They don’t have any grounds for removing Biden from the ballot. That’s the entire point. They want to make Trump’s removal look political. In their mind, the way to do that is to take a purely political action against Biden to make it look like the whole thing is part of a political tit-for-tat. They either don’t realize or don’t care that only Trump ballwashers are dumb enough to fall for it.
Well, you would be an expert on that level of intelligence, you spouse abusing twat.
Very telling isn't it? All the little facists fall right in line when they're told too though don't they?
I already supplied the reasoning. Biden has a constitutional obligation to protect all US citizens from invasion. He's failed and violated his oath of office. This is actually a stronger legal theory then pointing to the 14th ammendment which specifically does not list the president of the United States in it even.
I think TC was making a point that someone just because they are popular doesn’t exempt them from the rules. Be election, legal, ethics, etc. Most likely too nuanced for HROT though. I don’t agree with it in this case. Feel it should be up to the courts and not an elected official.
Then you should have no issues with any of the Trump indictments and trials
Wtf is consititional?
I don't take insults from outspoken racists seriously. Inb4 "haha it's ok cuz I voted for obama"
Have you read a Clarence Thomas opinion or listened to an oral argument from him? He has a tenuous grasp of English, much less the law.
There's nothing racist about it. He went to school as an affirmative action student and he's a terrible justice. If you don't believe me, watch his confirmation hearing.
If you call a black man an uncle Tom you are a racist.
If SCOTUS follows their own precedent in leaving States alone to manage their state-run election (primaries) processes and interpret their state constitutions, as the Court did with the Gerry-mandering cases and some others, I believe, then they should refuse to take on these cases as well.
You misrepresent again. It's whay you do when you are not outright lying. Here is what he said in post #2:
Well, if we're being honest.
Are you proposing that Democrats shouldn't rule on Trump, and should GOP-appointed judges abstain from voting on decisions like those in CO and ME regarding Trump's eligibility?
Gateway Pundit?
Classic Goldie. Always above petty insults, right?
Praise the Lord!
Maine kicks Trump off ballot under 14th Amendment
Bellows, a Democrat, made the call in Maine because state law requires the secretary to adjudicate ballot challenges to candidates’ eligibility. Her decision can be appealed through the state judiciary.www.politico.com
I know this a joke but we did have leftists on here seriously advocating for this for unvaccinated people during the Covid hysteria so it’s not out of the possibility.
Tell us why the people can’t decide whether a 20-year-old born in Canada should be president.
Let’s say that Maxwell Frost wanted to be president and ran in 2024. Should the people decide his fate at the ballot box? Of course not. He is 26 years old. He isn’t eligible. Someone somewhere would have to make the decision that he has to be removed.
The only way I even thought of that reply is that previous posts on THIS BOARD by many others who know him have provided a lot of info about his issues.
