From the NYT article about the case:The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot: "The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified."...https://t.co/Ilwl4e8Wli
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 19, 2023
The Colorado Supreme Court is the first court to find that the disqualification clause applies to Mr. Trump, an argument his opponents have been making across the country. Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. A judge in Michigan ruled last month that the issue was political and not for him to decide, and an appeals court affirmed the decision not to disqualify him. The plaintiffs there have appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
The cases hinge on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election? If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack? Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action? And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?....
Posts
156 comments:
He wasn’t winning Colorado anyways…
CO not thinking long game- what if he wins?
Whatever it is, the constant barrage has to be coordinated.
Now there is no doubt in my mind.
Election interference, if there ever was such a beast, couldn't be more blatant.
Colorado is the new Berkeley.
Who would have guessed that 20 years ago?
The left is insidious and must be broken for good.
On to SCOTUS...
As a young Charles Bronson said in the Simpsons,
"This ain't over!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h55HYoV0HH4
Kickin' n screamin' the USSC will have to take this one on.
You're just begging me to vote for Trump with this crap, aren't you?
OK. You win. (Not that it matters; I live in a firmly blue state.)
I’m a conservative who will fight to the death to defend states’ rights. But Colorado’s decision to remove Trump from the ballot demands an immediate reversal by the federal government. /s
So instead of a Bill of Attainder declaring Trump guilty we have a Decision of Attainder?
Remind me again when Trump was convicted of insurrection or sedition?
Otherwise the people might actually vote for Trump. Presumably this is to save our Democracy.
I can't wait to disqualify Democrats who supported the Black Lives Matter insurrection with their incitement.
The voters have to be prevented from voting for Trump......to protect democracy.
The Colorado Supremes are gettin’ high on their own supply.
…and since the SCOTUS believes the Trump lawsuits must be settled on the Democrats hurried timetable they will lack the capacity to consider any appeals of this decision until standinglachesmoot…
For Our Democracy it's important that our betters bar unsavory candidates from the ballot, just like in Iran.
So dangerous. Are there any lines these people will not cross?
This is a Trump voter creation machine
Isn't the "qualification" up to the voters?
I thought we just went over this.
When it comes to presidential elections, the Electors are the ones authorized to decide.
It’s up to the state legislatures to decide how Electors are chosen. The state legislature can’t add to or subtract from the qualifications for president. Neither can their judges.
While state judges can interpret state law that affects a federal issue like choosing the Electors, that’s not what Colorado’s High Court did.
They interpreted federal law to demolish the Electors Clause.
Apparently they just want to add more votes and support for him.
Unsigned? Now there is courage.
Oh, and an 'unsigned' opinion.
Cowardly.
Hence the MSM jurno-list choir calling "marching peacefully" an insurrection.
When I click on this: Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 - Constitution Annotated
I get this: Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Total bullshit. But, Trump wasn't going to win CO anyway. Corrupt states that matter are AZ, WI, GA, PA, MI, and GA...MN and NV too.
But, what we are seeing from liberal judges are their willingness to strip the American voter from voting for who they want. This is a new form of disenfranchisement. It will grow. I'm positive they have more dirty tricks up their sleeve to stop Trump in 2024.
A state Supreme Court just took a person off the ballot before any vote was cast. Government "of the people" in the US is probably on its last breath.
I'd imagine the liberal witches on the WI Supreme Court are ready to do the same. PA has a liberal court too. I'm sure other blue states will follow to virtue signal and support the corruption.
Wonder what the Trump write in totals will be. I don't expect the John Roberts US Supreme Court to intervene. They signaled their cowardice turning down Texas vs. PA.
I'm writing in Donald J. Trump not matter what they do.
Hey. DeSantis supporters. This okay with you? Will Ron stay silent?
The problem I see is that Trump has not been found to "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" by any court.
Colorado is putting the cart before the horse.
Unlike the island of Guam, I expect the ruling will be overturned.
BURN. IT. ALL. DOWN.
The cases hinge on several questions: Was it an insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election?
No, because Trump’s supporters did not “storm” the Capitol.
If so, did Mr. Trump engage in that insurrection through his messages to his supporters beforehand, his speech that morning and his Twitter posts during the attack?
No.
Do courts have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without congressional action?
No.
And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?....
Probably yes, but only probably.
How does a partisan State court get to keep an ex-President of the USA off the ballot for President? I thought that was against the idea that the State Legislature controls the Federal elections?
I assume the R's can appeal this to the Federal Courts. But this decison shows how Authoritarian and totalitarian these leftwing lawyers in black robes are. Not satisfied with vetoing any law they dislke under some made-up "case law", they are now deciding who the American people can vote for.
An amazing attack on American Democracy and the rule of law. The unsigned opinion is a nice touch. We'll give the election to the D's, but we wont even sign our names!
But wait for the tepid, "who cares?", reaction from the GOP establishment. They want 4 more years of Biden. And are willing to let the Democrat Judges give Biden the election. So much for representative government.
4-3 decision, meaning that there are three people aware of structural stability problems on the court, which is a high percentage for Democrats.
It was too much to ask the courts to look into allegations of cheating in the 2020 election but they're okay with deciding who you can vote for in 2024?
Good to know.
Let's Face Facts.. NO REPUBLICAN, EVER has had the right to become President..
several times in the past, Democrats have been "persuaded" to pretend that Republicans have that right;
but CLEARLY, under the rules of a fascist dictatorship..
They have NO SUCH RIGHTS; in fact, NO ONE has ANY RIGHTS
Cool, I want to do the same thing to ALL democrats in Texas.
That's disturbing news. I haven't followed it closely enough, but although Mr. Trump has been accused of inciting an insurrection, I'm not aware that the question has been adjudicated.
Don't you just love how people who live above the law, tell you "No one is above the law"?
patently ridiculous and criminal malfeasance
https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1737260590798671982
I'm so old that I can remember when there was a time that before you could be punished for a crime you had to be convicted of that crime.
Interesting how they can find someone guilty of a crime ... of which he's never been charged.
Four cowards afraid to sign their name.
The American Revolution which created our country was an insurrection.
Now, a fake insurrection is being used to destroy it.
It's the circle of life.
It seems the Colorado Supreme Court is just forcing the issue to the US Supreme Court. The act itself is a bit of insurrection by the 4 Colorado Justices that agreed to it, since that court has lowered the definition of what is an insurrection. Then again, this is the same state and court that has ignored (at least) two US Supreme Court decisions regarding free speech rights.
The Bulwark channel on YouTube is good for elite leftist analysis as unintentional comedy. A side benefit, it turns out, it YouTube suggesting vast numbers of other leftist unintentional comedy videos. They're about to analyze the Colorado ballot decision in a live stream.
They're an everything you've heard about Trump is true site.
Judicial legitimacy is far more precarious than the judges seem to realize. Is this really the issue on which to spend what's left of their credibility? They must be living in a bubble.
I had no idea there were so many kangaroos in Colorado they would use then to staff their state supreme court.
They are terrified that the Democrats in Colorado will vote Trump in 2024. I mean, disenfranchising the Republican voters from the candidate of their choice wouldn't be worrisome if they didn't fear many Democrats would join them in voting Trump.
I hope I live 10 more years or so, to the age when actively cynical politically motivated Republican appointed judges begin to use these precedents to keep Democrats from running for President. I just want to see/hear the reactions.
Another issue is whether the President is an officer of the United States within the meaning of that clause.
Absolutely giddy on MSNBC.
I'm so old that I can remember when there was a time that before you could be punished for a crime you had to be convicted of that crime.
And I'm so old I can remember there was a time that before you could be convicted of a crime you had to be charged with that crime.
He wasn’t winning Colorado anyways…
CO not thinking long game- what if he wins?
This is the camel's nose under the tent. I fully expect in October, some blue-state SecState will announce right before their state's print deadline that Trump is ineligible based on the 14th Amendment, and by the time it gets knocked down by SCOTUS a 100k ballots will have already been printed off and mailed out.
What's up with the "unsigned" opinion. Is there some legal significance to that?
" Matt Taibbi: “This is a major escalation of the lawfare phenomenon that’s zoomed from simmer to boil in the seven short years since Trump was first elected in 2016. The glee of #Resistance dolts like Robert Reich and Dean Obeidallah at this decision shows that this was a move dreamed up at the very center of the bubble-within-a-bubble-within-a-bubble that is the blob of the modern Democratic Party.”"
My take - CO is mob-blue.
also - Too many people walked into an FBI trap on J-6. Sad Trump let it happen. Sad his supporters gave in to temptation. That said - most/many of the J-6ers were peaceful.
That the left use that day as a offical Leftwing Democrat holiday is telling... and gross.
You can’t have an insurrection without a single gun.
Speaking of a cart before the horse.
They know that Trump's on his way
He's loaded lots of toys and goodies on his sleigh
And every mother's child is gonna spy
To see if 'Reindeer for Trump' really know how to fly
Supposedly a lengthy law review article provided the argument and citations for this ruling.
Would love to read Preofessor Althouse’s take.
totes legit
https://twitter.com/Travis_in_Flint/status/1737269022628941958
This thing is so out of hand, I know there must be wagers and odds calculations galore.
The Sweep and Force of Section Three
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, Forthcoming
126 Pages Posted: 14 Aug 2023 Last revised: 19 Sep 2023
William Baude
University of Chicago - Law School
Michael Stokes Paulsen
University of St. Thomas School of Law
Date Written: August 9, 2023
Abstract
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.“
Check out Ramaswamy the lawyer's XTweet: Excerpt.
"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 trial judge ruled that the provision did not apply to the office of the presidency. That should've ended the case right there. Instead, she went on to "find" that Trump had participated in an insurrection. But that finding was by her own admission unnecessary to the verdict, and pure dicta. Who knows what standards of proof were applied by a court admittedly ruminating on a hypothetical?
Of course, none of that matters in what has become a Blue State. Like Biden's rigging of the Democrat primaries in New Hampshire and Florida to exclude RFK jr. or indeed any opponent: Democrats, whether in legislatures or courthouses, will employ any means. You know, "to save our Democracy!"
This simple.
The 14th amendment does no apply to the President.
Calm down people. More than anyone on this site, I agree with the simple decision by the Colorado Supremes, based on the 14th Amendment and related Colorado election laws, but the appointed Dem justices voted just 4-3 to declare that Trump is an insurrectionist.
So Trump has until Jan 4 to appeal, which he will do. As a result, Trump will be on the Colorado Primary ballot. And with lots of time to burn, SCOTUS likely will first tackle Jack Smith's request for a ruling on Trump's absolute immunity to prosecution. Colorado is first but will not be the last state to invoke the 14th Amendment, so SCOTUS will have to rule on the clear wording of the Constitution as well.
but although Mr. Trump has been accused of inciting an insurrection, I'm not aware that the question has been adjudicated.
Not accused by any legal process.
I'm waiting to see if any of the other R candidates (other than V) will condemn this in the strongest terms.
If they don't, I won't even consider them...
More from Vivek Ramaswamy @VivekGRamaswamy:
"I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country."
It seems the Colorado Supreme Court is just forcing the issue to the US Supreme Court. The act itself is a bit of insurrection by the 4 Colorado Justices that agreed to it, since that court has lowered the definition of what is an insurrection.
The main problem is that Trump has not even been charged with insurrection, but the CO Supreme Court (based on news reports and opinions) believe he is guilty of insurrection.
Did the four justices go to Harvard Law? That might explain the complete lack of reasoning.
The escalation here is quite dangerous. By a liberal reading of section 3 of the 14th, by the Colorado's court determining that Trump was an insurrectionist, then also those that have given him material support also are insurrectionists and disqualified from any office.
Rich said...
"I’m a conservative who will fight to the death to defend states’ rights. But Colorado’s decision to remove Trump from the ballot demands an immediate reversal by the federal government. /s"
I'm a small government conservative who will fight to the death[1] to defend federalism. And the Colorado court's decision to remove Trump from the ballot demands a speedy reversal by the Supreme Court.
[1] To the end of battery life, that is. #$%^ 8 year old iPad.
Rich said...
"I’m a conservative who will fight to the death to defend states’ rights. But Colorado’s decision to remove Trump from the ballot demands an immediate reversal by the federal government. /s"
I'm a small government conservative who will fight to the death[1] to defend federalism. And the Colorado court's decision to remove Trump from the ballot demands a speedy reversal by the Supreme Court.
[1] To the end of battery life, that is. #$%^ 8 year old iPad.
The craziness of this decision is beyond belief.
We can't have state courts deciding who the Republican or Democrats can put on the ballot for President and other Federal offices. What happens when Pennsylvannia decides to stop Trump from being on the ballot? And if enough Purple states follow suit, we just skip having an election and crown Biden King.
And even that doesn't happen, what if Texas or OH or GA retaliates and deletes biden for their ballots? It'd be chaos with State Supreme courts deciding the Presidency!
This is 10x of craziness. This had better be overturned and quick.
Mr V has spoken out against this. Where is DeSantis? This is why he floundered and dropped in the polls. Does he even oppose the 4 liberal/leftist giving Colorado to Biden?
He's such a wuss and seems more comfortable attacking Trump than fighting the democrats. Same with Haley and Christie.
Gutless and weak. All running for MSNBC show Host and not the Presidency.
Then again, The Colorado Supremes may be the early victims of Climate Change.
Like that Althouse favorite French philosopher said... What do I know?
No problem. Texas removes Biden because of an open border. Abetting criminal acts.
It seems reasonable that the 14th Amend applies to the president, but it’s absurd to claim that a state court can decide there was an insurrection. If this isn’t slapped down hard, you’ll see these suits all around the country in every election. It will become just another political tactic denying citizens their choice on the ballot.
Write him in!
Between this and the earlier referral regarding presidential immunity, SCOTUS must be wondering how to put this lawfare schtick back in the hell-cave it came from. Their lack of courage in 2020 is coming back to bite them. Wasn’t it CJ Roberts who vowed to steer clear of interfering in, or correcting, the People’s choices?
Given the many cases in progress on this issue, SCOTUS has to weigh in, sooner the better.
It’s a dangerous and slippery slope for wanna be dictators tonight. ~ Johnathan Turley
Getting something wrong today by people in authority is actually a career advancement. That's why there are so many people willing to take advantage of that.
YouTube: This guy has a theory. Something called "Accelerationism".
Oddly enough, I've found myself thinking along those lines on occasions, more out of frustration than any real desire to "see it all burn."
They can keep Trump off the ballot, but they can't keep the voters from writing him in.
As ELP said in the album “Brain Salad Surgery” Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends. We are ruled by incompetence.
Meh. Let me know when Texas or Ohio takes his insurectiinalist, traitorous, felonious ass off the ballot.
Would be quite the plot twist if SCOTUS finds that the Colorado ruling is constitutional and it keeps him off multiple ballots nationwide.
Even Christie is backing Trump on this one.
Who can unite the Republican party? Unelected Democrat fascist fuckwits!
I wonder how this will play in Colorado itself? People on this thread are saying Trump can't win there. I think he just did!
Well now Trump can’t be tried twice for J6 can he? Co;victed in Colorado
Edging ever closer to Fort Sumpter land. Democrats are determined to be the party that destroys the US.
Biden's telling the Israelis to learn to distinguish between Hamas and the Palestinian people. Maybe he should be talking to Colorado judges and telling them to learn to distinguish between dissent and insurrection, the more so as the American people are able to do it. Trump has been steadily rising in the polls and this will create the situations accelerating that rise e.g., You go the grocery story and the bill is about double what it was under Trump and then you hear they are trying to keep Trump off the ballot, they've actually done it in one state. They haven't tried to bring actual prices down. Or you hear that Biden is opening a third war front in Yemen on behalf of democracy but a few judges have kicked Trump off the ballot in Colorado and Biden's down with that.
If any decision could cement in place the conviction of millions of Trumps' supporters that the last election was stolen from him, this utterly anti-democratic power grab will do that if it is allowed to stand. I suspect the Supreme Court will overturn it decisively (it is hard to see any other likelihood), leading the fanatic opponents of democracy who have concocted this move to vilify the Court once more as they have been doing. And perhaps to seek a way to undo it as well, along with the normal electoral process this move would bring about.
And I am supposed to believe Trump is the one out to undermine American democracy. What a joke.
Unsigned?
The non-name "unknown" is not accepted.
Ok, here's the interesting question: what are the right grounds for overturning this?
I submit that it's the meaning of the word insurrection
Appearances in Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, powers of Congress:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Article I, Section 9:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article III, section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
All uses of insurrection, rebellion, treason, etc refer to war or armed conflict that cannot be suppressed by the normal operation of the law.
A 1 day protest, handled by Capitol Hill police, whose participants are currently being punished by the normal operations of the courts, simply doesn't qualify.
I saw it in a blogpost, but if you read in the order is automatically stayed if trump appeals it, so basically it will become moot the instant trump appeals it, because the supreme court won't hear it before the primary ballot.
Basically these judges are virtue signalling to their party that they are on their side, but realise that actually blocking trump is a step too far.
But will the Supremes hide behind Lack of Standing BS again?
The power of one word — one single word — is on display here. And that word is “insurrection.” Dems, with the help of, well, every institution in DC. but especially the media, have effectively turned the US into a banana republic (I hate that cliche but it applies) at best.
All because they came up with this one word. Amazing. And it’s working … until it all collapses, which it will.
But still, amazing.
What’s the best legal strategy here? Should Trump appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and risk setting a national precedent if he loses? Or just accept the Colorado decision as a state he was going to lose anyway?
This case is about the Colorado presidential primary election in March, not the general election in November.
The only response that would make sense now would be for republicans to petition courts in the red states to remove all democrats from the ballots who in any way supported the blm insurrection. Let’s go to the Republican judges and push it through. At least 100 democrats from local, state, federal elections, including Biden and Harris.
”The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified."
Did a high court really just invoke this level of tautological logic to support an already tenuous legal conclusion?
LLR-democrtical Rich: "I’m a conservative who will fight to the death to defend states’ rights."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
The mask comes off. Not that everyone didn't know already. EVERYONE. No bubble is that impenetrable.
Maybe some conservative judge can pull out the 25th Amendment and rule Biden isn't qualified to serve.
Kind of ironic that Trump is saying he hasn't had enough process about whether he is an insurrectionist when he's the same guy trying to delay his criminal trials which ask exactly that very question.
They are terrified that the Democrats in Colorado will vote Trump in 2024.
No, they aren't.
It's a power play.
And until the left is made to know they can't do it anymore, they will continue to do it.
The escalation here is quite dangerous.
Indeed.
The left should be careful what they wish for ... lest they get it.
remember the olden days?
when a person was innocent under proven guilty?
when a person couldn't be proven guilty until tried in a court of law?
when a person couldn't be tried until charged?
those were the days, my friends
Meh. Let me know when Texas or Ohio takes his insurectiinalist, traitorous, felonious ass off the ballot.
You'll know.
You won't like it, but you'll know.
You idiots have no idea of the fire you're playing with.
"for republicans to petition courts in the red states to remove all democrats from the ballots who in any way supported the blm insurrection"
You are honestly hoping for this, knowing the 'any way supported' line if applied to Jan 6 would throw out the entire house?
Claiming the other side is unreasonable is one thing, then claiming that you need to up the ante on unreasonable is just making a second wrong ... not a right.
It’s almost as if Colorado thinks that the states have the final say. Wasn’t that Trump’s argument?
Incidentally, Colorado passed a law making it a crime to look into whether an election there was free and fair,
Lol, even Rich admits that Trump was right about taking the election to the states for adjudication. Where is the insurrection then? If what Trump attempted was an insurrection, so is this.
Rich said...
Kind of ironic that Trump is saying he hasn't had enough process about whether he is an insurrectionist when he's the same guy trying to delay his criminal trials which ask exactly that very question.
I see you told the same lie here you did in another thread.
Trump isn't charged with insurrection or sedition related to 6 January.
They’re outright admitting that they are guilty of election interference and fraud. You don’t get to this point without taking the stairs. The panic must be wild.
Reinvest Priebus’s statement on ABC last Sunday about our collective middle finger to the powers that be is spot-on, and should include election tampering.
REINCE PRIEBUS: Um, not particularly because I think that -- I think you're all misreading the electorate. I think that the electorate is not looking for less blood. I think they're looking for more blood. I think that people are more angry about crime than they've ever been before. I think they're more angry about the border, the fentanyl, the sanctuary cities, the boys competing against girls in sports. School is out of control. I think- as I’ve said before, people are looking for a bigger middle finger this time than they were in 2016, and I think you’re…
“ I think that people are more angry about crime than they've ever been before. I think they're more angry about the border, the fentanyl, the sanctuary cities…”
If Trump is taken off the ballot- imma gonna write him in.
I’m voting Trump.
As a ps: my daughter is a little worried ppl with power will target those of us that vote Trump.
Also- shouldn’t the above read: angrier? It’s a peeve of mine- Vpr is so guilty of adding more in front of a word that should end in “er” or “ier”. Isn’t it noticeable? Or am I misremembering the rule?
"Claiming the other side is unreasonable is one thing, then claiming that you need to up the ante on unreasonable is just making a second wrong ... not a right."
Ahh the old "turn the other cheek" until you spin like a top strategy.
Yeah, I hate it too. But, like Israel v Hamas, at some point enough is enough.
If the left continues these insane law fare tactics what will slow (even reverse) their insatiable lust for power? A lost case in the SCOTUS? Feh. Ignored or find a work around. An angry editorial in a (conservative - so obviously lying /sarc) newspaper? Puuuuleeese.
Nope there must be some pain involved (see Chicago re Sanctuary City! Or the MeToo - until it cost a (D) or two.).
The four Ivies on the CO. S. Ct. voted to remove Trump.
Reading rumors here and there that the Co ruling denies voters the opportunity (right?) to write in Trump as their choice. But I haven't read it so...
Colorado made a time honored brand of journalism a crime. Boss Tweed should have thought of making it a crime to ask whether an election was fair.
Colorado is ruined by mob-progs.
Several weeks ago - out of the blue- I was invited to a small gathering of about 30-40 people to listen to the story of a small group of CO citizens and how their lives have been ruined by the corrupt left.
I cannot even begin to explain what I heard that evening. Suffice to say Colorado's mini-Biden- (Jenna Griswold) - is a lying liar who lies and she uses lies and smears to shut down 100% legal citizen canvassing.
other noted mob-progs involved. "League of women votes and the NAACP" - these organizations are fraudulent.
Jenna Griswold is a corrupt lying liar who lies.
“ This is a major escalation of the lawfare phenomenon that’s zoomed from simmer to boil in the seven short years since Trump was first elected in 2016. The glee of #Resistance dolts like Robert Reich and Dean Obeidallah at this decision shows that this was a move dreamed up at the very center of the bubble-within-a-bubble-within-a-bubble that is the blob of the modern Democratic Party. Racket readers, I had a piece planned for later on a quasi-related subject, but I’ll try to get it out in the day or so now.
What a crazy effing country this is…”
—- Matt Taibbi
Colorado Supremes have Rocky Mountain Oysters for brains, and that’s generous.
David French supports this decision. Another nail in its coffin…
Teh Colorectal Supreme Court.
Serious Question..
has the part of the 14th amendment EVER been used, for ANYONE?
If so, HOW? What did the proceedings look like?
Sure, there were Lots of people that received Amnesty.. But was anyone denied Office?
Yikes. As much as I would like Trump to lose the primary, this would set a crazy precedent if upheld. Plus, they're helping Trump. They can't help themselves from helping Trump.
(sarc)Why do so many D legal theorists wish to violate the long standing legal principle “nulla puene sine lege”?
But Trump said blood...
Democratic Judges have decreed that they don't trust the public to vote for Democrats.
Democracy dies when Courts tell the public who they can and cannot vote for.
“Rich said...
Kind of ironic that Trump is saying he hasn't had enough process about whether he is an insurrectionist when he's the same guy trying to delay his criminal trials which ask exactly that very question.
I see you told the same lie here you did in another thread.”
So you’re saying Rich is a pathological liar?
Just wait until Joe Biden’s trial for negligent homicide… for causing the deaths of 12 service members through his bungling and lack of a coherent strategy in Afghanistan.
Amoral, scofflaw Democrats seek to disenfranchise half the country. Corruption is the rule now.
And does Section 3 apply to the presidency
No, it doesn't.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The 4 biggest political hacks on CO SC claimed that The president, Senators, and Representative in Congress ALL "hold a civil office under the United States". But then don't go on to explain why it is that the Constitution mentions them separately from such people.
To "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" is to hold an appointed, not an elected, office.
The 14th doesn't limit right to run for President because you couldn't win the presidency without significant victories in US States that fought the US Civil War from the Northern side, and therefore they had no worry that any of Robert E Lee or the rest would ever win there. All the jobs you're not allowed to have are jobs where either you could be voted in by Southern voters, or appointed by a future Democrat President.
I carefully searched their screed for any addressing of this, at all. There was none, because they KNOW their position is garbage, they just don't care.
SCOTUS is going to take this case, and Co is going to lose. What Roberts is going to try to put together is 9-0 ruling that the Presidency is not an "office, civil or military, under the United States", and that the ruling is thrown out on those grounds, thus everything else in the ruling below is ignored.
This would let the Left continue to wank that "Trump's been found to be an insurrectionist".
His argument to get the 3 Lefties to vote 9-0 is that otherwise the opinion will say a lot more than just that the Presidency is not an office under, and the Lefties won't like any of it.
There are a number of people on this thread saying, "Well, I'll write him in anyway." This misses two points:
1) No candidate is ever going to win a state-wide election via write-in votes. He/she could have 60+% support; it doesn't matter. People are not going to cast write-in vote en masse.
2) It's fundamentally misunderstanding what the court decision here. The decision is not saying that Trump's name can't be pre-printed on the ballot. It's saying that he is an ineligible candidate. A vote for Trump would be treated the same way as a vote for a non-American or a 31-year-old: as an invalid vote. Write-in votes for Trump under this decision would simply be disregarded.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
What’s the best legal strategy here? Should Trump appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and risk setting a national precedent if he loses?
"Take it to SCOTUS" is the obvious choice. Because if they let it stand, there will literally be blood in the streets as all of us on the Right decide that "playtime is over".
Look, I think that Trump is a pathetic loser and a whiny piece of shit. But if 9 black robed thugs (4 on CO SC, 5 on SCOTUS) decide they can illegitimately remove Trump from the ballot on their own desires, then the rule of law is dead, and it's time to add a bunch of its killers to the dead file
I propose the state's official name change to Colorectal".
All in favor say "AYE".
During the American Revolution, residents of the 13 colonies were categorized as "patriots" (supporters of the Revolution), "loyalists" (supporters of the Crown) and "neutrals" (those who feared choosing a side). The "Crown" today is not a specific party (democrats, republicans or independents). It is the combination of deep state, oligarchs and swamp with foreign agencies also in the mix. There may be more "Crown" supporters in the democrat party but the republican party has a large share itself. Federalism was designed to mitigate the overreach of the central government but the Civil War put an end to that. I view myself as a patriot. But the resolution to this current mess will sweep up everyone in a giant cluster....
Rocean said:
"How does a partisan State court get to keep an ex-President of the USA off the ballot for President? I thought that was against the idea that the State Legislature controls the Federal elections?"
This point is very good. I wonder if the SC will point out that the constitution (Article I, Section 4: Elections) states that
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." I thought in the 2020 cases that this might be raised by the court. It would do away with a lot of politicking by state courts.
It is clear from the comments of the bubble people at the NYT what the sane people in the country are up against.
The leftmediaswine have nurtured a cohort who are indifferent to the essence of a constitutional democracy. It is foolish to suppose this is all about Trump. The seeds of fascist authoritarianism live in their hearts and the editorial offices of their newspapers.
There is no legal reason for Trump not to appeal. Maybe a political one.
The ruling is ridiculous. Trump may want to hold Colorado up as a beacon of Democrat lawless absurdity. There are several other examples.
Democracy is aborted in Denver.
"And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?"
Hell, does Section 8 apply to the presidency? Asking for a dude in a dress.
As an aside: Does abandonment of several billion dollars worth of military ordinance to an enemy we have fought for 20 years constitute treason?
Is Biden guilty? Does that affect his eligibility for the Presidency?
Let's say the US Supreme Court doesn't get around to this case until it's too late to have Trump's name on the CO ballots. It would be ironic, not to mention hilarious, if the remedy was to throw-out Colorado's electors.
“I get this: Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office.”
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
The whole thing stinks, but here, the first problems are that the CO Supreme Court determined that this section was self executing, and that it applied to the President, as an Officer. Both iffy. They also broadly interpreted Insurrection in order to make it cover what Trump was alleged by the J6 Committee to have done, which opens up the lid on the corruption.
In my mind, the biggest problem with the decision was the lack of Due Process. The trial court had a five day hearing, where the state introduced the J6 report as an official record, and Trump’s attorneys weren’t allowed to really rebut or challenge it with evidence. The high court explained that CO has expediated hearings for election challenges (which is a good thing - for after the election). But after that, they never explained why that was sufficient Due Process in this case. The J6 committee report allowed the state to get in a lot of evidence in favor of Insurrection, and Trump was kept from introducing contradicting evidence. In response to the charge that the J6 report was a highly partisan, carefully orchestrated, hit job, the high ct pointed out that there were 2 (former) Republicans on the committee. They ignored the ramifications of Pelosi having appointed every member of the committee, including the two (former) Republicans - that if the Republican House leadership had been able to name a commensurate number of Republicans (they never could - Pelosi only gave them 3 slots, with the Dems getting 9), the Dem witnesses could have been cross examined, Republican witnesses introduced, and they could have reviewed all the video recordings, instead of just the cherry picked segments by the Dems. We now know how egregiously they were cherry picked, with the full video coming out. Worse, maybe, it turns out that Pelosi had the witness transcripts shredded before turning over control of the House to Republicans early this year. That means that there is almost no record or remaining evidence supporting the J6 report (of course, no one knew this at the time of the lower court hearing, as it just came out this last week). In short, Trump was not given a chance to attack the highly partisan J6 hit piece. Clever how they did it - but it means that the fact finding stinks to high heaven, and, thus, very likely violates Due Process.
“ This point is very good. I wonder if the SC will point out that the constitution (Article I, Section 4: Elections) states that
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." I thought in the 2020 cases that this might be raised by the court. It would do away with a lot of politicking by state courts.”
Keep in mind that CO enacted legislation (I think that it might have been by referendum or constitutional amendment) imposing term limits on US Senators and Representatives (as well as state offices). The Supreme Court rejected it, as it applied to federal offices, pointing out that the requirements for such were limited to those set out in the US Constitution. It remains in effect for state offices. The US Supreme Court could possibly use this precedent of theirs to reverse the CO Supreme Court here.
Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright
Justice Monica M. Márquez
Justice William W. Hood, III
Justice Richard L. Gabriel
Justice Melissa Hart
Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr.
Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter.
I've seen it called an"unsigned" opinion but Boatright, Samour and Berkenkotter dissented. The true insurrectionists are the other four.
If Section 3 is self-executing, that means a Marine who feels that FJB aided and abetted the Taliban could overthrow him.
But it is not. Section 5 delegates the manner of enforcement to be decided by Congress.
Beaneater said...
There are a number of people on this thread saying, "Well, I'll write him in anyway." This misses two points:
1) No candidate is ever going to win a state-wide election via write-in votes. He/she could have 60+% support; it doesn't matter. People are not going to cast write-in vote en masse.
Nope, that could never happen. Well, except maybe it can.
From Reuters: Nov 17, 2010 — Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski Wednesday became the first U.S. senator in more than 50 years to win an election with a write-in campaign ..
I think it would be great if the border states removed Biden from the ballot for his refusal to enforce immigration laws.
I think that theoretically, the legislature in CO could remove Trump from the ballot, although how they get past the Bill of Attainder part is beyond me.
Maybe state legislatures should come up with a process to "impeach and remove" presidential candidates from the ballot in their state, with a simple majority for conviction, of course. This might take us back to the days before direct election of the President. Nobody ever said that that was unconstitutional.
I am pretty sure that states could simply stop direct election of the president in their states, and send their own slate of electors, if they wanted.
Big Mike said...
And does Section 3 apply to the presidency?....
Probably yes, but only probably.
Almost assuredly no, and it's not even close
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States
If elected office like Senator or Representative in Congress, or President, were part of "any office, civil or military, under the United States", then the 14th wouldn't directly mention "Senator or Representative in Congress".
They didn't extend it to the Presidency, because they were quite certain that no Confederate traitor could get enough North votes to ever be elected President.
According to one of the CO dissents, the Presidency was included in an early draft, but removed. So no, there's really no reasonable argument for it covering the Presidency
It appears the Red Queen has ruled, and it is off with his head, before his trial for insurrection has been held.
Striking Trump from the ballot could have a chilling effect on future would-be dictators’ ability to run for president after having committed insurrection.
Striking Trump from the ballot could have a chilling effect on future would-be dictators’ ability to run for president after having committed insurrection.
What insurrection?
Rich said...
"Striking Trump from the ballot could have a chilling effect on future would-be dictators’ ability to run for president after having committed insurrection."
Is that cartoon you have running in you're head.....is it black and white or is it in color?
Rich said...
"Striking Trump from the ballot could have a chilling effect on future would-be dictators’ ability to run for president after having committed insurrection."
Is that cartoon you have running in you're head.....is it black and white or is it in color?
Post a Comment