Posted on 12/19/2023 8:57:42 PM PST by conservative98
Ty Cobb predicts the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado ruling 9-0. pic.twitter.com/iavIFxccEL— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) December 19, 2023
I’m more of a boxing fan so I’m going to wait to hear what John L. Sullivan thinks about all of this.
If the supremes uphold this and trump is ultimately kept out of the White House Im gonna call it, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.
We, and I mean the average american, is too comfortable, even with everything going on. Everyone is fat and happy watching football and netflix and no one is willing to raise a finger to stop this out of control govt.
Im beginning to think nothing can awaken this populace. We will tolerate anything as long as we have our bread and circuses.
It needs to. There’s no other way out of this. The left has gone full tyrannical dictator and they’re not going to willingly allow themselves to be shoved back under the rock from under which they crawled. We have got to face the fact that we cannot coexist with these demented and dangerous people, and start focusing on what it will take to either split with them or otherwise remove them from this country. It’s going to take either a national divorce or defeating them once and for all in a civil war. Any other ideas are pure fantasy.
The ruling violates Trump’s civil rights, and might well be shown to be seditious conspiracy to subvert the election process.
That may be the case, but if they duck this one, the Bill of Rights is basically cancelled.
Some excerpts:
Chief Justice Boatright:
III Conclusion
My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection related offense.
The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the Electors claim overwhelmed the process. In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado's election code . Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Justice Samour:
II Conclusion
In the first American Declaration of Rights in 1776, George Mason wrote that no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by the recognition by all citizens that they have rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed. Va. Const. art. I, § 15. Some two and a half centuries later, those words still ring true. In 2023,just as in 1776, all, including those people who may have committed horrendous acts, are entitled to procedural due process.
Because I cannot in good conscience join my colleagues in the majority in ruling that Section Three is self-executing and that the expedited procedures in our Election Code afforded President Trump adequate due process of law, I respectfully dissent. Given the current absence of federal legislation to enforce Section Three, and given that President Trump has not been charged pursuant to section 2383, the district court should have granted his September 29 motion to dismiss. It erred in not doing so. I would therefore affirm its judgment on other grounds.
Justice Berkenkotter:
IV. Conclusion
The Electors arguments below and before this court are, to my mind, unavailing. Too much of their position rests on text like federal law and qualified candidate that on closer examination does not appear to mean what they say it means because it is taken out of context. In short, these sections do not show an affirmative grant by the General Assembly to state courts to decide Section Three cases through Colorado's summary election challenge process. Because it too relied on the provisions of part 12 regarding federal law and qualified candidate, the district court's reasoning suffers from the same shortcomings.
He might be a grandson namesake.
The 14th amendment clearly puts the power to decide what an insurrectionist is onto Congress.
The only power the state has is to choose the method of selecting Electors to the Electoral College.
That said, watch the liberals try to twist the Electors into the modern convenience of being rubber stamps for the candidates. The Framers didn't expect the Electors to be sets of predetermined party insiders for each candidate; they expected the states to choose Electors from leading businessmen, scholars, and land owners in the state, and those people would vote for the President.
Federalist #68 (Alexander Hamilton):
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
...The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
...They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Given that the Framers intended for the people to vote for smart, influential non-government people to gather to debate, analyze, investigate, and vote for the President, and that this temporary body cannot be made up of people who hold existing offices in the federal or state governments, any court that tries to interfere with this body by putting restrictions on its deliberations (like who they can vote for), is plainly unconstitutional and must be struck down unamimously.
-PJ
p.s. This part of Federalist #68 teases the natural-born citizen requirement to be president. They expected the members of the Electoral College to discover foreign allegiances and reject their candidacies.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
I’m waiting to hear from Honus Wagner.
A 9-0 ruling would require a modicum of intellectual honesty, a trait that is sorely lacking in left wing justices.
A system of election more closely aligned with the original intent of the Framers would be this:
Article II Section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.If members of the judiciary are excluded from being in the Electoral College, then their power to control the choosing of Electors or whom the Electors can select must be excluded, too, or they might as well just be the Electoral College itself.
-PJ
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
At Chapter 4, Solzhenitsyn writes: "Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes.... That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations... Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.
History may not repeat exactly but it sure does rhyme doesn't it?
We remain in disbelief collectively thinking it is best not to overreact. That is why we are left to discourse. We will keep doing that until it is way too late. We know that once the bell of Liberty is rung against tyranny it can't be taken back, the outcome must be victory by someone. When you rise up against the king you must kill him. If we have any sense at all we know that is an action we don't want to take lightly nor alone.
General Lee said that, "It is good that war is so terrible lest we become too fond of it." The actual words are in debate but the message remains the same no matter how it is said.
Meanwhile we will try to out vote rigged computers and send in our strongly worded ballot. Yeah, that will work against tyranny. Sure, that is the way a republic is supposed to work. We are only governed by the consent of the governed aren't we? Keep believing that and see where it gets us. Where has it gotten us so far?
We were once told we have a Republic if we can keep it. Well, we haven't.
Some say the first part of the last century was as bad or worse in threats to the republic by socialism and communism...I'm doubting that. Doubting it very much.
No. We just need someone who will actually react, and not just make a stage show of only talking about it. What we’re seeing now is the same old silly trust in Q, but just not calling it Q anymore.
Yep...most of the the Pub leadership were reared in polite, even religious surroundings. One doesn’t misbehave at the club, you know.
#3 That’s funny
Poor Ty Cobb is exhibiting the deleterious effects of playing pepper one too many times.
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, would like to have a word with you.
According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 does not meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of insurrection?
In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.