Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "Chuck Todd: Why Trump could struggle in swing states in general election" video.

@GP-wt8eo It's proven to be great, is sold me, and I'm a California Democract for Trump 2024
8
I'm a California Dem for Trump 2024. Close the border
5
@RuckFussia I post in good faith, and hope for good faith responses, but they are rare. I'm a California Democrat, have been since 1973, and even before I could vote help run a McGovern for President office in the SFV of Los Angeles with my step-mother who was later a delegate to the Democratic National convention in 1980. Jerry Rubin, former Yippie, Eldridge Cleaver, former Black Panther, and David Horowitz, former editor of the leftist radical Ramparts Magazine, would today all be MAGA Republicans. Things, and people, change.
3
Nikki got "Decline to State" in fact Democrats.
3
@patrickm6012 What damage? I see the opposite.
2
Arizona, Georgia , with either Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania Trump's in. That's how the Electoral College rolls.
2
@jeffmann9009 Case has nothing to do with whether he can serve or not. ANDERSON vs GRISWOLD is the case, which is only about the qualification law in Colorado. Case will be decided on "Due Process", 5th and 14th Amendment clause, not on qualification to hold office.
2
@RuckFussia 74 year old woman believes the media telling her Trump is an existential threat, but we are not a "Democracy", we're are a Constitutional, Representative Republic. The word "Democracy" does not even appear in the Constitution. I thought Ronald Reagan was going to become a dictator and start WW3, I was wrong, and one of the maturing experiences which "changed me" for the better. Our form of government will prevent what the Left is claiming will happen if Trump is elected for one more term. He is not Hitler, he is PT Barnum, a liar and clown, not an ideologue. It is the new religion of Wokeism that is the existential threat to the individual freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. The founders did not frame a "collective state" ruled by the mob, quite the contrary.
1
@barbaram5787 Voting rules will be back to normal this time.
1
That's not on the docket
1
@jeffmann9009 I'm following closely, SCOTUS also took up the Couy Griffin case cited by ANDERSON vs GRISWOLD. The Colorado Sun newspaper did an in depth series of articles on the law and the dissent by Chief Justice Boatright. Based on what I've learned, SCOTUS may make a very technical ruling which will only cite the Colorado law used unconstitutional based on lack of "Due Process", and not on Trump's qualification. The 14.3th was incorrectly used, and I believe the more important case is Griffin, who was actually removed from office based on the Insurrection Clause in 14.3. I'm betting that clause will become legally moribund since there is a Federal sedition law on the books which came after 14.3.
1
@erikanders3343 Anderson et al was appealed to Colorado Supreme Court and won a 4/3 decision. Trump was cross-appellant. I read the petition, it's online. This is the SCOTUS docket notice, it is the Anderson decision on appeal. Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. Norma Anderson, et al. Docketed: January 4, 2024 Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Colorado Case Numbers: (23SA300) Decision Date: December 19, 2023
1
@erikanders3343 The state supreme court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State should not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot or count any write-in votes cast for him. The state supreme court stayed its decision pending United States Supreme Court review. The question presented is: Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?
1
@erikanders3343 FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 2024 CERTIORARI GRANTED 23-719 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. ANDERSON, NORMA, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024.
1
@erikanders3343 The court did not consider the possibility that a presidential candidate who is currently disqualified might become qualified before the inauguration, such as a candidate who has not yet turned 35 or reached the 14-year residency mark but will do so before Inauguration Day, or a candidate currently disqualified under section 3 who can seek congressional removal of the disability.
1
@erikanders3343 I'm reading directly from the United States Supreme Court website. I'm cut and pasting directly from The Supreme Court Website. Colorado ruled and stayed based on the filed writ of certiorari. Oral arguments being on Feb 8th.
1
@erikanders3343 You can read the brief online : No. 23-719 In the Supreme Court of the United States ___________ DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
1
@erikanders3343 Petition GRANTED. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5 2024.
1
@erikanders3343 "Colorado Supreme Court Ruling in Anderson v. Griswold Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court" - Jena Griswold, Secretary of State, Colorado.
1
@erikanders3343 I'm a 3rd generating native Californian, born across the street from Disney Studios in the 1950s. You?
1
@erikanders3343 However, I do want to thank you, i"ve been reading the amici curiae briefs which are both informative and funny. Had not heard about the Amnesty Act of 1872 which further limits 14.3.
1
@jeffmann9009 Yes, I just read a number of amici curiae briefs, and many of the opinions on why the Colorado court was in "err". I had not heard of the Amnesty Act of 1872 which took much of the teeth out of 14.3, but I'm betting on "Due Process" which may be the technical ruling, as the lower court did not follow the timeline stated in the Colorado qualification law. However, SCOTUS may want to broaden the ruling to make 14.3 moot for any State use, and reserve it for Federal action, since it's clear States don't have legal standing to amend the qualifications for President and Vice-President made by congress. SCOTUS website has all the briefs as PDFs, good stuff.
1
@jeffmann9009 Only his eligibility to be on the Colorado ballot. It would not prevent him from holding office, as that is left to Congress. 14.3 purposely left out President and Vice-President, the reason why is laid out in one of the amici curiae briefs.
1