The Colorado Supreme Court 4-3 Decision Is Pure Nonsense and Can Be Laughed At, They Even Admit It on Page 9

December 19, 2023 | Sundance1/2

Three main points before getting to the substance. [213 page opinion HERE]

#1) It was a 4-3 decision. Meaning it was the politics of the court, literally the political makeup and perspective therein, that determined the outcome of the decision. This is showcased in point #3, which is the funniest part.

#2) The entire framework of the case against Trump in the Colorado decision is predicated on this: “[the complainants] asserted that he was ineligible under Section Threebecause he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.” [pdf, page 6] REMINDER – President Donald Trump was not charged with “insurrection,” is not accused of “insurrection,” does not fit the complaint under the definitions of “insurrection,” and has never been found guilty of insurrection.The complaint is moot before the court. But hey, it’s Lawfare… and we all know Lawfare is created for public media consumption, so that takes us directly to the biggest point.

#3) Instead of me writing it, let me screengrab it so we can all laugh together [pdf page 9].

Wait, what?

Yes, that’s correct. As long as President Trump appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, the appeals court stays their own ruling – essentially indefinitely. The Colorado primary ballots printed, andthe primary election will be over, before the Supreme Court puts this on their docket.

In addition to the virtual guarantee the high court will overrule this political nonsense, SCOTUS can make the entire issue moot before them by following their own normal schedule for submissions, arguments, deliberation and opinions delivered by the court.

The Colorado appellate court knows this, that’s why they put this self-stay into their 4-3 ruling. It’s a politically correct way of giving the optics of telling their tribe, ‘hey we’re with you,’ without the ramifications of the political backlash. In other words,psychological lawfare stuff – intended for media consumption.

Making the issue that much better for Donald Trump, theefforts of the Prescott-Bush clan (look it up – they live in CO) will backfire bigly. The public backlash against a judicial ruling that interferes with the right of the citizens to determine their own election candidates plays perfectly into the sunlight operation against the Lawfare left.

This backlash will be epic, albeit hidden by MSNBC and the rest of the insufferable media. Why? Because it doesn’t fit the Lawfare narrative.

I’m not even going to highlight the nonsense from the leftists who are in a frenzy over this one. Just smile, pretend it’s the end of the world, eat your favorite foods and live your best life while trying not to laugh.Seriously, this is just that level of goofy.

Remember what I said about Ron DeSantis in 2022, and everyone looked at me funny. Well, this is way more predictable than me saying DeSantis will collapse in sunlight.

That said, Vivek Ramaswamy is not silly, and he sees a great opportunity.

VIA TWITTER – This is what an actual attack on democracy looks like: in an un-American, unconstitutional, and unprecedented decision, a cabal of Democrat judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado. Having tried every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the bipartisan Establishment is now deploying a new tactic to bar him from ever holding office again: the 14th Amendment.

I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately – or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country….

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/12/19/the-colorado-supreme-court-4-3-decision-is-pure-nonsense-and-can-be-laughed-at-they-even-admit-it-on-page-9/

>>20104547

2/2

Today’s decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for their candidate of choice.

The 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States.

And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010),an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2.The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself.

The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers. (read more)

I mean, c’mon man. Have we forgotten when Trump won the Colorado primary in 2016, and the delegates all promised to vote for Ted Cruz at the convention anyway.

The Colorado GOP is Prescott-Bush. Nuf said!

This is all silly Lawfare.

(The citizens of Colorado’s next effort should be to impeach all of the SC Justices, they are violated their oath to serve jurisprudence without bias, or political bias.)

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/12/19/the-colorado-supreme-court-4-3-decision-is-pure-nonsense-and-can-be-laughed-at-they-even-admit-it-on-page-9/

20 Dec, 2023

Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’ absurd – Kremlin

Discussing the settlement of the Ukraine conflict without Moscow makes no sense, spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said

The “peace formula” promoted by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has no chance to succeed without Russia’s involvement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.

Kiev and its Western backers have for months been discussing Zelensky’s so-called ten-point peace plan. This proposal includes calls for Russia to withdraw from all territories claimed by Kiev, for Moscow to pay reparations, and for the formation of a war crimes tribunal. Russian authorities instantly rejected the proposal as “unrealistic” and out-of-touch with the situation on the ground.

“One should open their eyes and look at the facts: They’re trying to search for a peace formula without Russia. To say the least, this is an absurd process. But, seriously, this is a process that has no potential of delivering any results,” Peskov told journalists on Wednesday.

The press secretary was commenting on claims made by Zelensky on Tuesday that “the issue of negotiations with Russia is not relevant at the moment.” The Ukrainian leader also said that Kiev has a “peace plan” and that it will be presented to Russia once “the corresponding document is ready and all states unite around it.” If Moscow “accepts it, it will signal its readiness to negotiate,” he stated.

Peskov said that the Russian side also believes that “the issue of negotiations is not relevant at the moment.” He argued that there’ve have been “no grounds” for talks between Moscow and Kiev “since Ukraine left the negotiating table at the insistence of Britain” after both sides met in Istanbul in late March 2022. London’s role in derailing the peace process was confirmed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation to these negotiations, David Arakhamia, in November, the spokesman reminded reporters.

The two sides have not talked to each other since their sit-down in Istanbul. Russia, which initially expressed optimism about the settlement of the conflict, later accused Ukraine of backtracking on all progress achieved in Türkiye, saying it had lost trust in Kiev’s negotiators.

According to Peskov, the chances of finding a settlement were reduced even further after “Ukraine basically legally prohibited any negotiations with the Russian side.” The spokesman was referring to a decree signed by President Zelensky last fall that forbids him from talking to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.

Russia’s deputy UN ambassador, Dmitry Polyanskiy, said last week that Kiev had squandered its chances of a “favorable”agreement with Moscow.“Any possible deal now will be reflecting its capitulation,”he wrote on X (formerly Twitter.)

During his Q&A session on Thursday, Putin insisted that “there will be peace [in Ukraine] when we achieve our goals” that include “the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, [as well as] its neutral status.”

(The West and Ukraine trying to narrate a semi-victory for Ukraine, or stale-mate, so Russia’s dominance and victory is not acknowledged. They are trying to humiliate Russia with a faux story and history can be re-written. The problem they have, is the 2024 election cycle for Joe, it’s obvious it was a stupid plan. Russia will never allow that and will continue on the battlefield to fulfill Bidan’s and Zelensky’s vow, “down to the last Ukrainian”.)

https://www.rt.com/russia/589381-zelensky-talks-ukraine-kremlin/

I never understood the Caucus System, now I sorta do.

The Caucus System in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process

Party caucuses, which date to the 1800s, have declined in importance but they could be decisive in choosing the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

Joanna Klonsky.Feb. 29, 2008

Introduction

Political party caucuses, once the dominant system for choosing candidates in the presidential nominating process, have been less influential than primary elections for decades. But 2008 could be different. Caucuses are open to any registered voter in a party, although experts say the process is dominated by party activists. Other than the Iowa caucus, the first race in the nominating season, caucuses have usually not been paid the same attention as primaries.Still, nineteen states hold caucuses, either for one party or for both. In all, more than 10 percent of the Democratic delegates and nearly 15 percent of the Republican delegates are at stake in caucus states.

What are caucuses?

Caucuses are party meetings by precinct, district, or county, where registered party members gather to discuss the candidates and to select delegates to the next round of party conventions. Depending on the party rules of a particular state, delegates selected at a caucus might go on to a county or state convention before attending the national convention in the summer. Wayne Steger, an associate professor of political science at DePaul University, says this process of gathering and talking distinguishes caucuses from primaries, although they serve the same function.

Any voter registered with a party can participate in a caucus. Fewer eligible voters take part in a caucus because it is a more time-consuming process, says Robert Spitzer, political science professor at the State University of New York at Cortland. With some major exceptions, like Iowa, turnout in caucus states probably remains “well under 10 percent of the registered voters,” says Abramowitz. As a result, party leaders have more influence in a caucus setting. Those who show up to caucus are “more likely to be quite active in the political party in other ways,” he says. Caucus-goers also tend to be “people who are more educated, affluent, and stronger partisans,” says Alan I. Abramowitz, political science professor at Emory University.

What happens at a caucus?

Upon arriving at a caucus, typically in school gymnasiums, town halls, or other public venues, participants group themselves according to the candidate they support. Undecided caucus-goers create their own group. Decided participants then speak on behalf of their candidate, attempting to convince other attendees to join their group. Caucus participants also “have the opportunity to change, if they want to switch camps before the final count is done,” says Spitzer.Whichever group of supporters literally has the most people will receive the largest number of delegate votes, which “are then tabulated from around the state,” says Spitzer.

Democratic caucuses function somewhat differently than Republican caucuses. Delegates in states with Democratic caucuses are generally distributed proportionally to the percent of support each candidate receives. In most Democratic caucuses, a candidate must receive at least 15 percent of the vote in that precinct for that candidate to earn delegates. If a candidate does not receive 15 percent, his or her supporters “have the opportunity to join together with supporters of some other candidate,” says Abramowitz. Most Republican caucuses, on the other hand, are winner-take-all.

Ultimately, party officials determine how many delegates from each preliminary caucus each candidate can send to the next stage of the nomination process. In some states, like Iowa, the delegates chosen at the caucuses then attend a county convention, where delegates to the state convention are chosen. At the state convention, delegates to the national convention are chosen. In the end, the number of delegates each candidate receives from a state “usually pretty closely reflects the results of the first caucuses,” says Abramowitz. Still, those results can be subject to significant changes as the field of candidates narrows, or if delegates fail to attend the next round of caucuses or conventions.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/caucus-system-us-presidential-nominating-process

Merry Christmas

20 Dec, 2023 15:21

State buildings allowed to display Christian crosses – German court

Federal judges have sided with the Bavarian government in its litigation against an atheist group

The authorities in Bavaria have the right to demand that Christian crosses be placed in all government buildings, the German Federal Administrative Court – one of the nation’s five federal supreme courts – ruled on Tuesday. The decision followed a row between regional officials and an association of atheists.

Led by Markus Soeder – the head of the region’s most powerful political force, the Conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) – the Bavarian government introduced the rule in 2018. At that time, the authorities ordered Christian crosses to be placed over the entrances of all government buildings to reflect the state’s “cultural identity as well as Christian [and] Western influence.”

The southern German state had previously enacted similar rules for public schools and courtrooms, making cross displays compulsory. Soeder also took a particularly tough stance on migration and sought to streamline asylum procedures in the state.

The 2018 decision was met with criticism by atheist associations and religious leaders alike.The Catholic Church accused Soeder of misusing Christian symbols to score cheap political points.An atheist association known as the ‘Union for Mental Freedom’ claimed that the decision violated its right to freedom of thought, and took the matter to court in 2021.

The union had its first legal complaint dismissed by a lower court, prompting it to turn to the Federal Administrative Court. “What does a cross have to do with an official activity, with the issuing of a driving license? Nothing!”a lawyer for the organization argued during the trial.

Federal judges, however, considered the Bavarian authorities’ decision to be a “mere administrative provision with no legal external effect,” which did not “violate any rights of the plaintiffs.” The court acknowledged that the cross isperceived as the central symbol of the Christian faith, but said its display does not infringe upon any guarantees of freedom.

Soeder welcomed the decision by saying the cross is “a sign of our Christian and cultural nature,” adding that it “belongs to Bavaria.”The leader of the CSU faction in the regional parliament, Klaus Holetschek, also praised the developmentby saying “’yes’ to our values and ‘yes’ to the Christian-Western nature of our country.”TheUnion for Mental Freedomhas vowed to challenge the ruling at the German Constitutional Court. (They sure are afraid of the Cross! Demanding mental freedom is not guaranteed in any constitution and its impossible to implement.)

https://www.rt.com/news/589397-state-buildings-christian-crosses-court/