Supreme Court Grants Colorado Secretary
of State Jena Griswold 10 Minutes to Justify
Her Position on Disqualifying President
Trump From Ballot
Conservative Treehouse,
by
Sundance
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
2/3/2024 10:46:47 AM
Apparently the Lawfare crew have been working and coaching overtime to give Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold a framework to explain to the Supreme Court how Colorado’s very specific election laws allow for presidential candidates to be disqualified despite meeting all constitutional requirements. State Solicitor General Sharon Stevenson would be the legal mind representing Jena Griswold. This should be an interesting attempt.
Griswold asked the Supreme Court for 15 minutes to explain how Colorado law supersedes the U.S. Constitution. In an order announced earlier today [pdf here], the court has granted Ms. Griswold 10 minutes to make her case. The oral arguments will take place on Thursday,
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 2/3/2024 10:54:04 AM (No. 1650035)
Very simple - - he was disqualified because - - because - - because - - - - TRUMP!
25 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
DVC 2/3/2024 11:08:27 AM (No. 1650051)
She will "explain how Colorado law supersedes the US Constitution..."
LOL! Sorry, no state law supersedes the Constitution....EVER.
Like getting 10 minute to explain why water is NOT wet, and why up is actually down. But, at least there of the SCOTUS bozos will buy whatever she tries to sell. Unwise Sotomayor, and Brainless Brown will be convinced, for sure, no certain about Kagan, who occasionally shows a bit of brainpower, but only rarely.
31 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
earlybird 2/3/2024 11:39:45 AM (No. 1650074)
Nine and a half minutes too many, Silly fool.
17 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 2/3/2024 12:17:47 PM (No. 1650102)
This should be interesting.
6 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
BeatleJeff 2/3/2024 12:25:43 PM (No. 1650105)
Her reasoning simply boils down to "I think Donald Trump is a poopoo head." That should take all of 10 seconds, at which point SCOTUS can commence with laughing her butt out of court
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
dwa 2/3/2024 1:01:26 PM (No. 1650118)
This Robert's Court never ceases to prove just how pathetic it is.
23 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
bighambone 2/3/2024 1:07:53 PM (No. 1650121)
If that court is operating honestly they will use that 10 minutes to slap that Colorado Secretary of State up side her supposedly legal head!
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
NorthernDog 2/3/2024 1:20:58 PM (No. 1650124)
From what I hear this woman is a 'woke' nutcase. I bet she'll soon be registering to vote all the illegal immigrants flooding into Colorado.
6 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
weirdone 2/3/2024 2:16:36 PM (No. 1650138)
10 minutes? Should give her 5 years for election interference.
7 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
bighambone 2/3/2024 2:45:39 PM (No. 1650152)
Well under the Clinton era motor-voter laws, illegal aliens like everyone else who applies for a drivers license is registered to vote. Clearly the wimpy Republicans don’t have a clue!
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Encore 2/3/2024 3:11:37 PM (No. 1650156)
This should be hilarious, that is, if the SCOTUS can maintain some semblance of a backbone.
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
whyyeseyec 2/3/2024 4:03:21 PM (No. 1650174)
Should the SC upholds Colorado's disqualification of Trump on their presidential ballot, that will open the door for red states to disqualify Biden from their ballots as well. I can't imagine the Supreme's as a whole keeping Trump off the ballot, because in fact, he's been convicted of nothing. However, we know the three wise, unwise and hostile Shangrila's on the Court have a built in bias against Trump, while Barrett is a wild card and Roberts is a downright head case. This could go south quickly.
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Christopher L 2/3/2024 5:08:44 PM (No. 1650189)
I am going to love reading the transcript of Justice Clarance Thomas' questions for Griswold and then the legal azz kicking she gets for her answers.
Actually I am not to concerned with Griswold's presentation, she is a lightweight, a puppet for the Bush Mafia that controls the Colorado R Party. Norma Anderson is the one to watch out for, she is the Grand Old Bull (or Heifer ?) of the Colorado R's.
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
danu 2/3/2024 6:19:41 PM (No. 1650222)
in so many times of crises in america, super researchers around the globe find the causes and effects and
the targets of pay offs, black mail, extortion. b/c enquiring minds.
1 person likes this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 2/3/2024 7:49:04 PM (No. 1650263)
I hope a few of the Justices ask her to state specifically why she thinks Trump is as she claims "one of the largest dangers to this country".
Adam Schiff is running TV ads that state "stood up to a dangerous President".
I sense they see him as a danger to their Progressive agenda and goal of one-party rule like they have in California.
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
mifla 2/4/2024 6:16:55 AM (No. 1650406)
SC: "Trump has been convicted of nothing, correct?"
Jena: "Yes, but I think he is guilty. And I don't like him."
SC: "Why are you wasting our time with this partisan nonsense? Get out!""
1 person likes this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
DiegoDude 2/4/2024 9:38:07 AM (No. 1650554)
I can just hear her now " Um, oh, I thought, uh, I hate Trump."
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)