Election Do-Over!!! (3 Viewers)

[moke123]

What about Engoron, who donates to the Democrat party, despite it being against the code of conduct and ethics for judges? He has already proven his disregard for ethics by this very act, and an unethical politically biased judge who votes for the opposing political party can't be trusted to give a fair trial.

Take a look at the judges handbook. There are exceptions to the rule which all the judges take advantage of. Judges for NYSC are elected positions.

His law clerk is not a judge.

look at what one of the Democrat judges thinks.

There are dissents in most cases. Generally that's what the losing party focuses on in their appeal. We'll see what the appellate courts think.

One interesting thing I heard this morning is should trump lose his appeal in the SC, the ruling may be binding on other states to keep trump off the ballot.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

One interesting thing I heard this morning is should trump lose his appeal in the SC, the ruling may be binding on other states to keep trump off the ballot.

While the TDS crowd probably WOULD start an insurrection over such a ruling, and I might join them in this particular issue, I think the legal issue is that each state INDIVIDUALLY has the right to establish its election rules and ballots and other procedural issues. I don't see how the Colorado ruling, done at a state level to keep DJT off their state ballot, can bind other states without a more formal process to actually convict him of something that has federal scope. I don't think a Colorado ruling relating to its election eligibility issues CAN legally be a precedent for another state. Moke, whoever offered that opinion was merely fanning the flames.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Sadly, the Democrats don't have a viable candidate they can run against Donald Trump, interference is their only option.

 

[Jon]

Take a look at the judges handbook. There are exceptions to the rule which all the judges take advantage of.

If there is an exception for this judge, show it. Or state what exception this judge has.

His law clerk is not a judge.

That is self-evident if they are a clerk, but they still need to be impartial, else they may be liable to taint what gets advised to the judge. An example could be lying by omission.

There are dissents in most cases. Generally that's what the losing party focuses on in their appeal. We'll see what the appellate courts think.

There may be dissents, but when a judge says there was no fair trial, no due process and hasn't seen anything like this in 33 years, that is not just dissent. It is a statement that the other judges broke the law to get Trump off the ballot.

 

[Steve R.]

Sadly, the Democrats don't have a viable candidate they can run against Donald Trump, interference is their only option.

Just as a quick observation. The Democrats, since 2016 (if not earlier), have been "fixing" the the primary process for selecting the Democratic nominee for President. A direct contradiction to their claims that they are the "protectors of the democratic" process. This repudiation of a free and open election process has obviously been carried over into the general election process. As we enter 2024, the Democrats have now become more blatant and bold in using any means (even if illegal) to interfere with the election process. Democrats are the threat to democracy.

The Democrats did not "have a viable candidate" in 2020. What they had, in the form of Biden, was an artificial construct hobbled together by an unstable coalition of fanatical left wing groups who animated the Biden puppet (the string puller outside of Soros, is Obama, the Manchurian Candidate). In 2024, the Democrats once again "don't have a viable candidate". However, as of the writing of this post, it appears that the Democrats have yet to "construct" the new puppet.

 

[Jon]

without a more formal process to actually convict him of something that has federal scope.

The court has convicted him without a trial.

 

[Jon]

Regarding law clerks, they have ethics rules too:

3. Caution​

Just like judges, law clerks are people too, with personal lives outside the courthouse. Nevertheless, their role within the judiciary demands they remain cautious in their actions, even when minimal or passive. Three particular areas of caution for law clerks to consider at all times are political activities, online activities, and gifts.

Political Activities

Canon 5 of the federal Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees covers what political activities are inappropriate for a judicial law clerk. This includes partisan and nonpartisan engagement. Overall, the integrity and independence of the courts must be maintained without association with political opinions or candidates.

While law clerks can register with a political party and vote in elections, they must limit their political opinions to private conversations with family and close friends. Law clerks cannot run for public office or campaign for others. Disseminating their views to a broader audience, whether actively in a forum or passively through a yard sign or bumper sticker, is not allowed.

Political activities and financial contributions by their immediate family are possible only if the law clerk can disassociate themselves from the act. For example, if a spouse wants to donate money to a campaign or related cause, they should only do so from an account segregated from the law clerk. (See more at the federal Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 92: Political Activities Guidelines for Judicial Employee.)

Source: https://www.2civility.org/five-ethical-considerations-for-judicial-law-clerks/

There are even restrictions on political donations by their immediate family. Instead, the top Clerk in the New York Trump case was making political donations, just like the judge. Both of these unethical justices were violating the rules. Both are compromised and should recuse themselves, in particular since they are involved in dealing with their political enemy.

One rule for them, another for Trump. "No one is above the law, except for us!"

 

[Steve R.]

I was not able to participate when the Colorado Supreme Court decision hit the fan. Since then both both Turley and Dershowitz have commented on the Court's finding. Both agree that this decision is an abomination. Unconstitutional and an affront to the democratic election process. Additionally, other reputable lawyers, have found to the Court's decision to be laughable.
As absurd examples, they have humorously speculated that the Court's findings could be easily extend to remove Biden from a state's ballot. One reason cited, Biden's failure to execute US immigration laws.

Dershowitz podcast below.
Supreme Court will overrule Colorado anti-democratic and unconstitutional decision.

 

[AccessBlaster]

You know its bad when the President of El Salvador calls you out

 

[moke123]

I don't think a Colorado ruling relating to its election eligibility issues CAN legally be a precedent for another state.

I believe it was in the context of upholding the trial courts determination of trump participated in an insurrection which other states could then rely on.

If there is an exception for this judge, show it. Or state what exception this judge has.

(v) purchase two tickets to, and attend, politically sponsored dinners and other functions, provided that the cost of the ticket to such dinner or other function shall not exceed the proportionate cost of the dinner or function. The cost of the ticket shall be deemed to constitute the proportionate cost of the dinner or function if the cost of the ticket is $250 or less. A candidate may not pay more than $250 for a ticket unless he or she obtains a statement from the sponsor of the dinner or function that the amount paid represents the proportionate cost of the dinner or function.

There is no limit to how many events they can attend.

Trump, are alleging Engoron is a partisan actor: he's made over $5,000 in political donations since 1999, exclusively to Democratic candidates and committees

You realize that's $208 a year.

Regarding law clerks, they have ethics rules too:

They do but your citing federal rules.
The clerk I believe is also under the same rule above but she is or was also a candidate so further exceptions apply.

The court has convicted him without a trial.

There is no requirement for "Conviction" in the constitution.

Congressional Research Office:
The CRS report says, "Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary."

 

[AccessBlaster]

There is no requirement for "Conviction" in the constitution.

Great, can't wait for Texas and other states to follow suit and start convicting Biden on random charges.

 

[Steve R.]

Turley deeply troubled by Colorado barring Trump from ballot: Could be 'incredibly destabilizing'

Jonathan Turley forcefully disagreed with the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifying former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state's ballots in 2024.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Isaac]

She was and may still be a witness in the cases.

Yeah, that disqualifies a million people all at once from doing their normal job.
That one's not gonna work I think

 

[moke123]

That one's not gonna work I think

Probably not. Clarence is pretty corrupt.

 

[Steve R.]

Gutfeld: This is 'towering stupidity' | Fox News Video

'Gutfeld!' panelists reacts to the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the state's ballot.

www.foxnews.com

Article below is sarcasm:

Colorado Supreme Court Demands Jack Phillips Bake Cake To Celebrate Trump Ruling

DENVER, CO — In a 4-3 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court will require Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips to bake a celebration cake honoring the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove Trump from the ballot.

babylonbee.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

The black kryptonite for democrats

 

[Isaac]

The black kryptonite for democrats

View attachment 111545

their constant attempts to find ethics concerns are so funny to watch. everyone in washington is well connected and has rich friends who do stuff for them - big deal. what did they think that a USSC ate at taco bell?

and before everyone starts posting wikipedia articles they've just written about him actually eating at taco bell, that was a joke.

bring back the mexican pizza, now!

 

[AccessBlaster]

their constant attempts to find ethics concerns are so funny to watch...

Have they ever noticed ketanji brown jackson?

 

[Isaac]

OMG

 

[pbaldy]

bring back the mexican pizza, now!

It's back! It's the only thing my wife will eat there.