Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "CNN speaks to attorney representing Colorado plaintiffs in Trump ballot ban case" video.

Republicans brought the petition in Colorado, Anderson of ANDERSON vs GRISWOLD is a Republican activist.
7
@Teeveepicksures Dissenting Chief Justice in Colorado is a Democrat.
3
@Ksins1 When the Maersk Hang-joe issued the distress call, the U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer launched a single MH-60 Romeo SeaHawk helicopter attached to HSM-74 armed with four AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. Using the helicopter’s forward looking infrared mounted under the nose at about a ten-mile standoff range, the crew acquired the group of four Houthi boats. As the crew monitored their FLIR display, they saw that the Houthis were firing at them with both crew-served weapons and small arms, which met the definition of hostile intent in accordance with the Fifth Fleet rules of engagement. They shot all four of their Hellfires, which destroyed three of them and killed all ten of the rebel pirates aboard.
3
@insertlastname I've read the petition, it is online, and list all the plaintiffs. The Colorado Sun has done Pulitzer Prize winning coverage on the trials with references to the law cited, something I've also read. The petitioner must be either a party member or unaffiliated to challenge a candidate on the primary ballot of Colorado. Norma Anderson is an American former state legislator from Colorado. A Republican, she represented Jefferson County in the Colorado House of Representatives from 1987 until 1998. She served in the Colorado Senate from 1999 until 2006.
2
@Teeveepicksures Again, Norma Anderson is a long-time Republican in Colorado, and held elective office as a Republican. ANDERSON vs GRISWOLD had to be brought by those with legal standing in a Republican primary, that's the law.
2
@meminustherandomgooglenumbers Fed superior and can overturn the State Court, SCOTUS will decide to take the case or not. Any defendant may claim a State Law is unconstitutional, and this one has the help of the Chief Justice of Colorado who dissented based on a lack of time and due process. "n the U.S. Constitution, the phrase "due process" appears twice: in the Fifth Amendment and in the Fourteenth Amendment. "
2
@johnheaney3349 If you didn't like the dissent in Colorado, you will have the same reaction to SCOTUS. Trump never had his day in court, there was no adherence to either the 1st or 14th amendment, no time for due process. The cross-appeal is legal and Trump will win.
2
Colorado Chief Justice was one of 3 dissenters and made the claim Colorado law was not intended for use in the case of insurrection and there was not enough time for due process. I believe SCOTUS will agree with the dissenting judges.
1
Yes, but the Chief Justice in Colorado who dissented wrote Colorado qualification law was never intended to cover insurrection and there was not enough time for due process. I believe SCOTUS will agree.
1
@markmierzejewski9534 I agree, Trump was not on trail, the Sec of State and Republican Party were named in the Petition: Anderson vs Griswold, but Trump is a cross-appellant and has a right to appeal, which he is doing. Read the 3 dissents, especially the Colorado Chief Justice. There was no time for due process in this case.
1
@meminustherandomgooglenumbers Clarence has a lifetime appointment, is well fixed, is 75 years old, bribes are not required.
1
@abrakkehakka1357 Read the Chief Justice of Colorado's dissent. He very clear on why the law used in this case does apply to qualifications of age, etc., but not to insurrection. The law used was a specific tool for that sort of challenge, not for insurrection. The Colorado Sun did a great story on the law used, does a great analysis, and gives links to the actual section of the law used. But the best case was made by the Chief Justice, and I bet SCOTUS will focus on that dissent. It's online, even Atlantic Magazine recommends it.
1
@meminustherandomgooglenumbers Why put quotes around gifts. Is every gift you receive a "bribe"?
1
@johnheaney3349 Trump has never been found guilty under the insurrection statute. It's not necessary, as the case of Couy Griffin showed in New Mexico, and used as precedent in Colorado.The NM case cited as precedent in Colorado is also on the SCOTUS docket to be reviewed. All this just muddies the water for 2024 and can be seen as election interference by partisan judges. I side with those who allow the people to vote.
1
@Mark_Brooks Read the Chief Justice of Colorado dissenting view, he believes due process is required and the appropriate time to do so. I believe SCOTUS will agree with that dissent.
1
@pitbrand Due process is required under the constitution.
1
@bobbykiefer4306 No, Trump was not heard in Colorado, he is only a cross-appellant and could not be heard under the law. There was no due process for Trump, read the 3 dissents.
1
@abrakkehakka1357 Trump is officially a cross-appellant on the case and has legally requested the court decision be considered by a higher court. Anderson vs Griswold was ruled against in Denver court and the petitioners appealed, same legal right the GOP has. SCOTUS will make a technical decision few will understand, and many will dislike, just more muddy water for 2024.
1
That just one argument. Due process is a major issue, none in Colorado, as the dissenting judges wrote, and SCOTUS will agree.
1
There was no conviction under that statute in Colorado, and Section 3 of the Constitution gives 2/3rds of both Houses the power to remove a conviction, so it is not "permanent". "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
1
@bobbykiefer4306 Yes, we have a grossly partisan government. I'm a registered Democrat in California, but consider how Trump was abused by the Dems for 6 years a soft-coup and greater threat to Democracy than anything Trump was capable of doing.
1
Read the Chief Justice of Colorado dissent on the case, he's a Democrat, and believes Colorado law on qualifications does not cover insurrection, nor was there time for due process.
1
Congress tried and lost. Trump, like all citizens, is presumed innocent, it's not his case to make.
1