Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

The states don't have the authority to enforce Federal law. This is some outrageously unconditional behavior.

 

Cannon is not SCOTUS.
How about a link? Pictures are pretty worthless without a link for background information.

 

The 5th Amendment...lol

 

States are. In this case. As it should be. States rights. That' what everyone wants, yes. States rights?
Afterall, they are State elections.

 

The Colorado judges relied on a legal opinion written by Neil Gorsuch:

"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nei...rado-ruling-disqualified-trump-ballot-2023-12

 

All you're doing is attempting to ignore the fact that insurrection and rebellion are CRIMES. It doesn't need to mention crimes. Or "criminal". That's why the 5th and 6th Amendment deals with such. The 14th Amendment section 3 did not need to repeat what already exists. And it does not exist in a vacuum.

 

It all makes perfect sense to me.

Are you going to write a memoir to disqualify Biden in your state?

 

This whole thing is interesting. Colorado and Maine remove Trump, California and Michigan state Trump can say. Two different rulings and shall I say understanding of the 14th amendment. Basically, two states saying Trump is an insurrectionist, two states stating he’s not. At least when dealing with ballot access in those four states.


We need the SCOTUS to clear this up immediately or we’ll end up with a hodgepodge of state ballots where Trump will be on most, with a bunch where he isn’t. One thing of note, each of these four states, their rulings or findings apply only to their state. Not the nation.

 

And when it comes to the crimes of insurrection and rebellion...there is only ONE way in which such can be determined that someone engaged in such. Through the criminal courts.

 

That's not what the 14th Amendment says.

Section 3.

 

Nope. I'm not petty like leftists are. Nor would I apply the 14th Amendment in the stupid way that leftists are trying to apply it. I would actually require the 5th and 6th Amendments to be followed. But if for some reason SCOTUS rules stupidly, then I would not be surprised that the same standard is not applied to Biden.

 

It IS what the 5th and 6th Amendments say however. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

She also ruled the 14th doesn't cover the President (mostly because she didn't want her family to be attacked by tRumpublicans) but was overruled.

 

It will ultimately be up to the SC.

 

Then what is all this talk bout a Supreme Court challenge?

 

So you admit that she was trying to cover her ass. If that doesn't define an activist judge then I'm King Kong. Non-activist judges don't need to equivocate to cover their asses.

 

Because apparently these extreme leftist can't figure it out for themselves so they want to rule anyway for their media hype, against the SCOTUS so the SCOTUS has to address their claim as well.

 

I was mocking a Trump talking point.
And if Trump had accepted the decision of the voters in the first place, there would not be any efforts to have him removed from the ballot.

 

Isn't that what this is? Cancelling the election?

At this point, I'm not even that surprised. I expect that I will end my days with democracy dead, because these leftists have killed it.

At least if this kicks off and we have more and more states pull the opposition candidate off the ballot, no one is going to try to convince the country or the world that we had a free and fair election. That part of American history will be over.

 

I guess since they couldn't figure out for themselves what the current ruling already was, they decided to take another long shot except (AGAIN) they couldn't read the important part.
constitutionally prohibited from assuming office

What Gorsuch said then, stands now.

 

So back to my point. Let's, let them do their job.

 

My point was obvious. Let me know which part confused you.

I still find it laughable that people don't understand the difference between a Senator, a House Representative, an "elector" of the President, and the President. These are four unique people. Only one of them is the President and that person is not listed in Section 3. In fact, the President was initially listed in Section 3, but they decided to remove the President in the final version they ratified. This was a conscious decision they made at the time of passing the amendment. And now 150 years later we have people who support turning the US into a Banana Republic by replacing the meaning of the 14th Amendment with a new one that removes their primary political opponent from running for office. Alexander Hamilton is rolling over in his grave while people who hate our democracy try to pervert the meaning of our Constitution into something that allows them to remove their political opponents from the playing field and remove the right of the American public to vote for their chosen political candidates. It's a shameful display of authoritarianism in America.

 

You can pretend that normal and proper processes are in place- but you know better. When the rules of order are abandoned, whatever people can get by with becomes the rule.
The left seems to have absolutely no self-imposed restraint here; no value is sacred. When the rule of law is manipulated, the door is open first to corruption- then to reprisal.
There will come a point where the abuse will no longer be tolerated, and it legal process is controlled by the corrupt- other process will result. That makes it a stupid thing to do.

When they use these ploys to block Trump- they're not only attacking Trump, they are attacking the rights and freedom of all citizens.
I see you have no problem with that, so long as it's serving your personal goals?
Is that correct?

 

Oh, they will, and it will be just like the first ruling.
All these idiots have accomplished is to prove Trump right.
Democrats will go to any extreme, even unconstitutionally, to interfere with an election over a candidate they don't like.
Like it wasn't enough to drag him into court over bank fraud, when no bank is claiming they were defrauded while running for president.
It looks exactly like what it is

 

Your legal opinion is based solely on your political bias.