Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

So we're in the market for a house...
Nonprofit by Ponderer     February 4, 2024 6:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (38 comments) [463 views]


The infamous FD-1023 form: Biden $10M bribe file released: Burisma chief said he was ‘coerced’ to pay Joe, ‘stupid’ Hunter in bombshell allegations
Crime by HatetheSwamp     July 20, 2023 3:47 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (30 comments) [540 views]


Matt Gaetz says his GOP colleagues pushing the now indicted "highly credible confidential" source were a little "over-sauced".
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 22, 2024 10:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [70 views]


Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [9 views]


Tulsi Gabbard is a transformative political leader... speaking at EFFIN CPAC
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 23, 2024 10:04 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [38 views]


Joe Manchin interview: Electing Trump would be very detrimental to US, world. Biden too liberal now.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 22, 2024 12:48 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [61 views]


THE DRINKS ARE ON ME, BOYS!!!
Alcoholic Beverages by Ponderer     February 21, 2024 6:50 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [145 views]


What to expect from Jim Biden's testimony before the House Oversight Committee...
Government by HatetheSwamp     February 21, 2024 8:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (32 comments) [299 views]


To set the record straight, GOPs are stoked for impeachment after Jim Biden's lies under oath
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 22, 2024 6:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [24 views]


The truth about Alexander Smirnov and the GOP push to impeach the Doddering Old Fool
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 22, 2024 6:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [10 views]


Media selectors, pages, etc.
Watching the Colorado Supreme Court Case Oral Arguments
By HatetheSwamp
February 8, 2024 8:22 am
Category: Media

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

The first cable news channel I hit on is Fox. It's live.

I wish I were po or Curt and had heard these arguments many times as clerks. I'm sure I would UNDERSTAND better.

I will say lots of chatter on Sections 3 and 5 and on whether the President is covered by Section 3... iffy, at best.

The guy arguing for Colorado is being eviscerated, as I hear it,... from some conservative Justices...

...so far.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Watching the Colorado Supreme Court Case Oral Arguments ":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on February 8, 2024 9:31 am

    Gang,

    What pb heard is the Lib Justices challenging the Colorado case much more fiercely that the conservatives.

    Kagan and KBJ especially. Sotomayor, didn't distinguish herself... to me.

    I think it's extremely possible that this will go to Trump 9-0... and before too long.

    Curt?, po?, isle? Did you hear sumpthin different?


  2. by Indy! on February 8, 2024 9:38 am

    Not sure why you're even bothering to watch, peebs since I already summed the entire sordid event up quite succinctly right here...



  3. by Curt_Anderson on February 8, 2024 10:00 am
    HtS,
    I will stand by my prediction of last December, comment #27 of the link below. Namely that SCOTUS really doesn't want to be in the position to disqualify a likely major party candidate. They are looking desperately looking for a loophole--any technicality will do. They justices asked mostly serious questions.

    Had the candidate in question been Maryanne Williamson or Cornel West, there decision would be easier and probably different.

    There was an argument about if it fair for one state to disqualify a candidate (Trump) from a national election and therefore have an outsized role in impacting the election. In truth, there are just a handful of swing states that have outsized impact on our presidential elections. Is it fair that other states have weird or antiquated ballot designs and restrictive ballot access? Third party candidates are on some states and not others. They aren't likely to win, but they the can take votes from one major party candidate or the other.
    selectsmart.com


  4. by HatetheSwamp on February 8, 2024 10:17 am

    From what I heard, TrumpHaters got depantsed on Section 3 and Section 5...

    ...AND, on US 18, Section 2383, which defines the crime of insurrection... which, as Justices pointed out, Trump has not be even charged with. Due process, BABY!

    I'm not seeing a technicality... by a looooooooong shot.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on February 8, 2024 10:22 am

    Sorry, HtS, I’m not taking your word for it. Conservative jurist J Michael Luttig says that Trump did meet the constitutional definition of an insurrectionist making him ineligible to run for president.

    And, that came up.

    Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection and, therefore, has had no opportunity to confront his accusers. That, Big Guy, is what OD and pb have been saying from the beginning.

    Due process!... for all!!!!!


  6. by Curt_Anderson on February 8, 2024 10:52 am
    My ears perked up when I heard a justice ask Trump's lawyer if due process was an issue. I understood the lawyer to say that Trump getting due process wasn't an issue based on his reading of the 14th.

    I don't have access to the transcript, but there's this:
    Mitchell shies away from due process arguments, hopes to win on substance to help Trump in other challenges

    When pressed on whether he objected to the procedures used by Colorado in its decision, Mitchell said that "winning on due process doesn't really do as much" for his client.

    nbcnews.com


  7. by HatetheSwamp on February 8, 2024 11:10 am

    I agree that, considering what Colorado did, due process is a non-issue...but, I don't speak on these issues with the authority that others here do.


  8. by Curt_Anderson on February 8, 2024 11:27 am
    In response to questioning from Justice Kavanaugh, Jason Murray, the lawyer for the Colorado voters, rebuts the notion that the Colorado case didn’t give Trump due process. “There was ample process here,” he says, saying that Trump had a five-day trial in which he could call any witness he wanted, cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses and could have chosen to testify himself. Trump’s lawyers didn’t use all their allotted time, he said.
    nytimes.com


  9. by Curt_Anderson on February 8, 2024 12:00 pm
    Another point on the apparent non-necessity of a trial and conviction (aka due process) of Trump as an insurrectionist: The justices seemed to agree that the 14th and its section 3 is "self-executing". From what I've read that means that no other steps, judicially or legislatively, are needed.

    In fact, former Confederates WERE barred from office without the necessity of a trial to prove they were insurrectionists.


  10. by HatetheSwamp on February 8, 2024 12:08 pm

    Jason Murray, the lawyer for the Colorado voters, rebuts the notion that the Colorado case didn’t give Trump due process.

    That is beside the point. Do you recall the Justices agreeing with that assertion?

    When was Trump charged un US 18 S 2383 and convicted?


  11. by Curt_Anderson on February 8, 2024 1:36 pm
    HtS,
    As I said above, I did not hear any disagreement from the justices or the lawyers on either side that there was a necessity for due process to apply the third section of the 14th amendment.


  12. by HatetheSwamp on February 9, 2024 4:44 am

    Did you hear a Justice, Gorsuch?, tell Mr Colorado that Trump didn't receive due process? Because that's a huuuuuuuuuge issue.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on February 9, 2024 4:55 am

    To be fair to you, Curt, your years clerking for Chief Justice John Jay notwithstanding, every time someone mentioned Section 2383, they were saying that Trump has not been charged with insurrection under US 18 S 2383. then convicted.

    The Colorado Supreme Court pronounced Trump guilty of insurrection and Trump has not been granted due process.
    federalcriminaldefenseadvocates.com


Go To Top

Comment on: "Watching the Colorado Supreme Court Case Oral Arguments "

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page