Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot

[Fuzzy1975]

I'm thinking they're hoping he'll lose (again) and they won't have to rule because it's moot.

Yep

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Donald Trump and his lawyer think the fix is in, and the Supreme Court owes him a ruling on this matter in his favor.

I'm not surprised, everything about Trump is transactional.

 

[butters]

Jamie Raskin on trump's comments about keggers:

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) slammed a comment by former President Trump’s lawyer where she insinuated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh will “step up” when it comes to the former president’s ballot cases, claiming it shows a “New York mobsters” mentality.

“Well, this is the way that New York mobsters think about judges,” Raskin told MSNBC Friday. “‘Yeah, we own that one. We own that one. Get in that court. That guy’s in our pocket.’ And for fascists and authoritarian parties and movements, the law is really not what you know, but it’s who you know. And it’s always better for them to know the judge than to know the law.”

“But to know the law here is to understand that Donald Trump is disqualified,” he added in the interview highlighted by Mediaite, just hours after the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=d82b730e4fc84c3a9cfae5c0881369d8&ei=46

 

[KeithD]

For the Primary ballot I can see that. My fear is they will only rule on that issue, that he has to be actually elected to office, before the 14th can be used. So a final decision may not come before SCOTUS until after the November election. If that is the case I do wonder if SCOTUS will sort it out before Jan 21 2025.

I don't think a strict constructionist (which the Trump justice appointees all claim to be) should have a problem with that. The Constitution does refer to the "office of president," which, ipso facto, identifies the president as an officer. Trump was president when he initially tried to instigate a coup. What I don't see is them identifying him as an insurrectionist without him being formally charged or convicted of being one.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Trump was president when he initially tried to instigate a coup. What I don't see is them identifying him as an insurrectionist without him being formally charged or convicted of being one.

Yes I can see where the court may wish he was convicted, but they are going to have to deal with historical precedence ( removal or denial without conviction in 8 cases), and case law from New Mexico. In which the 14th has been used without conviction, to remove a person from office for the Jan 6th insurrection.

Because the 14th isn't a criminal charge there is no "due process". Why? It is a civil charge. They also don't have to identify him as an insurrectionist, because Colorado already has done that, twice and in the civil case in New Mexico the Jan 6th incident was ruled an insurrection.

What they will actually do? I think they will make a ruling that rules on the narrowest scope they can think of. They most likely will try and claim it is not precedent setting as well, but a specific ruling.

 

[KeithD]

Yes I can see where the court may wish he was convicted, but they are going to have to deal with historical precedence ( removal or denial without conviction in 8 cases), and case law from New Mexico. In which the 14th has been used without conviction, to remove a person from office for the Jan 6th insurrection.

Insurrection is a crime. If you're citing that as a reason to take action, you are working with a crime.

They'll simply reverse that case and it will take effect in every other related case unless/until Trump is convicted of insurrection. Let's not lose sight of a SC with a majority favoring Trump as a candidate. It's a simple matter in U.S. law to conclude someone not convicted of a specific crime not be held accountable for it until/unless he/she is convicted of that crime.

I'd make more out of the "give aid and comfort" section of the 14th amendment when arguing the case at the SC level. Trump most certainly did that on camera.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Insurrection is a crime.

Yes it is.

If you're citing that as a reason to take action, you are working with a crime.

You're an intelligent guy, read this, it lays out the section 3 of the 14th better than I ever could. It shows how it has been used in the past, including last year in New Mexico. In every case there was no criminal conviction or charge even laid.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

 

[jaF0]

I'm not aware of 'insurrection' being codified in Federal Law, so it may not be correct to state it is a crime. Insurrection (as has been posted here several times) is defined as a group act that can include any number of violent offenses, of which a number of people have been convicted.

That one occurred is not in question. That Donny was involved in it is not in question.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm not aware of 'insurrection' being codified in Federal Law, so it may not be correct to state it is a crime. Insurrection (as has been posted here several times) is defined as a group act that can include any number of violent offenses, of which a number of people have been convicted.

That one occurred is not in question. That Donny was involved in it is not in question.

1. 18 USC 2383. The really strange part is that you've been harping on this subject for weeks and yet you've never bothered to actually look up if what you were saying is true or not. Why is that? Are you afraid that what you'd find out would show that you're wrong?
2. Yup, convicted. Not just alleged and then smeared in public.
3. Nothing but opinion without facts.
4. Ditto.

 

[Plasmaball]

Judge Luttig and Laurence Tribe say decision is "unassailable"

I have a feeling they had a major hand in this

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Wonder what will the left wingers will say if SCOTUS overturns the CO decision with votes from one or more of the liberal justices joining the majority.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Wonder what will the left wingers will say if SCOTUS overturns the CO decision with votes from one or more of the liberal justices joining the majority.

That the court ruled,and I don't agree. No riots, no screaming and tearing into the capital. Now if it goes the other way....

 

[DeluxAuto]

Wonder what will the left wingers will say if SCOTUS overturns the CO decision with votes from one or more of the liberal justices joining the majority.

Wonder what you'll say if SCOTUS does the right thing and leaves him off the ballot.

 

[dkovic77]

Wonder what you'll say if SCOTUS does the right thing and leaves him off the ballot.

More plausible than Nazi lover. @BabyBoomer50s

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Wonder what you'll say if SCOTUS does the right thing and leaves him off the ballot.

Excellent legal minds on the bench. I’ll trust their judgment and accept it without complaint, regardless of the outcome. Hope everyone does.

 

[KeithD]

Yes it is.

You're an intelligent guy, read this, it lays out the section 3 of the 14th better than I ever could. It shows how it has been used in the past, including last year in New Mexico. In every case there was no criminal conviction or charge even laid.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Justice Thomas is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Alito is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Kavanaugh is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Gorsuch is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Barett is highly unlikely to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

To uphold Colorado the justices would have to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist.

You do the math. I'll stick with common sense as producing the most likely result.

Yes, I have no trouble fingering Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point. But I don't have a vote in the matter.

 

[Lazaran]

A Colorado Judge, in a court of law, decided that the corrupt orange traitor DID in fact engage in insurrection - while in office, and having previously sworn an oath to the country and the constitution.

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that Judge’s decision and complied with the constitution, which bars those individuals who have sworn an oath from office if they engage in insurrection.

If the SCOTUS overrules that Colorado decision, and fails to exclude the corrupt orange traitor from office in ALL STATES, then they have effectively put one "man" above the law, the country, and the constitution.

*nods*

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Justice Thomas is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Alito is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Kavanaugh is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Gorsuch is not going to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

Justice Barett is highly unlikely to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist at this point.

To uphold Colorado the justices would have to finger Donald Trump as an insurrectionist.

You do the math. I'll stick with common sense as producing the most likely result.

As I have said before, Trump will be on the Primary ballot. That is not running for office. That is running to be the one who is put up as the candidate. The issue will be if he is confirmed as the nominee, there will be another case brought forward on the grounds of the 14th amendment. If he is elected there will again be a court case. It is on the latter where I would disagree with the above.

However the original point was if a criminal conviction is a requirement for the 14th. You said yes, history shows no.

 

[stxjimmy]

The idea that a State can determine who is eligible or not based on the beliefs of a single individual is anathema to both our society and the rule of law. It leads nowhere except to anarchy and chaos.

The SCOTUS has no choice except to take this case and reverse the lower court decisions.

The best part is that all of the idjits who are claiming that Trump isn't eligible are going to end up looking like fools.

The bad part is that unless the SCOTUS decides that the 14th doesn't apply to the Office Of The President, the result of their decision will be that several Democrat states will immediately charge Trump with insurrection and convict him in a kangaroo court then claim he's no longer eligible. A patently illegal ploy which leads directly to the aforementioned anarchy and chaos but one which progressives seem to be ok with. Because Trump.

You’re really not a lawyer are you?

 

[HisArpy]

Wonder what will the left wingers will say if SCOTUS overturns the CO decision with votes from one or more of the liberal justices joining the majority.

Obviously they'll start talking about increasing the number of SCOTUS justices again.

 

[KeithD]

However the original point was if a criminal conviction is a requirement for the 14th. You said yes, history shows no.

I didn't say yes. I said the SC would use that as their reason not to uphold the Colorado SC ruling. Because of the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, it's not going to rule Trump instigated insurrection at this point. They will cite lack of due process. Cart before horse. He hasn't been officially charged or convicted of insurrection.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I didn't say yes.

My fault, you came across as using the same arguments the RWCJ and even Comstock are using.

I said the SC would use that as their reason not to uphold the Colorado SC ruling. Because of the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, it's not going to rule Trump instigated insurrection at this point. They will cite lack of due process. Cart before horse. He hasn't been officially charged or convicted of insurrection.T

Ok I can see a potential of that, but this ruling isn't even in the scale of what RvW was. It is exponentially larger. There is also existing precedent of usage of the 14th. I think it would be a huge leap for them to try and baulk at citing due process etc.

I think they will take the low hanging fruit and say States can't decide who is on the Primary ballot by using the 14th. I think they will say this is a Federal decision, and leave it at that. No direct ruling on Trump and insurrection.

 

[KeithD]

I think they will take the low hanging fruit and say States can't decide who is on the Primary ballot by using the 14th. I think they will say this is a Federal decision, and leave it at that. No direct ruling on Trump and insurrection.

The argument I see is that who gets to primary is a party decision, not either state or federal. I can see that argument.

 

[Rightguide]

What are you talking about? The four justices on the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the Jan. 6 assault constituted an insurrection, and ruled Trump's actions "constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection." Colorado heard the case and found Trump guilty of overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection. ie guilty of insurrection.

Insurrection as it exists in section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal crime. It isn't within the purview of the Colorado court to interpret or enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment as section 5 specifically leaves that authority in the hands of Congress. They, the Colorado State Courts, have no right or authority to try, convict, and punish Donald Trump in absentia who has not been indicted, tried, and found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers in a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The argument I see is that who gets to primary is a party decision, not either state or federal. I can see that argument.

Yep, and rightly so.