Uh-Oh....looks like Scotus steps in to save Democracy from the Deep State

Author: Greyparrot
FBI
3 letter agency
FJB

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#1
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Liberal Media MELTS DOWN Over SCOTUS GIVING TRUMP HUGE VICTORY As Woke Judge Removes Him From Ballot

Key takeaways:

1) Democrats wanted to use DOJ to nullify Trump on the ballot.
2) Scotus stepped in and took action.
3) Because of this, the trial will take place AFTER the election, assuming Trump loses in the Scotus (unlikely)
4) A likely President Trump will then have immunity anyway.
5) All the polls saying Biden might win if Trump is convicted before November are now meaningless and irrelevant, since there is no path for this to happen now.
#2
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,116
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
The SCOTUS is the Deep State. 

They are known to take bribes from the billionaire class.
#3
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,016
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The SCOTUS is the Deep State. 

They are known to take bribes from the billionaire class.
It's the best Supreme Court that money can buy.
Topic's author
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Too bad Ginsberg isn't around to remove the Orangeman for the far-left tribe.
Topic's author
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
An Illinois TDS judge just joined the far-left states and vowed to nullify any vote for Trump in a bold violation of the 1965 voting rights act.

It would be funny if Trump refused to appeal the Judge's fiat and use the election result as a campaign slogan instead.

#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
An Illinois TDS judge just joined the far-left states and vowed to nullify any vote for Trump in a bold violation of the 1965 voting rights act.
It's because they need to save democracy from voters.

This is the same tribe that claims showing a driver's license is an undue burden.
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's because they need to save democracy from voters.
no, it's because he is a criminal who engages in insurrection and the law is very clear that insurrectionists can't hold office. 

This is the same tribe that claims showing a driver's license is an undue burden.
for people who have a driver's license, it isn't. For the millions of people who don't have a driver's license, it certainly is. But those people are probably poor and the republicans DEFINITELY don't want them voting. 
Topic's author
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
no, it's because he is a criminal who engages in insurrection
Maybe in Russia, but in America, he is an innocent man until he is charged and then convicted of insurrection. Neither of which have happened.
Topic's author
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
But those people are probably poor and the republicans DEFINITELY don't want them voting. 
Weird take considering the majority of GOP voters are poor compared to Dem voters....


#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe in Russia, but in America, he is an innocent man until he is charged and then convicted of insurrection. Neither of which have happened.
you're not very familiar with the constitution are you? It is very clear that you have to have engaged in insurrection. It does not require a charge or conviction for it. And it was written that way very intentionally. Many southerners engaged in insurrection during the civil war but were never officially charged or convicted with insurrection. The point was to prevent them from running for office. So if it required conviction, it would have meant criminally charging alot of people. 

So no, you are wrong. That is how the constitution works. 

#11
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
But those people are probably poor and the republicans DEFINITELY don't want them voting. 
Weird take considering the majority of GOP voters are poor compared to Dem voters....
this is mostly a rural urban divide issue. Rural people are much more likely to get a driver's license than an urban person. Urban poor people have access to mass transit systems and so they have little use for a driver's license and don't get one. Rural people don't have access to mass transit and so having a driver's license is much more important. The idea is they want poor people from rural areas to vote, while preventing poor people from urban areas from voting. Requiring driver's licenses works perfectly to allow that kind of discrimination. 
Topic's author
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
you're not very familiar with the constitution are you? It is very clear that you have to have engaged in insurrection. It does not require a charge or conviction for it. And it was written that way very intentionally.
Maybe before the 14th amendment was ratified, you could dubiously make that claim without constitutional scrutiny.

Your position violates both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment includes the principle of due process, which ensures that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This means that before the government can take away someone's rights or impose penalties, there must be fair legal proceedings, including the right to a trial.

Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment extends the protection of due process to the states, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly under state laws and legal proceedings.

Depriving someone of the right to a trial before being found guilty is a clear violation of due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. These amendments ensure that even people like Trump have the opportunity to defend themselves and present their case in a fair and impartial legal process. If Obama can apply the 5th and 14th amendment to international foreign terrorists:(insurrectionists), then it must also apply to Trump who is an American citizen.

Topic's author
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The idea is they want poor people from rural areas to vote, while preventing poor people from urban areas from voting. Requiring driver's licenses works perfectly to allow that kind of discrimination. 
If you could show proof that there exists policies that would not allow a State ID in lieu of a driver's license, then perhaps your argument could hold water. I will await your sources and proof.
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If you could show proof that there exists policies that would not allow a State ID in lieu of a driver's license, then perhaps your argument could hold water. I will await your sources and proof.
lol, you'll await proof of something I didn't say? how generous of you. You're willing to wait while i respond to your strawman argument lol.

Maybe before the 14th amendment was ratified, you could dubiously make that claim without constitutional scrutiny.
again you aren't very familiar with the constitution are you? It is the 14th amendment that specifically says this. You are saying that this might be true before the provision that made it true was passed lol. Section 3 of the 14th amendment specifically says that anyone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible to run for public office. 
Topic's author
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
To be convicted of insurrection, you need due process. the 14thA specifically says that.

Otherwise every person could be potentially an insurrectionist without due process.

Section 1 clearly outlines what happens before you can apply the punishments in Sec 3.
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
To be convicted of insurrection, you need due process. the 14thA specifically says that.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean you have to be convicted in order to go to prison, then absolutely. you are correct. You have to be convicted before you can be punished by the justice system. If you mean, before you can be barred from running for office, then no you are incorrect. Section 3 is very clear. You have to have engaged in it, not been convicted of it. 

Topic's author
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You have to have engaged in it, not been convicted of it. 
Which would be a violation of sec 1 if there is no due process for determining if you engaged in it.
#18
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,530
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
no, it's because he is a criminal who engages in insurrection and the law is very clear that insurrectionists can't hold office. 
The law is very clear that only Congress can enforce it.

“Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Which would be a violation of sec 1 if there is no due process for determining if you engaged in it.
True, there is no specific process for determining if someone engaged in insurrection. They assumed everyone would know what an insurrection was since they had just fought the civil war. But there is a provision for removing the restriction. So it's not like there is nothing that can be done by the traitorous little shit. But good luck getting the democrats to vote to remove the restriction. 
#20
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,530
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Which would be a violation of sec 1 if there is no due process for determining if you engaged in it.
My mind can’t square with the nuance of the 14th amendment.

What stops a judge from saying HistoryBuff engaged in an insurrection? But muh due process doesn’t exist
#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
so, congress has the power to pass laws around enforcing this. So they could pass a law that could clarify how you know if someone engaged in insurrection. But they have not done so.  As it stands, the law is that anyone who engaged in insurrection is barred from holding public office. Unless congress passes a law to change enforcement or the constitution is changed, that is the law. 
Topic's author
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
It's strange that the Democrat-tribe would champion the removal of due process...
Topic's author
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
lol, you'll await proof of something I didn't say? how generous of you. You're willing to wait while i respond to your strawman argument lol.
Really? I am not into "gotcha" strawmans with you, as you are mostly genuine here. You said the plan was to prohibit people who could not get driver's licenses and accordingly the law would have to state that only a driver's license could be used as an ID for that to happen. I was simply asking for proof. 
#24
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,530
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
so, congress has the power to pass laws around enforcing this. So they could pass a law that could clarify how you know if someone engaged in insurrection. But they have not done so.  As it stands, the law is that anyone who engaged in insurrection is barred from holding public office. Unless congress passes a law to change enforcement or the constitution is changed, that is the law. 
Insurrection is in the US Code. Funny that not one person has been charged with it
#25
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Insurrection is in the US Code. Funny that not one person has been charged with it
why? And how is that relevant? I've already established that the constitution doesn't require you to have been charged or convicted. I even explained the reason why they wrote it that way, because they didn't want to have to go and criminally charge all the southern leaders with crimes in order to prevent them from running for office. 

#26
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
It's because they need to save democracy from voters.
no, it's because he is a criminal who engages in insurrection and the law is very clear that insurrectionists can't hold office. 
I agree insurrectionists can't hold office. I've recognized many people as disqualified and no longer office holders. They just keep pretending though.


For the millions of people who don't have a driver's license, it certainly is.
Background checks for guns.


But those people are probably poor and the republicans DEFINITELY don't want them voting. 
There are only two kinds of people who don't have and don't care to get photo IDs: Illegal immigrants and the profoundly politically illiterate (for if they could not spare an hour to ID themselves they have not spared an hour to inform themselves).

One doesn't have the right to vote and the other harms everyone by voting.


It does not require a charge or conviction for it.
Which is how I was able to remove Adam Schiff from congress just by noting his aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states.


It is the 14th amendment that specifically says this.
The 14th amendment does not specifically say "and you don't need any process to determine this, just declare it; have fun!"


Section 3 of the 14th amendment specifically says that anyone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible to run for public office.
It does not.

#27
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,016
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Too bad Ginsberg isn't around to remove the Orangeman for the far-left tribe.
Unfortunately, they didn't put anything in the Constitution about removing a Fascist. 
#28
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,838
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
Too bad Ginsberg isn't around to remove the Orangeman for the far-left tribe.
Unfortunately, they didn't put anything in the Constitution about removing a Fascist. 
That would have prevented the deep state, a shame.

#29
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,530
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
why? And how is that relevant? I've already established that the constitution doesn't require you to have been charged or convicted. I even explained the reason why they wrote it that way, because they didn't want to have to go and criminally charge all the southern leaders with crimes in order to prevent them from running for office. 
🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
Topic's author
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol, because people in 1865 were too lazy to follow due process, then it's now constitutional to deny due process. Left-tribe logic.

And for the record, the vast majority of southern leaders WERE charged, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee, so I am not understanding how this myth that no southern leader was charged for insurrection got any traction outside of an MSNBC bubble.