They’re following the specific language of the 14th amendment. That’s terrorism now? It actually doesn’t say he needs to be convicted of any insurrection – it says that he needs to have participated in an insurrection. And, it provides a specific check and balance (two-thirds vote in congress) if a court is attempting to keep him off the ballot improperly.

It sounds like we have a difference of factual understanding of what happened on January 6th. Where are you getting “empty nothings”? I saw this is why I’m saying it wasn’t nothing.

A judge did say he was an insurrectionist.

That’s not an England perspective. It’s a moron perspective. I’m betting there are quite a few people in England who are at least a little less idiotic.

The Colorado Supreme Court is ‘the Democrats’ now?

Nice concern trolling, lmao.

From an Australian perspective, yeah, nah.

Colorado has literally done exactly this before to keep a non-natural born citizen off the ballot, and none other than Judge Gorsuch decided that case. In his ruling he wrote that the state has a right to conduct their elections in a way to ensure their stability and in accordance with their laws. Thomas ruled the same way in Bish v Gore, and the SC ruled the same way while overturning key provisions in the Voting Rights Act.

I wonder what the difference is this time that would make conservatives do a full reverse and say states cannot control their own elections?

Are you from England?

Lol. U mad bro?

If it was nothing how come people went to Jail for Insurrection?

How dumb can you be

He doesn’t need to be convicted