
Just like with how they were against gay marriage until it became an electable stance. Not that there are enough gay marriages for it to swing and votes, but standing for it meant support from others.
Unfortunately, you're spot on. The Democrats have been taking advantage of the right trying to appear "reasonable" for years. They're a cancer, and the only way to root them out is to go on the offensive.
Look at how they immediately screamed "reee" and floated the idea of changing the composition of the Supreme Court as soon as rulings started dropping that didn't favor them. To them, the rules are only of value when they advance their agenda. When laws are inconvenient they are simply cast aside. The only way to win a battle like that is to do the same.
You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed,
IDK if that's true. Colorado had its own law incorporating the (US) Constitutional provision, they said. In fact, the judgement pointed out that other states might validly come to different conclusions since most have no such law. And for all I know Colorado passed that law just to deny Trump.
Maybe, but it all hinged on the 14th amendment's language saying "engaged in insurrection."
Colorado's decision was based on the concept that he needn't be convicted because the 14th Amendment simply says "engaged" and that they could apply their own judgment as to whether or not his actions met that definition.
Cool, cool. If you want to play that game, federal law also doesn't say that an organization has to be convicted of anything to be declared a terrorist entity, instantly criminalizing providing "material support" to it. It's a bullshit ruling, and it's simply opens Pandora's box for other places to criminalize political conduct that they don't approve of unless the Supreme Court smacks it down super fucking hard.
Yes, but CO would say they weren't putting him on trial for insurrection, but merely making an administrative determination about whether or not he qualified to be on their ballot. Due process only kicks in if you're facing criminal charges. Since they determined that he "engaged" an insurrection, he's not qualified. No criminal conviction or trial required.
They're playing word games to try and disqualify the Republican front runner from their election because "Orange man bad". And it's playing with fire, because there's nothing stopping the right from playing the same games in states they control.
I don't think law is going to have anything to do with it if they push it. If you deny people the ability to democratically elect their candidate, they have a right to use force.
They did that already and got away with it. They have no reason to think it won't work again. The populace in general is fat, lazy, gay and retarded, drunk on luxuries, ease and excess.
Why would they even do this, considering the optics? Guy accuses the Democratic party of rigging the last election, so a state uses an "innovative legal theory" to have him removed from their ballot.
I mean, Jesus, are you trying to swing the undecided middle to his side? It's fucking Colorado; it's not like he was going to win there anyway. Biden won there with a 14% margin last time, and it's not like they got any redder in the last 4 years.
TDS is real. The left's hatred of Trump defies all reason.
Seems the talk of supreme Court or the Republicans just bypassing the primary in that state might've been too much.
I swear, I wouldn't put it past them in 2024 to try and kill Trump at this point only to blow up DNC headquarters with how incompetent and their plans backfire so publicly.
Republicans just bypassing the primary in that state might've been too much.
They should. Primaries as a government managed election have no business even existing IMO. That's where the political parties (which are private entities) choose who gets their endorsement for the actual election. Why are the states even involved in the first place?
One, they shouldn't be meddling in the business of political parties, which are, again, private entities. And second, I don't want public dollars spent on assisting the Democrats and Republicans in deciding who they are going to run in an election. If you're a private entity, you are free from government intrusion, but you also don't get any government money to pay for your operations.
Technically, nothing really changed, as this was a foregone conclusion. The court suspended their own ruling in the event it was inevitably challenged. It was always empty - but extremely dangerous - virtue signaling. Basically, the only thing the original ruling did was make things more confusing, and shake faith in Our Democracy™ (good!).
It was extremely stupid. You had a state court declare that he broke a a very narrowly defined federal law without any charges filed, let alone a conviction, when the conduct in question was prima facia perfectly legal.
The Dems always think that they're the only one who will use their dirty tricks, and they never learn. Dems removing the filibuster for judicial appointees is how Trump was able to get so many federal judges in office during his presidency.
If they had gotten away with this there's nothing stopping a state like Mississippi from just declaring the Democratic party to be a terrorist organization under the federal definition and criminalizing contributions to them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
To be “fair,” it’s often worked out well for them. Like how it was completely illegal and unconstitutional for Trump to use federal resources to stop the Summer of Love in states, and then it’s perfectly legal for the Capitol Police to set up office in Tampa (among other agencies and other states) under the Democrats.
They won’t stop until the costs outweigh the benefits. And that means the Republicans have to successfully respond in kind consistently, not every once in a while when they feel like it.
Just like with how they were against gay marriage until it became an electable stance. Not that there are enough gay marriages for it to swing and votes, but standing for it meant support from others.
that would never happen because they're a bunch of pet cucks deathly afraid of being called "racist"
Unfortunately, you're spot on. The Democrats have been taking advantage of the right trying to appear "reasonable" for years. They're a cancer, and the only way to root them out is to go on the offensive.
Look at how they immediately screamed "reee" and floated the idea of changing the composition of the Supreme Court as soon as rulings started dropping that didn't favor them. To them, the rules are only of value when they advance their agenda. When laws are inconvenient they are simply cast aside. The only way to win a battle like that is to do the same.
IDK if that's true. Colorado had its own law incorporating the (US) Constitutional provision, they said. In fact, the judgement pointed out that other states might validly come to different conclusions since most have no such law. And for all I know Colorado passed that law just to deny Trump.
Maybe, but it all hinged on the 14th amendment's language saying "engaged in insurrection."
Colorado's decision was based on the concept that he needn't be convicted because the 14th Amendment simply says "engaged" and that they could apply their own judgment as to whether or not his actions met that definition.
Cool, cool. If you want to play that game, federal law also doesn't say that an organization has to be convicted of anything to be declared a terrorist entity, instantly criminalizing providing "material support" to it. It's a bullshit ruling, and it's simply opens Pandora's box for other places to criminalize political conduct that they don't approve of unless the Supreme Court smacks it down super fucking hard.
The 14th amendment is unclear, but in general we get due process which means a trial where the defendant gets to make arguments.
Yes, but CO would say they weren't putting him on trial for insurrection, but merely making an administrative determination about whether or not he qualified to be on their ballot. Due process only kicks in if you're facing criminal charges. Since they determined that he "engaged" an insurrection, he's not qualified. No criminal conviction or trial required.
They're playing word games to try and disqualify the Republican front runner from their election because "Orange man bad". And it's playing with fire, because there's nothing stopping the right from playing the same games in states they control.
Sure like the Guantanamo inmates "weren't arrested or tortured or taken POW" and have no rights. It's just an administrative action, goys.
They've laid the groundwork for the outlawing of the democrat party.
Of course the spineless cuckservatives won't escalate as they should. But it's still a big step towards acceleration.
I don't think law is going to have anything to do with it if they push it. If you deny people the ability to democratically elect their candidate, they have a right to use force.
They did that already and got away with it. They have no reason to think it won't work again. The populace in general is fat, lazy, gay and retarded, drunk on luxuries, ease and excess.
Not as obviously. If people are dense, maybe they need it spelled out for them.
You have more faith in the normies than I do. Best case scenario, enough of them die that they figure out to get out of the way.
It's more hope than faith. I agree with you
Spelling it out hasn't helped yet, it won't help any time soon, either.
Is the supreme court majority female? it sure behaves schizophrenic
Trump will win, they need Trump and they just realized it
Why would they even do this, considering the optics? Guy accuses the Democratic party of rigging the last election, so a state uses an "innovative legal theory" to have him removed from their ballot.
I mean, Jesus, are you trying to swing the undecided middle to his side? It's fucking Colorado; it's not like he was going to win there anyway. Biden won there with a 14% margin last time, and it's not like they got any redder in the last 4 years.
TDS is real. The left's hatred of Trump defies all reason.
Seems the talk of supreme Court or the Republicans just bypassing the primary in that state might've been too much.
I swear, I wouldn't put it past them in 2024 to try and kill Trump at this point only to blow up DNC headquarters with how incompetent and their plans backfire so publicly.
They should. Primaries as a government managed election have no business even existing IMO. That's where the political parties (which are private entities) choose who gets their endorsement for the actual election. Why are the states even involved in the first place?
One, they shouldn't be meddling in the business of political parties, which are, again, private entities. And second, I don't want public dollars spent on assisting the Democrats and Republicans in deciding who they are going to run in an election. If you're a private entity, you are free from government intrusion, but you also don't get any government money to pay for your operations.
He's not gonna make it long if they do manage to imprison him. If he so much sets foot in a prison they're going to Epstein him.
If you think this is wild, wait until you find out that Maine's Secretary of State managed to be even more retarded than those Colorado judges.