Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot

[TandT69]

View attachment 2324160

 

[Lazaran]

The best take I’ve found on the court’s pathetic ruling:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/trump-v-anderson-unanimous-decision/677635/

Spot on imho.

 

[zipman]

The cowardly way the ENTIRE court basically punted the PRIMARY issue could be expected, but the extra step by the corrupt right wing "justices” to insulate the corrupt orange traitor, the traitorous members of congress, and themselves from future accountability is beyond the pale.



JFC

SAD!!!

6 Supreme Court Justice basically nullified section 3 of the 14th amendment both now and forever from being enforced. Instead of interpreting the law they nullified a part of the constitution. And not one cry of judicial activism from the right.

Fucking disgraceful.

 

[ll74]

6 Supreme Court Justice basically nullified section 3 of the 14th amendment both now and forever from being enforced. Instead of interpreting the law they nullified a part of the constitution. And not one cry of judicial activism from the right.

Fucking disgraceful.

Well, considering the amendment bars someone from holding office rather than running for office, I'd say your interpretation is a bit off.

Likely there will be more cases filed if 45 wins to address the holding office part. There will also likely be demands for Congress to override it. We shall see.

 

[adrina]

Well, considering the amendment bars someone from holding office rather than running for office, I'd say your interpretation is a bit off.

Likely there will be more cases filed if 45 wins to address the holding office part. There will also likely be demands for Congress to override it. We shall see.

I think his point is that with essentially an even split that SCOTUS knows there is no way in hell congress can do jack shit. That is the practical reality and limitation.

Especially given that so many in congress on the GOP side were active participators in J6.

 

[ll74]

I think his point is that with essentially an even split that SCOTUS knows there is no way in hell congress can do jack shit. That is the practical reality and limitation.

Especially given that so many in congress on the GOP side were active participators in J6.

Well, certainly the Amendment wasn't setup for this situation. But it definitely wasn't setup to prevent someone from running for office, else it'd say that. It anticipated impeachment as a method for situations like this.

I just don't see a failure of SCOTUS here as much as a failure of Congress. SCOTUS isn't meant to make up for their shortcomings. If he would've been successful in an attempt to overturn the election, we'd be I'm a much different place with better mechanisms to remove him.

 

[adrina]

Well, certainly the Amendment wasn't setup for this situation. But it definitely wasn't setup to prevent someone from running for office, else it'd say that. It anticipated impeachment as a method for situations like this.

I just don't see a failure of SCOTUS here as much as a failure of Congress. SCOTUS isn't meant to make up for their shortcomings. If he would've been successful in an attempt to overturn the election, we'd be I'm a much different place with better mechanisms to remove him.

It was set up to prevent someone who participates in insurrection from holding office. And I get the whole Seinfeldian semantic "taking v holding' debate, but the practical reality is that unless appointed a person doesn't get to hold the office without running.

That's a very convoluted route - allow insurrectionist to run for office, but insurrectionist can't hold office so then if elected must be impeached.

Frankly, if our constitutional authors are that freaking dumb then America doesn't have nearly as much to brag about for the ideals of governance.

ETA - also to be fair, I see it as a failure of the American people. Specifically the over 40% that can't be fucked to vote.

 

[HisArpy]

6 Supreme Court Justice basically nullified section 3 of the 14th amendment both now and forever from being enforced. Instead of interpreting the law they nullified a part of the constitution. And not one cry of judicial activism from the right.

Fucking disgraceful.

Lol.

In Lefty world a 9-0 decision means that it's somehow 6-3. Even when it ain't.

 

[ll74]

It was set up to prevent someone who participates in insurrection from holding office. And I get the whole Seinfeldian semantic "taking v holding' debate, but the practical reality is that unless appointed a person doesn't get to hold the office without running.

It was addressing the confederacy, specifically.

That's a very convoluted route - allow insurrectionist to run for office, but insurrectionist can't hold office so then if elected must be impeached.

Well, a person who participated in insurrection could win an election but would not be able to be sworn in unless Congress overruled the amendment.
Seems convoluted but I reality, Congress was expected to impeach and convict to prevent it.

Frankly, if our constitutional authors are that freaking dumb then America doesn't have nearly as much to brag about for the ideals of governance.

I'd say that improvements are needed and an addition to the amendment is necessary. The current amendment did not consider this situation not because the authors were dumb but rather the authors were addressing very specific issues regarding the civil war - which also weren't considered during the writing of the original document.

That's actually why we have a process to create amendments.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Well, certainly the Amendment wasn't setup for this situation. But it definitely wasn't setup to prevent someone from running for office, else it'd say that. It anticipated impeachment as a method for situations like this.

I just don't see a failure of SCOTUS here as much as a failure of Congress. SCOTUS isn't meant to make up for their shortcomings. If he would've been successful in an attempt to overturn the election, we'd be I'm a much different place with better mechanisms to remove him.

The precedent is set, Victor Berger, congress refused to seat him 1919. Which to me is the way it would work in the case of Trump. Trump would need to win the election, someone in Congress would need to start the procedure to not seat him, and Congress would then vote.

"Even though Berger was under indictment, the voters of Milwaukee once again elected him to the House of Representatives in 1918. When he arrived in Washington to claim his seat, Congress formed a special committee to determine whether a convicted felon and war opponent should be seated as a member of Congress. On November 10, 1919, they concluded that he should not, and they declared the seat vacant,[28] disqualifying him pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[29]

Wisconsin promptly held a special election to fill the vacant seat. On December 19, 1919, they elected Berger a second time, and on January 10, 1920, the House again refused to seat him. The seat remained vacant until January 1921, after his previous electoral opponent, Republican William H. Stafford, once again prevailed over Berger in the 1920 general election.[30]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger#World_War_I

 

[adrina]

It was addressing the confederacy, specifically.


Well, a person who participated in insurrection could win an election but would not be able to be sworn in unless Congress overruled the amendment.
Seems convoluted but I reality, Congress was expected to impeach and convict to prevent it.


I'd say that improvements are needed and an addition to the amendment is necessary. The current amendment did not consider this situation not because the authors were dumb but rather the authors were addressing very specific issues regarding the civil war - which also weren't considered during the writing of the original document.

That's actually why we have a process to create amendments.

If it were specific just to the confederacy why doesn't the amendment specifically state that? Your logic earlier was that it would state what it meant. It does not confine the idea to the confederacy in the amendment.

Amendments are all DOA (and not just for that realistically) unless and until the American non voting public pulls their head out of their ass.

 

[ll74]

The precedent is set, Victor Berger, congress refused to seat him 1919. Which to me is the way it would work in the case of Trump. Trump would need to win the election, someone in Congress would need to start the procedure to not seat him, and Congress would then vote.

"Even though Berger was under indictment, the voters of Milwaukee once again elected him to the House of Representatives in 1918. When he arrived in Washington to claim his seat, Congress formed a special committee to determine whether a convicted felon and war opponent should be seated as a member of Congress. On November 10, 1919, they concluded that he should not, and they declared the seat vacant,[28] disqualifying him pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[29]

Wisconsin promptly held a special election to fill the vacant seat. On December 19, 1919, they elected Berger a second time, and on January 10, 1920, the House again refused to seat him. The seat remained vacant until January 1921, after his previous electoral opponent, Republican William H. Stafford, once again prevailed over Berger in the 1920 general election.[30]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_L._Berger#World_War_I

Based on the Amendment, likely the establishment of whether an insurrection took place would need to be made, which I suggest is in question. If it were established, then Congress would need to vote to override the application of the amendment rather than vote to prevent him from holding office.

They could also vote to reject certification, which would not require the 14th at all.

 

[ll74]

If it were specific just to the confederacy why doesn't the amendment specifically state that? Your logic earlier was that it would state what it meant. It does not confine the idea to the confederacy in the amendment.

The language was meant to anticipate what they knew at the time at what had occurred. It was attempting to address situations like what had occurred I the future. There was no reason to include that in the amendment.

Amendments are all DOA (and not just for that realistically) unless and until the American non voting public pulls their head out of their ass.

It's a difficult path, but processes exist to create one and I'd suggest situations like this could help overcome the difficulties

 

[adrina]

The language was meant to anticipate what they knew at the time at what had occurred. It was attempting to address situations like what had occurred I the future. There was no reason to include that in the amendment.


It's a difficult path, but processes exist to create one and I'd suggest situations like this could help overcome the difficulties

Sorry you lost me. I'm going to use your statement on you:

If that's what it meant, then it would say it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Based on the Amendment, likely the establishment of whether an insurrection took place would need to be made, which I suggest is in question. If it were established, then Congress would need to vote to override the application of the amendment rather than vote to prevent him from holding office.

They could also vote to reject certification, which would not require the 14th at all.

Berger's case was about Espionage, he was not convicted and he was elected and seated again in 1924. To me this case is very similar to Trumps. A criminal conviction was not required for the 14th and Berger like Trump was just under indictment.

Sure there are other ways this could play out, but hypothetically speaking, if they did try to use the 14th on Trump, this is a case they can use for precedence when the decision is appealed, as it surely will be if the hypothetical situation becomes reality.

 

[ll74]

Sorry you lost me. I'm going to use your statement on you:

If that's what it meant, then it would say it.

It wasn't meant to address the Confederacy singularly. It was written in response to the Confederacy to address situations like what had occurred using the experience and knowledge of the event to anticipate future occurrences.

If you write a law to address an event that has occurred, detrimental to society, you do so with the understanding of the behavior that has occurred. You may be able to add additional language to address adjacent behavior but you can only do so based on your experience.... You are simply unable to foresee all conditions that might result in similar behavior.

Hard to really explain myself - one can only have foresight based on experience. There is always something beyond that which is missed.

 

[ll74]

Berger's case was about Espionage, he was not convicted and he was elected and seated again in 1924. To me this case is very similar to Trumps. A criminal conviction was not required for the 14th and Berger like Trump was just under indictment.

Establishing insurrection does not necessarily require a conviction, but politically it requires overwhelming support and agreement. That's a tough hill to climb.

Sure there are other ways this could play out, but hypothetically speaking, if they did try to use the 14th on Trump, this is a case they can use for precedence when the decision is appealed, as it surely will be if the hypothetical situation becomes reality.

Insurrection would need to be established and again, I don't think that has been understood beyond doubt, so one could argue the 14th doesn't apply. I think that would be your sticking point, but if you made it past that, I'm unsure Congress would or wouldn't override it

 

[adrina]

It was addressing the confederacy, specifically.


Well, a person who participated in insurrection could win an election but would not be able to be sworn in unless Congress overruled the amendment.
Seems convoluted but I reality, Congress was expected to impeach and convict to prevent it.


I'd say that improvements are needed and an addition to the amendment is necessary. The current amendment did not consider this situation not because the authors were dumb but rather the authors were addressing very specific issues regarding the civil war - which also weren't considered during the writing of the original document.

That's actually why we have a process to create amendments.

It wasn't meant to address the Confederacy singularly. It was written in response to the Confederacy to address situations like what had occurred using the experience and knowledge of the event to anticipate future occurrences.

If you write a law to address an event that has occurred, detrimental to society, you do so with the understanding of the behavior that has occurred. You may be able to add additional language to address adjacent behavior but you can only do so based on your experience.... You are simply unable to foresee all conditions that might result in similar behavior.

Hard to really explain myself - one can only have foresight based on experience. There is always something beyond that which is missed.

Indeed.

 

[schism666]

he talks too fucking much.

 

[ll74]

Indeed.

The text was created by people who experienced the Confederacy so their experience was specific to that event. The amendment was meant to address events like the Confederacy which might occur, so it was meant to address those from the Confederacy, but not singularly about them... Since it would apply to future events.

And again, they did not anticipate that other situations might occur leading to a similar outcome... So they could not write text to account for everything.. like impeachment happening after a person was holding office. (Not to mention conviction and removal not being accomplished)

 

[adrina]

The text was created by people who experienced the Confederacy so their experience was specific to that event. The amendment was meant to address events like the Confederacy which might occur, so it was meant to address those from the Confederacy, but not singularly about them... Since it would apply to future events.

And again, they did not anticipate that other situations might occur leading to a similar outcome... So they could not write text to account for everything.. like impeachment happening after a person was holding office. (Not to mention conviction and removal not being accomplished)

Well I'm glad I could assist you in coming to a more clear understanding of your conclusions.

 

[ll74]

Well I'm glad I could assist you in coming to a more clear understanding of your conclusions.

My understanding is clear.... Explaining to you is obviously difficult for me.. I'm not sure why you don't understand how context of the time period led to strengths and weaknesses of the amendment. I am fairly sure you agree that participation is a requirement for a robust government who can survive challenges....

The amendments created in the past cannot account for every single future consideration. The founders shouldn't be faulted for that. Nor should the amendment writers be faulted for not anticipating events which may be adjacent. I don't think SCOTUS misinterpreted or failed in their interpretation.

 

[adrina]

My understanding is clear.... Explaining to you is obviously difficult for me.. I'm not sure why you don't understand how context of the time period led to strengths and weaknesses of the amendment. I am fairly sure you agree that participation is a requirement for a robust government who can survive challenges....

The amendments created in the past cannot account for every single future consideration. The founders shouldn't be faulted for that. Nor should the amendment writers be faulted for not anticipating events which may be adjacent. I don't think SCOTUS misinterpreted or failed in their interpretation.

You were contradictory and the professorial air takes on more of a flavor of mansplaining.

Either way the reality is we disagree. The ruling went too far and was not necessary. It was legislating from the bench. They answered an unasked question and decided an issue that was not part of the inquiry. I agree with the statements made by Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson. The simple - and directly uncontradictory - answer is that states do not have the authority to apply 14.3 to federal elections but just to state ones. The question of "well who does" was not part of the case but they formulated an answer. One that is not particularly clear. Even you yourself wrote out two separate things before it was pointed out to you. Further, until I pointed it out to you you likely didn't even realize what you had stated.

I'm content to leave this with agree to disagree. Reality is, as a result of this morning's interaction, I'm not really interested in reading anything further you have to say regarding this at this time.

 

[ll74]

You were contradictory and the professorial air takes on more of a flavor of mansplaining.

Perhaps. I never meant to mansplain, I was just stating my perspective on the matter.

Either way the reality is we disagree. The ruling went too far and was not necessary. It was legislating from the bench. They answered an unasked question and decided an issue that was not part of the inquiry. I agree with the statements made by Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson. The simple - and directly uncontradictory - answer is that states do not have the authority to apply 14.3 to federal elections but just to state ones. The question of "well who does" was not part of the case but they formulated an answer. One that is not particularly clear. Even you yourself wrote out two separate things before it was pointed out to you. Further, until I pointed it out to you you likely didn't even realize what you had stated.

I did. It just made sense to me without additional wording.... Whereas I can see it wasn't clear to you.

I'm content to leave this with agree to disagree. Reality is, as a result of this morning's interaction, I'm not really interested in reading anything further you have to say regarding this at this time.

Fair enough.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Good news for those who are disappointed with the 9-0 SCOTUS decision. Raskin to the rescue!

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/...-resume-disqualification-efforts-in-congress/