The dems are trying to take over the US WITHOUT an election
The soon to be eliminated by the SCOTUS attempt to prevent opposition from appearing on presidential election ballots is a coup attempt that the chicketshit dems believe will not involve bullets.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@jackjjackson Republicans filed those lawsuits, and they did so bc one of the candidates doesn't meet the requirements for holding office. We are a nation of laws, not of feels.
@Carla democrats are children. Just do what has been done since the formation of the Unitec States. You don't like trump? Fine. Don't vote for him. Don't file bogus charges that will be overturned. Win elections on ideas.
Next time the Republicans do it to you and so on. That is a banana republic.
I recommend that you read what was recently written by by friend Mr Kirby:
[quote] PatKirby · M @jackjjackson
After review yes Jack Smith, being a private citizen, clearly lacked any authority to represent the United States as his "appointment" was unconstitutional because Attorney General Merrick Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority.” Therefore since Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional every action he took since his appointment (i.e. request for certiorari) is null and void.
"Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria."
He had no authority and the brief clearly spells it out in several ways. Therefore this begs the questions: knowing full well Smith did not have authority, why did they run with it anyway? It's a charade. Was it to orchestrate a dazzling spectacle on a national scale mimicking Hollywood theater? A mesmerizing dog-and-pony show to help their cause? For more votes? Because it's almost a dead certainty it won't pass muster before SCOTUS.
I do like the conclusion to the amicus which carries a tone of humorous discounting out of hand, and ergo I'm guessing it'll be thrown out for lack of standing straightaway...
CONCLUSION Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor. Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos. That fact is sufficient to sink Smith’s petition, and the Court should deny review. We express no views on the merits issues addressed in Smith’s unauthorized petition.
These people are running a scam in hopes that the American public, the majority of which are legal babes in the woods, would never notice. Premeditated, for sure. Shameless, almost certain. Doomed to fail? You can smell blood in the water from here. But this is a good thing! It exposes the dishonest, deceptive, lying, maliciously vindictive nature underlying the Democratic Party/DNC while simultaneously boosting Trump's ratings, overall strength, patient strategic know how, and general attractiveness amongst the voting public at large. The Dems are playing checkers, Trump's playing...
@MasterLee [quote]I must have missed the trial and conviction.[/quote]
You seem to misunderstand the situation. Trump isn't being held criminally liable for any crime, not by the Colorado Supreme Court anyway. This Supreme Court case was about a requirement for taking office, and just like the citizenship & age requirements, a trial isn't actually required for that. The Constitution says the following on the subject:
[quote]No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.[/quote]
As you can see, the Constitution doesn't actually require a conviction on insurrection to bar an official from taking office. They just have to have done it.
@jackjjackson You mean the Republicans? This case was brought by Republicans, not by Democrats. The Constitution is crystal clear on this issue; you should be thankful to other members of your party for showing some integrity. It can be hard to stand up to your own ideological allies when they're doing something wrong.
The SCOTUS will reverse. Dems paying fake republicans to be plaintiffs should be embarrassingly transparent to you but then again you’re used to embarrassing yourself. @BlueVeins
@MasterLee Your leadership attempts a coup, the rest of your party fights tooth and nail to shield him from consequences, and then you cry foul when he starts to see the slightest little consequences for it. It's pathetic.
