Elections Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot

[BROWNPRIDE]

Haha good. FDT

 

[nostradumbass]

I can't wait for all the originalists in the thread and on the Supreme Court to see the light and realize how dumb originalism can be. JK, self-awareness is too rare.

Why is that? It literally says in the exact amendment they're using to rig another election that they can't remove someone's rights and privileges without due process, and nobody's even been charged with "muh insurrection" let alone convicted of it.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

By the time of the next election, it will have been 16 years since the US has had an election that didn't involve spying on the opposition, last minute rule changes and mass coordinated censorship, or partisan officials trying to prosecute opponents and removing rights without due process to rig the outcome. After more than a decade and a half of openly rigged elections, there is literally not a single media source that is a disinterested 3rd party whose vote you don't know, and a legal system with judges who are activists and political donors, it's time to admit that the US system is a hell of a lot closer to China or USSR than anything close to a democracy.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Volume 12 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

 

[MicroBrew]

you understand the military raises a coup right?

While it is common to associate military leadership and violence to coups it is not a given.

coup noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of coup noun in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

(also coup d'état) a sudden, illegal, and often violent change of government
He seized power in a military coup in 2008.
to stage/mount a coup
an attempted coup a failed/an abortive coup
She lost her position in a boardroom coup (= a sudden change of power among senior managers in a company).

-----

A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ ⓘ; French for 'stroke of state'),[1] or simply a coup, is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership.[2][3] A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.[3]

Coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[King Joffery]

you tards repeat this shit, like a parrot.

bitch, if were a coup it wouldn't be attempted. you idiots use words incorrectly on purpose. what is a woman? is your mom a woman? or a birthing person?

I believe the correct terminology now is chest feeding bleeder with bonus hole.

 

[Beechwood]

Illinois Democrats are afraid of voters. They feel they can not win at the ballot box, so they are turning to the courts to try and win elections. That is how democracy ends.

 

[Ichibanner]

The only real "coup" I see is the current election tampering by removing people from the ballot.

Ray Epps spouted post election "Insurrectionist" speech saying; "Go into the Capitol" to incite a crowd to storm the building.

The FBI shrugged shoulders, removed him from a wanted list, DOJ declined to prosecute, and when finally pushed to "punish" Epps, he walked away a free man.

Something smells rotten and people can't be bothered to wonder why the US "Justice" system is likely off the rails and beholden to the whims of those in and with power.

 

[USA!USA!]

Illinois Democrats are afraid of voters. They feel they can not win at the ballot box, so they are turning to the courts to try and win elections. That is how democracy ends.

Illinois won't ever vote for a Republican president. It's been like 35+ years since the first Bush. Times have changed, I just don't see that ever changing again.

I'm not saying I think the decision is right - but I do think it won't matter in the end.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Pretty unethical, it was very apparent what the Supreme Court's opinion was when Colorado did this (even if official ruling isn't out yet)

To try and do it yourself, knowing the SC thinks it's against the constitution, is just a judge wanting to grandstand and make a name for themselves and feel powerful and waste everyone's time.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Illinois Democrats are afraid of voters. They feel they can not win at the ballot box, so they are turning to the courts to try and win elections. That is how democracy ends.

Lol what? Illinois Democrats are the safest party in America. They're not afraid of voters, Republicans haven't won there since like Reagan lol

 

[Source]

Pretty unethical, it was very apparent what the Supreme Court's opinion was when Colorado did this (even if official ruling isn't out yet)

To try and do it yourself, knowing the SC thinks it's against the constitution, is just a judge wanting to grandstand and make a name for themselves and feel powerful and waste everyone's time.

Why exactly is it unethical? Are not states empowered to essentially determine the rules of their elections? At least in Colorado a state court ruled what took place on Jan 6th was an insurrection and they determine it was coordinated by trump. I think it’s clear that the purpose of the Jan 6 was to interrupt the certification of the election.



I don’t believe the disqualifications will stand. All they will do is further entrench an already entrenched voting block. While maybe stupid and short sighted I don’t find them to be unethical.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Why exactly is it unethical? Are not states empowered to essentially determine the rules of their elections? At least in Colorado a state court ruled what took place on Jan 6th was an insurrection and they determine it was coordinated by trump. I think it’s clear that the purpose of the Jan 6 was to interrupt the certification of the election.



I don’t believe the disqualifications will stand. All they will do is further entrench an already entrenched voting block. While maybe stupid and short sighted I don’t find them to be unethical.

Supreme Court justice Kagan doesn't think so- “I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, told the attorney for the Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility.

Kagan said the question of who qualifies for the ballot sounds “awfully national,” rather than a question that can be left up to each state.

I trust her legal opinion on this matter.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Supreme Court justice Kagan doesn't think so- “I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, told the attorney for the Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility.

Kagan said the question of who qualifies for the ballot sounds “awfully national,” rather than a question that can be left up to each state.

I trust her legal opinion on this matter.

Based on the hearing, it looks like it will be 9-0 against Colorado, MAYBE 8-1. But even by the end, Brown-Jackson even seemed to see problems and lack of due process.

With this current judge, it is ridiculous, because the democrat controlled state election board already ruled against this unanimously. So this random judge thinks she is above even the state's election board?

Pretty unethical, it was very apparent what the Supreme Court's opinion was when Colorado did this (even if official ruling isn't out yet)

To try and do it yourself, knowing the SC thinks it's against the constitution, is just a judge wanting to grandstand and make a name for themselves and feel powerful and waste everyone's time.

I agree. Do you think a judge doing such should suffer sanctions?

 

[Richmma80]

About.
Fucking.
Time.

 

[Andy Capp]

While it is common to associate military leadership and violence to coups it is not a given.

coup noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of coup noun in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

(also coup d'état) a sudden, illegal, and often violent change of government
He seized power in a military coup in 2008.
to stage/mount a coup
an attempted coup a failed/an abortive coup
She lost her position in a boardroom coup (= a sudden change of power among senior managers in a company).

-----

A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ ⓘ; French for 'stroke of state'),[1] or simply a coup, is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership.[2][3] A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.[3]

Coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know why you guys are feeding this clown troll. It's just bobgeese. Not worth a fuck.

 

[Source]

Supreme Court justice Kagan doesn't think so- “I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, told the attorney for the Colorado voters challenging Trump’s eligibility.

Kagan said the question of who qualifies for the ballot sounds “awfully national,” rather than a question that can be left up to each state.

I trust her legal opinion on this matter.

That might be the biggest cop out I have read on here. Since you want to switch the narrative without answering any questions posed do you ever disagree with the opinions of a SC judge?


Why should 2 essentially private companies get to decide who the president is? It’s because they are empowered by the constitution to do so is why. Just like states are empowered to make their own rules of who gets in their ballots for president. Each state has their own criteria for getting on the ballot. There is no national rules for such.

 

[Source]

I don't know why you guys are feeding this clown troll. It's just bogeese. Not worth a fuck.

That makes sense I thought it was proud American.

 

[Whippy McGee]

The Left tards can't think a single step ahead. The lack of critical thinking here on their part is astounding. Just like when Harry Reid used the nuclear option in the Senate and was warned, here we are again.

You Democratic Party drones would lose this election and likely many more in the future if you went with this standard of removing candidates from the ballot. All the Red States have to do is claim China Joe aided and comforted enemies (China and Iran) and remove Biden from the ballots by the same 14th Amendment clause. The Swing states that mostly have Republican leaning courts can be picked off too leaving just a handful of swing states that are not enough for Biden to even win. Trump will win before it starts by Biden ballot removal dominance. Do you dummies really want to continue down this road?

The authoritarian desires of the Left Cult are on display yet again. These weirdos can't be trusted with power, they abuse it every time. The only thing slowing down the Republicans is that they too are corrupt for the most part, just not quite as bad as the Democrats.... and they certainly are not the totalitarians at the level of the Democrats.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

It's gonna be epic when they start removing democrats from ballots for S and Gs.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Double post

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Based on the hearing, it looks like it will be 9-0 against Colorado, MAYBE 8-1. But even by the end, Brown-Jackson even seemed to see problems and lack of due process.

With this current judge, it is ridiculous, because the democrat controlled state election board already ruled against this unanimously. So this random judge thinks she is above even the state's election board?



I agree. Do you think a judge doing such should suffer sanctions?

A state election board has no power over a judge. While you may agree or disagree with the judges decision, a state election board isn't going to have any power over a judge's interpretation of law in a state constitution. If anything, a judge's ruling is going to be above a state board of elections and they will have to abide by the states court ruling. It won't be upheld at the supreme Court level, but either way, the board of elections would have no say in what a judge rules.