Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot

[zipman]

Trump is a creation of the left, because of nonsense like this ruling. He would have faded into obscurity had the left not decided to make him a Martyr.

Trump wasn't going to win Colorado anyway, so the ruling is irrelevant as a practical mater. But the ruling feeds the narrative that Trump is being persecuted by liberal judges and prosecutors.

Lol, I totally understand why right wingers like yourself want to blame the left for Trump, but he's yours.

It's you and your ilk who support, defend and vote for this disgusting, authoritarian, insurrectionist, racist, misogynistic, sexual assaulting piece of shit.

Own it.

 

[butters]

Much as I like the obvious being upheld again--that Trump tried to lead an unsuccessful coup against the United States--I think the ruling is premature. He hasn't been charged or convicted of that yet. I think that's how the U.S. SC will rule--that he hasn't been convicted of that and that it thus isn't covered by the 14th amendment. It's a national election. I don't see the U.S. SC ruling that a state has total control over denying a candidate in a national election.

Beyond that, the move doesn't have much meaning. Colorado has been a blue state since 2004. I don't think the Trump campaign has seen Colorado's electoral votes as being in their column.

i'm holding out the hope that Tribe and Luttig have the rights of this... after all, they are probably the most knowledgeable on the topic given their life's work and experience/study of it and are generally accepted as the people with the greatest expertise on it.

having said that, i'm also half expecting SCOTUS to overturn it with the "intent" of it being ruled an "it's down to the voters to decide" no matter the legalities.

 

[Lazaran]

i'm holding out the hope that Tribe and Luttig have the rights of this... after all, they are probably the most knowledgeable on the topic given their life's work and experience/study of it and are generally accepted as the people with the greatest expertise on it.

having said that, i'm also half expecting SCOTUS to overturn it with the "intent" of it being ruled an "it's down to the voters to decide" no matter the legalities.

If the rule of law and the constitution don’t apply to the President (or former president), then let anarchy reign…

In America 2023 there is no place for selective enforcement of the law and the constitution.

The illegitimate, corrupt right wing majority on the SCOTUS has already sown the seeds of anarchy with several of its rulings. - An overruling of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision would water those seeds.

Reap what you sow, indeed…

*nods*

 

[coati]

Do you feel the same way about all criminals?

There are two posters on this thread, a right-winger and a left-winger, who bemoan enforcement of the law because "...it feeds the narrative that the former President is being persecuted".

These two posters are wimps who are buckling to political pressure. Get rid of the insurrectionists as soon as possible, and to hell with the wimps like JohnnyS and RandyR.

 

[KeithD]

i'm holding out the hope that Tribe and Luttig have the rights of this... after all, they are probably the most knowledgeable on the topic given their life's work and experience/study of it and are generally accepted as the people with the greatest expertise on it.

having said that, i'm also half expecting SCOTUS to overturn it with the "intent" of it being ruled an "it's down to the voters to decide" no matter the legalities.

I can't quite see accepting the premise that he is guilty of sedition without a charge or conviction of that. Seems to be basic law.

We all know he's guilty of it, but that isn't the same as having been formally charged or convicted for it.

 

[jaF0]

See the previous thread:

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/even-the-right-wants-donny-dqd.1594136/latest
.

 

[KeithD]

See the previous thread:

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/even-the-right-wants-donny-dqd.1594136/latest
.

I responded to that. The wording of the 14th Amendment assumes an authoritative call on behavior that hasn't been legally established in this case yet. I'm betting that's how the U.S. SC will rule if it takes it up.

 

[Lazaran]

I responded to that. The wording of the 14th Amendment assumes an authoritative call on behavior that hasn't been legally established in this case yet. I'm betting that's how the U.S. SC will rule if it takes it up.

The thing I wonder about, is whether there is enough evidence already made public by the J6 committee, etc, to allow the Supreme Courts of individual states to base a decision on.

For all sane, decent, intelligent Americans, etc, the publicly available evidence PROVES that the corrupt orange traitor fomented and participated in an insurrection against the United States WHILE PRESIDENT - why would it be unreasonable for Supreme Court Justices to come to the same conclusion???

 

[KeithD]

The thing I wonder about, is whether there is enough evidence already made public by the J6 committee, etc, to allow the Supreme Courts of individual states to base a decision on.

For all sane, decent, intelligent Americans, etc, the publicly available evidence PROVES that the corrupt orange traitor fomented and participated in an insurrection against the United States WHILE PRESIDENT - why would it be unreasonable for Supreme Court Justices to come to the same conclusion???

Because, legally, he hasn't been charged or convicted of this yet. The U.S. SC rules on existing law. How many times do I have to post that it's all individual opinion (but correct, I think) that Trump is guilt of this as yet?--he hasn't been charged or convicted of it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Because, legally, he hasn't been charged or convicted of this yet. The U.S. SC rules on existing law. How many times do I have to post that it's all individual opinion (but correct, I think) that Trump is guilt of this as yet?--he hasn't been charged or convicted of it.

This is the problem, the legal system is based upon "innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a Jury of your Peers". But the 14th amendment doesn't speak to conviction, nor even incarceration, or punishment. It simply says being"engaged in insurrection or rebellion" forfeits your right to hold office.

I don't think Trump needs to be convicted, if Jan 6th can pass the legal litmus test for being either a rebellion or insurrection, then Trump was part of it. Looking at the court cases from the Jan 6th participants, and the convictions handed out for Sedition etc, and the Judge in Colorado stating Trump did engage in insurrection, to me then it's clear Trump meets the 14th amendment, and doesn't need a conviction to be barred from Office.

He obviously can't be imprisoned or fined etc, until a conviction, but he can be barred from office.

 

[adrina]

There are two posters on this thread, a right-winger and a left-winger, who bemoan enforcement of the law because "...it feeds the narrative that the former President is being persecuted".

These two posters are wimps who are buckling to political pressure. Get rid of the insurrectionists as soon as possible, and to hell with the wimps like JohnnyS and RandyR.

Agreed. It's a cowardly thing - to not support prosecuting Trump for his crimes because his supporters might throw a hissy fit. If we as a nation allow ourselves to be held hostage because some group will be pissed off that Trump was held accountable according to the laws of our country, then frankly it's fair to ask just what kind of country we are.

Essentially 50 years of propaganda has enabled this kind of thinking. So many are so brainwashed that the democrats are evil that they think the worst republican is better than the most moderate democrat. It's insanity. Somewhere a stand has to be taken.

Is it okay for a sitting president to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power? Are we a nation of laws? Or do we just kowtow to Trump and his supporters.

I'm not okay with that.

 

[KeithD]

This is the problem, the legal system is based upon "innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a Jury of your Peers". But the 14th amendment doesn't speak to conviction, nor even incarceration, or punishment. It simply says being"engaged in insurrection or rebellion" forfeits your right to hold office.

I don't think Trump needs to be convicted, if Jan 6th can pass the legal litmus test for being either a rebellion or insurrection, then Trump was part of it. Looking at the court cases from the Jan 6th participants, and the convictions handed out for Sedition etc, and the Judge in Colorado stating Trump did engage in insurrection, to me then it's clear Trump meets the 14th amendment, and doesn't need a conviction to be barred from Office.

He obviously can't be imprisoned or fined etc, until a conviction, but he can be barred from office.

Yes, the wording of the 14th Amendment is predicated on a judgment of guilt, not hearsay or wishful thinking.

You folks just won't give up wishful or premature thinking (or of being unable to consider what you would think if "its what everyone believes" was applied to some politician you liked).

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, the wording of the 14th Amendment is predicated on a judgment of guilt, not hearsay or wishful thinking.

It could very well be, but it doesn't read that clear, and it's legal meaning is in the grey zone.

You folks just won't give up wishful or premature thinking (or of being unable to consider what you would think if "its what everyone believes" was applied to some politician you liked).

Why would you try and pin that on me?

Sorry, Politicians are people, who have flaws and faults, and make mistakes. If you're a politician who I supported and you fuck up ( criminally, or not, even the pretext of ), too bad so sad, you're on your own.

Would I follow the crowd of "everyone belives" no, I make up my own mind. I don't need others to do that, I'm quite capable.

 

[Lazaran]

Yes, the wording of the 14th Amendment is predicated on a judgment of guilt, not hearsay or wishful thinking.

You folks just won't give up wishful or premature thinking (or of being unable to consider what you would think if "its what everyone believes" was applied to some politician you liked).

The corrupt orange traitor WAS found to have engaged in insurrection in a court of law.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213...gaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

The J6 committee also made the case that the corrupt orange traitor engaged in insurrection, and the corrupt orange traitor’s own words amount to insurrection.

And let’s not pretend that Jack Smith couldn’t have charged the corrupt orange traitor with insurrection, but opted to go with the slam dunk charges.

Ultimately, these eligibility rulings are time sensitive, and had A CRIMINAL CASE for insurrection been brought against the corrupt orange traitor, it would NOT have been concluded in time to keep the corrupt orange traitor off the primary ballots, and probably not even the general election ballots.

This needed / needs to be adjudicated NOW.

And NOW it was / will be definitively adjudicated.

*nods*

 

[KeithD]

The corrupt orange traitor WAS found to have engaged in insurrection in a court of law.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213...gaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

The J6 committee also made the case that the corrupt orange traitor engaged in insurrection, and the corrupt orange traitor’s own words amount to insurrection.

And let’s not pretend that Jack Smith couldn’t have charged the corrupt orange traitor with insurrection, but opted to go with the slam dunk charges.

One Judge's opinion. One who also nonsensically said the president wasn't a government official.

Trump was not convicted of anything as a result of the J6 committee work.

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection--which is part of my point of what you and I and anyone else thereby can't legally claim he's been convicted of.

Wake up.

 

[Lazaran]

One Judge's opinion. One who also nonsensically said the president wasn't a government official.

Trump was not convicted of anything as a result of the J6 committee work.

Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with insurrection--which is part of my point of what you and I and anyone else thereby can't legally claim he's been convicted of.

Wake up.

Wide awake and seeing the whole picture.

Even if Jack Smith had charged the corrupt orange traitor with insurrection and secured a conviction by a date uncertain, the matter of eligibility to be on the ballots STILL would have needed to be adjudicated.

That ^ would / could have taken so long that the corrupt orange traitor might have served an entire second term, destroyed America, fled to Russia, and died in exile there, before it was ever settled.



Time sensitivity is the operative reality here.

*nods*

 

[coati]

Agreed. It's a cowardly thing - to not support prosecuting Trump for his crimes because his supporters might throw a hissy fit.

The Deplorables think that just because they're thoroughly brainwashed and submissive to the indicted former President, the rest of the world needs to be equally wimpy.and fearful.

Forget that! Prosecute the bastard and lock him up.

 

[stxjimmy]

I can't quite see accepting the premise that he is guilty of sedition without a charge or conviction of that. Seems to be basic law.

We all know he's guilty of it, but that isn't the same as having been formally charged or convicted for it.

In that case get the bum in front of a court of law, instead of allowing his repeated pathetic attempts to delay said process and pardon himself.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Trump is a creation of the left, because of nonsense like this ruling. He would have faded into obscurity had the left not decided to make him a Martyr.

Trump wasn't going to win Colorado anyway, so the ruling is irrelevant as a practical mater. But the ruling feeds the narrative that Trump is being persecuted by liberal judges and prosecutors.

Butthurt savtard blames the dems for everything.

 

[KeithD]

In that case get the bum in front of a court of law, instead of allowing his repeated pathetic attempts to delay said process and pardon himself.

He already is in front of courts of law--several times over. That isn't relevant to this issue, though--not until he is convicted in the Georgia or D.C. cases.

Not sure how your post relates to any of mine.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

What explanation would satisfy you? Do you see the reality that the government, legal, military, police etc. authorities serve the richest in society, and protect their profits, landholdings etc? Or are you under the illusion that all these authorities are just neutral and fair arbiters (i.e. referees) who govern for us all fairly?

Birds aren't real, dude.

 

[stxjimmy]

He already is in front of courts of law--several times over. That isn't relevant to this issue, though--not until he is convicted in the Georgia or D.C. cases.

The revelancy is to get his cases tried before the 2024 election.

 

[KeithD]

The revelancy is to get his cases tried before the 2024 election.

Well, yes. I still don't see how that has anything to do with what I've posted. I directly said that I thought Garland farted around too long before getting Trump in front of a jury.

 

[butters]

so the original judge found him guilty of insurrection but opted not to see him banned from the ballot, THEN the state's supreme court UPHELD her decision on his culpability, and there's more than one judge there, right? 7 if the 4-3 decision means anything. It stands unless SCOTUS overturns it, so he has, then, been found in 2 courts of law to have been engaging in insurrection. no?

it's the fact that these findings have been established that team trump wants it pushed through SCOTUS and America will be deeply interested to see how this plays out and, perhaps, the world.

 

[stxjimmy]

He already is in front of courts of law--several times over. That isn't relevant to this issue, though--not until he is convicted in the Georgia or D.C. cases.

Not sure how your post relates to any of mine.

It’s entirely relavent.
What other crime would he be able to commit and enjoy such leeway.

If, as he has postulated, he shot somebody on 5th avenue do you seriously think he should be allowed back on 5th avenue until he shot somebody else.

Overwhelming evidence has him committing election interference and encouraging insurrection. To allow him to stand in the next election would be entirely remiss.