Posted on 02/08/2024 6:55:13 AM PST by CFW
His entire case was threaded through tenuous, ancient precedents. This would have been the correct approach for a complex regulatory case, but not for one which could unweave the fabric of our democracy. Thankfully, even some of the liberal justices made the bigger, more pertinent arguments for him.
You're either a DIM-BULB LIBERAL.. or you're doing some HALLUCINOGENIC DRUG!
It will be 9-0. The libs will hold their powder to decide the the bigger questions if and when Trump gets elected.
The strongest arguments here were article 3 and 5 of the 14th amendment and Trump’s attorney hammered on them. Colorado tried to dance around them.
about to go to NV
He could get more than 96% at the caucuses
Hoping he gets that!!
The lying MSM are such lying jackals.
I agree. The lower courts have no such power either. Colorado should lose its votes in the electoral college for even attempting this and have to reapply in a decade.
Show me where wiseass.
I was thinking about how Joe crowed over his 96% when he was about the only one on the ballot...
Thats why I want President trump to get as much and even more
If nobody can beat Nikki in an NV primary where there were probably Ds and Is voting for her, then President Trump should be able to crush her in the caucuses of only Rs
:)
“I’m believing that Trump will DEFLECT ALL CHARGES and remain under GOD’S “hedge of protection.””
I pray daily that God keeps Trump in that “hedge of protection”. I pray that God surrounds him constantly with angels that thwarts the left’s every action against him.
You can start with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
God favors the side with the most artillery - Napoleon.
Did you catch counsel's response to that question? I wasn't able to listen.
It was an intentionally obvious question in the context of the 14thA and should have been an obvious answer.
Thanks.
I’ve been predicting a 7-2, but after listening to the last hour of the hearing I’m leaning towards a 9-0 probability. Kagan and KJB sound unconvinced.
The strongest arguments in President Trump's favor were the implications that every state would be able to arbitrarily remove presidential candidates from their ballots. Even Justice Kagan noted that. Aside from needlessly conceding many decisive points, Jonathan Mitchell's argument was profoundly myopic. He was the wrong attorney for this case. Sadly, President Trump has a long history of putting unqualified and compromised people in critical positions. Hopefully he will do better in his second term.
“Sadly, President Trump has a long history of putting unqualified and compromised people in critical positions”
Yep. If he’s got an achilles heel.....that would be it.
And Trump’s attorney argued that in support of article 5.
Just a guess, but I am thinking that the bigger issue here, as stated earlier, is jurisdiction. A ruling that CO has no jurisdiction in Federal elections prevents other challenges later on that might not rely only on the candidate being charged with insurrection.
This would be a broader ruling that states cant deny candidates from ballots.
LOL
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.