Missed It By THAT Much

CreepyJoeBiden Democrats Margin Of Fraud Trump 71 Comments

NBC;

The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.

The court in an unsigned ruling with no dissents reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced. As such the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado.

MSNBC hardest hit.

HAHAHAHA

Glenn Reynolds:The Supreme Court rules, many pundits are fools.

71 Replies to “Missed It By THAT Much”

  2. Because just like the immediate lockdowns and vax mandates made by elite bureaucrats “in charge” they prove themselves to be crooked as a dog’s hind leg, dumb as a box of rocks and smile-in-your-face sadistic, that should never been given positions of power.
    ( “You’re under arrest for assault”)

  3. Every advocate for the “Section 3 solution” ignored Section 5 and section 1 in their claims it was self propagating.

    ” Section 5 – The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

    18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection is what Congress came up with for Section 3, and Trump (or anyone else) has not been charged under that section.

    1. My guess is that even the three commie diversity appointments on the S.C. could see the issue biting the Dim party in the @$$ at some point. Maybe sooner rather than later.

      The S.C. ruling was, “This is a “Bad Idea®.” Try something else.”

    2. The institutions ain’t all bad. Though, I do wonder how this might have gone had the last batch been appointed by a progressive. Like, what if galloping Garland was on scotus.

    3. that alone says another message.
      and it occurs to me, its gonna be REAAAAAAAAAL difficult for the usual players to engage in ballot fraud because Trump’s supporters individually and collectively WATCHING closely for it this time with BULL HORNS at the ready in case of mischief.
      excellent news here SDA excellent beginning of the week

      1. I’m not impressed by what the Republicans have done to prevent fraud. Florida is a rule proving exception.

        RNC head McDaniel said thet “we have to get better sat ballot harvesting, early voting, etc.” In other words, let’s cheat better than the Democrats.

        Good luck with that!

      2. the GOP is going to have to be very diligent in the November election as the democrats have mastered the art of cheating

  6. I hope all those Coloradans who supported drug de-criminalization now see the error of their ways: The Colorado court is now majority crack-head. Nice job, you loons; the Supreme Court practically never rules 9 – 0 on any case, but they did against the Colorado Supreme Court.

    Hat tip, as well to Colorado’s biggest loon, Jared Polis.

  7. Good, if the feral leftwing loons in the US get to decide who can run for POTUS the nation would become Cuba/China.

    2. Yeah, but they’d be “saving democracy” by preventing the citizens from democratically voting for the candidate of their choice.

      And the nutty lefties actually believe that.

  10. I haven’t seen Keith this upset since Coulter pointed out that he attended Cornell’s agricultural school.

  11. The good-news story of the day. I’m surprised the judgment is unanimous. Look for VP Kamala Harris to replace drooling-Joe soon, with a corporate-media-orchestrated Harris-mania to follow.

    As to Keith Olberman’s post, he singles out the conservative judges, yet the decision is unanimous.

      1. That’s what I read. MO would only consider running if it was an absolute guarantee. There is no way she wants to lose to Donald Trump. On the other hand, if we find out at the convention that she IS replacing Biden, the fix is absolutely in.

        1. She’s been making public appearances lately. Why would she do that unless she plans to run.

          And if she does run, she will be acclaimed the Democrat candidate at the convention. She’s very popular and it would be difficult for Trump to beat her.

    2. Ummm… To clarify, Jackson was nominated by Sleepy-Joe. Kagan and Sotomayor – nominated by Obam-bam. These are the Liberal justices on the court. Not conservative, unlike Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch. (I’m reserving judgement as to Chief Justice Roberts.)

      Olberman singled out the liberal justices.

  12. It’s all the fault of that extreme right wing MAGA justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, or it wouldn’t have been unanimous, IOW a DeMarxist victory in a racist and traitorous attempt to give Donald J. Trump a dictatorial election win.

    It’s good to have one’s spidey sense checked. I had predicted 9-0 in this dystopic domain, so that means a long string of defeats and court cans of whoop ass are heading Soros/Biden rogue prosecutors’ way as November approaches, so the Marxists will go into high dudgeon of insurrection, sorry, “resistance” to losing power.

    1. She really, really wanted to oppose the ruling, but the fact is, she can’t describe a women and as such, couldn’t write out an opposition opinion.

      1. Her questions were quite pointed, calling BS on the idea the 14th amendment has anything to do with the presidency. The hearing was two hours, the CO and Maine case was DOA at SCOTUS, that is obvious.

  13. I am forced to wonder just what the loons who tried to rule Donald Trump ineligible to run in 2024 thought was going to happen? Did it never occur to them that they would need Trump to be actually *convicted* of attempted ‘insurrection’ before they could possibly ban him?

    1. Fred
      I think Democrats believe the process is the punishment. They want to keep Trump on the defensive and are trying to get him to spend lots of money fighting their spurious claims.

      Also, they are trying to portray Trump in a multitude of negative lights. They throw lots of them out there, in hopes that different ones will sway independent voters. All they need is one. And a different one may resonate with a different voter.

      1. Yes, the Lawfare pimps know exactly what they are doing. It’s about deflection, diversion, deception and exhausting the opposition mentally, time wise, and financially; they’re always on the offense.
        Resources spent on court cases, don’t go towards the campaign effort .

        1. Don’t forget, whoever finds the key that nails Trump, real or fabricated, wins bigly. They leapfrog up the political ladder. There is hardly any risk since the transnational hucksters ante up.

      2. @Joe. Exactly!
        Keep that in mind when you hear the media trumpet about the 91 or so indictments, and the fake judgement by Engeron in NYC. This is all about weaponizing the law to punish the target. Not about justice at all.

        Allan S… any thoughts on the matter?

      3. “Fred
        I think Democrats believe the process is the punishment. They want to keep Trump on the defensive and are trying to get him to spend lots of money fighting their spurious claims. ”

        I think you’re probably right about that, Joe. That’s a great strategy IF it works…pretty risky if it doesn’t. Do they not worry about retaliation at all, or are they so convinced they will win that they aren’t even considering the possibility that they may themselves end up in court…just as defendants this time?

        So far, almost every time they throw a new (bogus) indictment at Donald Trump, his popularity goes up. If I were a Democrat, I’d be looking for another strategy right about now.

    2. Fred, before Trump can be convicted someone must prove that an act of ‘insurrection’ actually happened. An insurrection must be proven to have been planned and formulated in advance with a body of people that had planned and were in a position to implement and install a form of order other than the sitting government. The Democrats are pressing to change the definition of insurrection to suit their needs, just as they changed the definition of ‘pandemic’ and ‘vaccine’. The only insurrection that took place happened in November2020, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other swing states where the orchestrated and planned corruption of the election process occurred. The J6 instance was a planned rally that was escalated to a riot by provocateurs and law enforcement. Just my opinion but convince me otherwise.

      2. “Fred, before Trump can be convicted someone must prove that an act of ‘insurrection’ actually happened”

        That was my thought as well, and the source of my confusion on this. How can anyone seriously attempt to ban Trump from running for office on a charge that he hasn’t even been convicted of yet? That’s the ‘reasoning’ of teenagers, to me…yet these people are high-level state judges?

        ” The J6 instance was a planned rally that was escalated to a riot by provocateurs and law enforcement. Just my opinion but convince me otherwise.”

        100% agreed. Not only did the first group arrive at the Capitol well before Trump even finished his speech
        (where he urged people to “peacefully protest”), but they somehow *forgot to bring their guns*. How does the most heavily armed nation in the world forget to bring weapons to an ‘insurrection’? And how does the supposed inciter of this ‘insurrection’ (DJT) offer to authorize the presence of the National Guard but is *turned down* by the people who supposedly fear it happening?

        The only question remaining for me is how do we make the exploiters of this event pay? You are jailing people for 2-3 years for walking through a building and taking selfies? Yet people who rioted, looted and deliberately destroyed millions of dollars in property get off scot-free? You need to be held accountable for what you have done, Democrats. ALL of you who were involved.

      3. Unless it’s attempted insurrection? Yeah, that’s the ticket. OTOH we could consult AI. Artificial Insurrection.

    3. I believe they hoped that the decision would be 6-3 and then they would pivot their attack to the SCOTUS and the call to reshape and enlarge it. They never seemed to consider that the so called liberal justices might not want their positions watered down in an 18 member court and, who knows, might actually rule on the arguments and not the narrative.

  14. Olbermann measures the value of the SCOTUS by how closely it tracks his politics.

    But good justices do not care a whit about politics, but rather the law.

    1. The key word being ( good justices) One who follow the law, not make it.
      Roe vs Wade

    2. “But good justices do not care a whit about politics, but rather the law.”

      Agreed, KM….that should always be their default position.

      I was puzzled by the Roe vs. Wade decision until I read more about it (since I don’t care much about abortion either way). Turns out that the original decision was just *bad law* that impinged on the rights of the individual states and should never have been made in the first place.

      1. I think it depends on how broadly you interpret the concepts of “living” and “working”.

        2. It depends on What the definition of “is” is. When you get shitcanned from MSNBC for being deranged, you are truly a mess.

  16. Olbermann is a head case and his use of “dissolved” regarding the SCOTUS means “fire bombed in their homes and murdered in the streets in their pajamas” to the fringe freaks like the guy who had his arm shot off by Kyle Rittenhouse and the Democrat brownshirt army of like minded lunatics they pay and command.

    The Democrats are playing with fire.

  17. Pause for a moment to think about the Unbridled Arrogance of Keith Olbermann. The Supreme Court of the United States just decided 9 to 0 in favor of Trump yet Olbermann still thinks he is right and all of the Supreme Court justices are wrong. No one should ever listen to him again about anything. He is some malevolent combination of Stupid and Dangerous.

  18. Keith Olbermann is demanding the dissolution of the SCOTUS!? Wha-wha-whaaaaat!? Now THERE is your bonefide call for insurrection and dissolution of our American Institutions. Olbermann should be OFF our streets. He’s not fit for citizenship.

  19. BTW … I predicted a 9-0 result, and boldly claimed that ANY Justice who voted to allow States to disqualify a US Presidential Candidate without any evidence let alone a conviction of the 14th Amendment was unfit for service. Hmmm … seems my reading comprehension is far better than Olbermann’s

    1. I think we all predicted a 9-0 verdict, Kenji… Those of us that are awake, that is.

  20. Good for SCOTUS being unanimous. Even brain dead Democrats will find it hard to argue that the court has been taken over by right wing white nationalists and needs to be enlarged. Olbermann is beyond brain dead obviously.

  22. My cup of liberal tears overfloweth today. I’m putting in a koi pond to hold them all.

  25. I kind of wish the Supreme Court would have looked the other way on this. My macabre curiosity wanted to know just how many states would pile on. Certainly California and New York. Probably New Jersey. Oregon and Washington State. Pennsylvania despite the split down the middle of voters since Dems own the PA Supreme Court. Massachusetts and Connecticut for sure. Vermont….likely. Minnesota, definitely.

    With few exceptions, every blue state would have made a move to remove Trump from the ballot had they let the Colorado creativity stand as is. All they would need is a left leaning State Supreme Court. This is so outlandish I wanted to see it go full tilt just for posterity’s sake.

  26. Immunity next! Why wouldn’t the President have immunity? Senators have immunity. Congressmen have immunity. The Supreme Court and all other judges have immunity. Prosecutors have immunity. Police have immunity.

    Part of the president’s job is supervising elections and the transition. It is impossible to hold him criminally liable for doing it poorly, in someone’s opinion, especially when he relied on legal counsel. The Supreme Court can’t lessen the role of the president any more than the president can lessen the role of the Supreme Court.

  27. Wel now! So I guess they’ll just have to get Congress to do the dirty work!

    There’s probably enough RINOs to help the democrats out on that.

  28. I told an old friend that the decision would be unanimous and in favour of Trump. Easy call though. No justice would want his/her name associated with a utterly indefensible dissent.

    And even the angry ragers deep down probably know this.

  29. Clear cut and clean.. States participate in Federal elections.. They don’t control them.. No crime that Congress cant handle and no amount of cheap politics that States wont try..

    You got your soundbite and endless news about it.. Bird feed for bird brains.. So dumb, they couldn’t be bothered to rule on it.. Straight up REJECT..

    Apparently the MOB isn’t happy that their power grab was rejected.. Imagine elections where States can disqualify Federal candidates based upon some whore house legal opinion.. Trump wanted a recount.. You wanted a no count.. TSK-TSK..

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation