Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from Primary Ballot

@wildgrass said
I think they will not hear it.

Even in the dissenting opinion, the conservative Colorado judges were like "yeah, he definitely participated in an insurrection, but we don't think it's our place to omit him from the primary ballot." There's some ticky tacky rules like the court must issue a ruling "no later than 48 hours after the hearing" and they missed the deadline.
...[text shortened]... y bunkers. But then there's reality.

The conservative arguments are pretty weak in a legal sense.

@no1marauder
Do you realize that you want to stop Trump from taking away democracy by taking away democracy? You democrats are like a pack of wolves perking up when they see a deer with a slight limp when they see Trump getting attacked. And all you can think about is getting him first and worry about setting a horrible precedent later. Oh, that was a horrible precedent that came back to bite us in the ass, but at least we got Trump.

Why is it always get Trump first and to hell with precedent? Maybe you should think about the precedent before jumping head first into the get Trump obsession you are on.

@kevcvs57 said
Err yes Joe yes there was

@metal-brain said
@no1marauder
Do you realize that you want to stop Trump from taking away democracy by taking away democracy? You democrats are like a pack of wolves perking up when they see a deer with a slight limp when they see Trump getting attacked. And all you can think about is getting him first and worry about setting a horrible precedent later. Oh, that was a horrible precedent ...[text shortened]... should think about the precedent before jumping head first into the get Trump obsession you are on.

@averagejoe1 said
@AverageJoe1
Was there an “organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”?
This will help you shed your emotional penchants!

@metal-brain said
What excuse could they possibly use to not hear it?

@no1marauder said
Yes. Thousands of persons attacked police, some of them smashed windows and broke down doors to allow the mob to enter the Capitol where they intended to force Congress to not fulfill its Constitutional duty and count the Electoral votes legally submitted by the States in order to overthrow the results of an election and allow the defeated candidate to remain President.

What would you call that?

@wildgrass said
A coup.

An insurrection.

A dispute.

A protest.

A party.

@metal-brain said
What excuse could they possibly use to not hear it?

@no1marauder said
I'm not interested in your emotional, hysterical screeching.

This is a legal issues to be decided by principles of law not by the ranting of someone who has carried water for Trump for 8 years. He's not immune from legal consequences for his actions just because you want to make everything a partisan exercise.

@metal-brain said
That is your psychological projection. It is your your emotional and hysterical screeching here that you are insecure about.

@ponderable said
The person mkaing an ass from themselves seems to be you.

Even if the Supreme Court of the United States does intervene, which is by no means sure, for the time being the ruling is what te ruling is. So Marauder is certainly not the one of you two making an ass of himself.

@no1marauder said
The SCOTUS has discretion over what cases it takes.

I do expect it to review this one, however.

@metal-brain said
What excuse could they possibly use to not hear it?

@averagejoe1 said
They will certainly intervene, and rule that since he has never been convicted of a crime, a lower court cannot rule based on his having committed a crime, which, they did. SCOTUS will favor Trump 9-0. If the libs make it 6-3 it will be soooooooo obvious, their bias. Would you call those girls fair judges?