That isn't what Tucker was saying at the beginning of that clip.
He was saying that Hayler is actually a Democrat who agrees with everything the Democrats want.
Breaking!!! - CO Supreme Court strikes Trump from ballot.
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
He was saying that Hayler is actually a Democrat who agrees with everything the Democrats want.
Firstly, she is elected, isn't she?
Secondly, she didn't. She applied the law. She can't just remove someone from the ballot because "she feels like it".
Ah.
You object to the law itself.
Title 21-A, §337: Review and challenge of petitions
legislature.maine.gov
Do you object to the part where it has specific rules about challenging her decision and that her decision isn't final?
They absolutely could do that Constitutionally, as I am sure you know.
There is no provision in the constitution for the people to participate in the election of the President directly.
And, in fact, the people don't participate in the election of the President directly.
I do believe people would be very very upset if all states changed their laws to "the Secretary of State decides who the electors go to in the state".
As far as I know, even the Republicans, who have been arguing in court that the state wide popular vote should be overridable by the state legislature if they don't like the outcome, have proposed your solution.
Fear, desperation define Democrats’ election strategy
Dec 26, 2023
In their never-ending effort to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected for a second term, the Democrats have taken yet another step. Their fear that Trump will win in 2024 has driven them to levels of desperation likely unseen before as a weapon against a presidential candidate in our history, or certainly in the last hundred years.
Without listing all of the efforts so far unleashed, suffice it to say that every imaginable contrivance has been used. The most recent is perhaps the most ridiculous.
The Colorado Supreme Court, a panel of seven Democrats appointed by a Democrat governor, has ruled that “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President” under the 14th Amendment.
There was, of course, much delight from this decision, and much irritation. Let’s focus on the response from those who disagree with the court’s action.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the action a “flawed decision.”
“This is the most dangerous attack on your constitutional right to vote I have ever seen,” he said.
House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., commented that “Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election. This is un-American and Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th, 2024, that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot.”
“We trust the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next president of the United States,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Trump attorney Alina Habba commented that “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”
Attorney and former law professor Alan Dershowitz, a long-time Democrat, appearing on Newsmax “National Report,” said the following: “In the 60 years I’ve been practicing and teaching law, I’ve never seen a decision that’s so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional; it is absurd.”
Dershowitz told National Report co-hosts Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow, “The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong.”
He added that the 14th Amendment stipulates the process, which clearly says Congress shall have the power to ensure that a person cannot run for office.
“If you want to impeach a president, if you want to make him not be able to run in the future, there’s a provision. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate,” he said. “But the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to circumvent that carefully drawn provision and simply allow any state to make up grounds for denying him the right to be on the ballot undercuts democracy.”
Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3. There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump didn’t hold an applicable office.
He was not charged, let alone convicted, for “insurrection or rebellion.”
Section 3 is no longer extant. There is an argument that can be made — and which was already adopted by one federal court — that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Offering more information on this, attorney Hans von Spakovsky with The Heritage Foundation wrote: “First, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official. Individuals who are elected — such as the president and vice president — are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ In fact, the Senate acquitted Trump of that charge in his second impeachment.”
Notre Dame University election law professor Derek T. Muller wrote in a blog last Tuesday, “This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the court.”
The Democrats, who loudly defend “our democracy,” are now trying to save it by trying to eliminate their chief political enemy in a manner that is stunningly un-democratic. It is more like what one sees in banana republics.
A recent headline regarding the Colorado Supreme Court action read: “Colorado Saves Democracy By Not Allowing People To Vote For Preferred Candidate.”
It is worth noting that among the seven Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court, three of them disagreed with this action.
This partisan action will act as a lesson for the future, as political parties may use this and similar methods to fight political enemies. Will there soon be a movement to remove Joe Biden from the ballot, too?
If this ridiculous, irrational action is allowed to stand, our nation will suffer a foundational transformation at the hands of Democrats.
Dec 26, 2023
In their never-ending effort to prevent former President Donald Trump from being elected for a second term, the Democrats have taken yet another step. Their fear that Trump will win in 2024 has driven them to levels of desperation likely unseen before as a weapon against a presidential candidate in our history, or certainly in the last hundred years.
Without listing all of the efforts so far unleashed, suffice it to say that every imaginable contrivance has been used. The most recent is perhaps the most ridiculous.
The Colorado Supreme Court, a panel of seven Democrats appointed by a Democrat governor, has ruled that “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President” under the 14th Amendment.
There was, of course, much delight from this decision, and much irritation. Let’s focus on the response from those who disagree with the court’s action.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the action a “flawed decision.”
“This is the most dangerous attack on your constitutional right to vote I have ever seen,” he said.
House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., commented that “Four partisan Democrat operatives on the Colorado Supreme Court think they get to decide for all Coloradans and Americans the next presidential election. This is un-American and Democrats are so afraid that President Trump will win on Nov 5th, 2024, that they are illegally attempting to take him off the ballot.”
“We trust the U.S. Supreme Court will set aside this reckless decision and let the American people decide the next president of the United States,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Trump attorney Alina Habba commented that “This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order.”
Attorney and former law professor Alan Dershowitz, a long-time Democrat, appearing on Newsmax “National Report,” said the following: “In the 60 years I’ve been practicing and teaching law, I’ve never seen a decision that’s so anti-democratic and so unconstitutional; it is absurd.”
Dershowitz told National Report co-hosts Emma Rechenberg and Jon Glasgow, “The idea that the 14th Amendment was supposed to substitute for the impeachment provision, carefully drafted by the framers, is wrong.”
He added that the 14th Amendment stipulates the process, which clearly says Congress shall have the power to ensure that a person cannot run for office.
“If you want to impeach a president, if you want to make him not be able to run in the future, there’s a provision. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate,” he said. “But the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to circumvent that carefully drawn provision and simply allow any state to make up grounds for denying him the right to be on the ballot undercuts democracy.”
Because Trump allegedly engaged in an insurrection, according to the challengers, he is disqualified by Section 3. There are three major legal problems with that claim, however.
Trump didn’t hold an applicable office.
He was not charged, let alone convicted, for “insurrection or rebellion.”
Section 3 is no longer extant. There is an argument that can be made — and which was already adopted by one federal court — that Section 3 doesn’t even exist anymore as a constitutional matter.
Offering more information on this, attorney Hans von Spakovsky with The Heritage Foundation wrote: “First, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies only to individuals who were previously a ‘member of Congress,’ an ‘officer of the United States,’ or a state official. Individuals who are elected — such as the president and vice president — are not officers within the meaning of Section 3. Second, no federal court has convicted Trump of engaging in ‘insurrection or rebellion.’ In fact, the Senate acquitted Trump of that charge in his second impeachment.”
Notre Dame University election law professor Derek T. Muller wrote in a blog last Tuesday, “This is a major and extraordinary holding from a state supreme court. Never in history has a presidential candidate been excluded from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Supreme Court review seems inevitable, and it exerts major pressure on the court.”
The Democrats, who loudly defend “our democracy,” are now trying to save it by trying to eliminate their chief political enemy in a manner that is stunningly un-democratic. It is more like what one sees in banana republics.
A recent headline regarding the Colorado Supreme Court action read: “Colorado Saves Democracy By Not Allowing People To Vote For Preferred Candidate.”
It is worth noting that among the seven Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court, three of them disagreed with this action.
This partisan action will act as a lesson for the future, as political parties may use this and similar methods to fight political enemies. Will there soon be a movement to remove Joe Biden from the ballot, too?
If this ridiculous, irrational action is allowed to stand, our nation will suffer a foundational transformation at the hands of Democrats.
We just finished discussing that. Go read the posts again, except for yours.
He's an insurrectionist. He DQ'd himself.
Semantics.
People still elect their president by voting for their respective representative. ie if someone likes Trump, they will vote accordingly.
And you are changing the subject.
Let him run and let the people decide.
Right on. Elimination of the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, just like ending the anchor baby rule. Lots the "founding fathers" left out or got wrong, but they haven't been around for a couple of hundred years...
You are missing the point.
I'll say it again...let him run and if the people want to elect him for president then that is their will.
What are people so afraid of? The answer to that question is "because he might win". So if he might win, then that would be the will of the people no?
So you would vote for a Prime Minister who was charged and convicted? Now before you say he hasn't yet been convicted yet but yes he has, of fraud and rape. It doesn't matter if it was done so in a civil court, the fact is he was found guilty. The other convictions are coming soon as well is my bet. So if Pee Pee were facing major federal and state charges, and been found guilty in two civil cases of fraud and rape, YOU WOULD STILL give him your vote?
Never trust a 60 year old with braces and a smile like that. Looks a bit like my first ex wife.
Civil court is MUCH different than criminal court squeegee. When will the left wing lunatics realize that these trials only boost trumps polling numbers?
He can run if he wants.
But if you want to run for political office you have to follow the rules.
He didn't.
People vote for the person they believe will be best for them and their own interests & well being. They may not consider things the person has done outside of politics that have nothing to do with them.
If I felt a politician would serve my interests better than another politician, I would vote for them and I would care less about other things.
People who vote for a politician that makes them feel warm & fuzzy usually get shaken into reality when that person ends up being useless. i.e. Justin Trudeau, Biden
Weaponizing the justice system against your political opponents is straying from the rules.
Hiding behind "rules" because you are afraid of him running and winning is funny.
So what your saying is a segment of Americans are willing to vote for the most vile corrupt useless piece of shit who rapes, commits fraud and tries to overturn democracy just because he does things to serve his minority with things like tax cuts America can't afford and being lucky enough to hire 3 coreupt Supreme Court justices who overturn laws based on their own religious beliefs. Makes sense but how can any self respecting evangelical look the other way and vote for the anti christ ?
Those were the rules before J6.
They weren't 'weaponized', they existed and were applied as warranted.
Stop being such a whiner.
Wow you sound triggered. You should try and keep your TDS in check.
Sounds like you prefer "selective democracy and justice" as it plays into your narrative.
There are several countries where the people in power decide who gets to stay in power and oppress any political rivals including preventing them from running for office...you may want to consider moving there as true democracy doesn't seem to fit your ideology.
Like I said, if you are confident he couldn't possibly win, then why not have him run and let the people decide?
Try for a minute to step outside your communist ideology and look at this objectively if you can through a democratic lense.
Guilty is GUILTY in a court of law!
FRAUD has already been established, all that is left is the $$$$$ amount.
The Cases Against Trump: A Guide
Thirty-four felony convictions. Charges of fraud, election subversion, and obstruction. One place to keep track of the president-elect’s legal troubles.
www.theatlantic.com
How plausible is a guilty verdict?
Engoron has already ruled that Trump committed fraud. The outstanding questions are what damages he might have to pay and what exactly Engoron’s ruling means for Trump’s business and properties in New York.
The judge called it RAPE!!! The verdict states guilty of sexual assault. It's civil but none the he has once again so far been found GUILTY AS CHARGED
When?
In May 2023, a jury concluded that Trump had sexually assaulted and defamed Carroll, and awarded her $5 million. A second defamation claim is due to be tried on January 16, after a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s efforts to delay the trial.
How grave is the allegation?
Although this case doesn’t directly connect to the same fundamental issues of rule of law and democratic governance that some of the criminal cases do, it is a serious matter, and a judge’s blunt statement that Trump raped Carroll has been underappreciated.
The only case Trumpy has a slight chance of a delay is with crooked Cannon but in the end, she will be taken off the case because she's another dimwit.
How many independents, women, Lgbtq and the black community do you believe Trump makes them feel warm and fuzzy? HAHAHAHA, if you think enough to win a general election, you need to smoke some of that weed JT legalized for you.
