America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Supreme Court decides to take up Colorado's decision to bar Trump from the state's ballot

he US Supreme Court agreed to hear Donald Trump's appeal to appear on the Colorado ballot.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible to appear on ballots due to the 14th Amendment.
The case ultimately sets up the Supreme Court to play a major role in the election.

The US Supreme Court announced Friday that it will review a shocking decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court to bar former President Donald Trump from the state's ballot.

Justices will hear oral arguments on February 8, ensuring the case will be considered just as the GOP primary calendar heats up. Their decision could become the most impactful elections-related matter the high court has handed down since it effectively ended the 2000 presidential election in Bush v. Gore.
The nation's highest court will now have to consider a thorny set of issues, including whether Trump's actions related to the Capitol riot amounted to support of an insurrection. Justices may also consider the extent of a state's power to boot a presidential candidate off the ballot. Justice Neil Gorsuch once considered that power as an appellate court judge in a much less high-profile case.

Trump had previously asked the US Supreme Court to intervene. Before the justices agreed to hear the case, Maine's secretary of state kicked Trump off the primary ballot there. Other states, including Massachusetts, are considering similar efforts or have had voters petition to force a ruling there.
If Colorado's ruling were to stand, it would have sweeping implications for the 2024 presidential election, especially if Trump were to secure the Republican Party's nomination. Meanwhile, more than a dozen other states signaled their support for Trump in a letter to the court submitted Friday.

Trump's three appointees, Justices Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, cemented a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But their participation does not automatically mean that the high court will side with the former president.

In a sign of the pressure the justices may soon be facing, Alina Habba, one of Trump's attorneys, said that Kavanaugh would "step up" when it came to considering the case, though she stressed it was not because Trump fought strenuously for his confirmation.


http://tinyurl.com/y9wcwcw4

Jefferson Davis wasn't ever convicted either...

I take all my legal advise from folks in Massachusetts.

Of course not, secession is not treason or insurrection. Not that some Yankees were trying to put him on trial and convict him.

I still blame you for the Spanish Inquisition…..nobody ever expected it either.

But those aren’t crimes.

Ya, if he is accused of any of that stuff they would just call it insurrection.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think you quite understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. Civil cases are not prosecutable. Civil courts simply solve disagreements between 2 or more parties. Civil courts in of themselves hold no authority to prosecute a criminal case. Nor do they have authority to sentence anyone to a term of incarceration. However, in many cases where a plaintiff in a civil case alleges fraud, the civil judge hearing the case may refer the matter to the appropriate prosecutor’s office for criminal proceedings.

On the other hand, to PROSECUTE someone for fraud, prosecute being the key word, criminal charges MUST be filed by the appropriate PROSECUTING attorney in the appropriate CRIMINAL court.

So in reality there is no such thing as civil fraud. Fraud is a criminal act describing a specific method that one entity used to unlawfully take something of value from another entity. In fact, it’s not always necessary to file a civil case to seek reimbursement for misappropriated assets. Criminal courts can impose restitution where the person convicted of fraud is required to reimburse the victim for those assets. Such an action bypasses civil courts altogether.



As you can see she was indicted.




This defines how an indictment leads to criminal charges being filed with the appropriate criminal court. When she was indicted this became a criminal court case.

I'm thinking we should get you out of that truck and get you a job splaining legal internet schit for ignorant coonazzes