Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot

[coati]

I wonder what you'll say if/when any liberal members of the court also sign on to the decision.

And then there's all those prominent D's who are speaking out about and against the Colorado and Maine decisions.

Perhaps they're also part of the Trump "cult" you're so afraid of.

Or perhaps it's more likely that the only Trump hating cult member and rabid partisan here, is you.

The problem is that the US Supreme Court in general has become much more political as the nation as a whole has become more scared than ever. The so-called liberal justices could indeed go with the right-wing majority justices on this decision, because they are so timid about making the national situation even more volatile. Roberts will push all justices to go with the flow on this one.

However, Trump lying about the results of the 2020 election, inciting a right-wing crowd to fight like Hell, and refusing to call off the mob action until late in the day were all legitimate grounds for Colorado designating his behavior as an act of insurrection. I do not believe the current makeup of the US Supreme Court has the conviction to stand up for the precedent of states making an assessment about who is eligible to run in their election domain.

Calling Trump's behavior insurrection is not a "rabid partisan" act. It was Republicans who first raised the eligibility issue in Colorado. He is indeed the head of a cult of personality, whether you want to admit that or not.

 

[icanhelp1]

People are just repeating the same things over and over. No new ground is being covered here.


No one has addressed the one fly in the ointment I posted on one of these threads, and I'm not sure it's even still in effect.

This is the ONLY document I've seen that even mentions trial and conviction being required for Disqualification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Act_of_1862

18 USC 2383 actually states in a round about way [ CONVICTION ] In order to be punished there must be due process under the law.

Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime includes a fine, up to 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for federal public office.Nov 24, 2023

 

[ll74]

18 USC 2383 actually states in a round about way [ CONVICTION ] In order to be punished there must be due process under the law.

Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime includes a fine, up to 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for federal public office.Nov 24, 2023

Yes, it refers to due process there. It does not in the qualifications/disqualifcations section.

That is why the court must qualify which perspective should be used between the two.

 

[Lazaran]

People are just repeating the same things over and over. No new ground is being covered here.


No one has addressed the one fly in the ointment I posted on one of these threads, and I'm not sure it's even still in effect.

This is the ONLY document I've seen that even mentions trial and conviction being required for Disqualification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation_Act_of_1862

The confiscation act was clearly targeted at members of "the confederate government". There was no concerns about the time and authority necessary to bring those traitors to justice via trial and conviction. And maaaaany former confederates WERE barred from holding office WITHOUT a conviction for insurrection.

The 14th amendment’s section 3 was clearly targeted at traitors who engage in insurrection while members of the United States government. There IS a concern involving the time and authority necessary to bring a traitor to justice via trail and conviction as a member / former member of the United States government.

Two very different scenarios.

And think about it: If some "person” participated in insurrection on J6, there is NO WAY they could have been tried and convicted of insurrection before the next election for “some” office somewhere in the U.S.

At some point, under certain conditions, there has to be a quick resolution of the matter of whether a “person" has engaged in insurrection.

Several courts HAVE made quick resolutions determining that a “person” engaged in insurrection, and barred them from the ballot., citing the 14th amendment’s section 3.

America’s standard legal system CANNOT apply to insurrection/ insurrectionists. It cannot be frivolous, but a special grand jury must be convened under certain circumstances to adjudicate the matter, and a fast tracked appeals process to the SCOTUS must be available if necessary.

If there weren’t soooool many MAGAt "republicans" still supporting the corrupt orange traitor / insurrectionist, we wouldn’t be fast approaching a constitutional crisis; but here we are…

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, it refers to due process there. It does not in the qualifications/disqualifcations section.

That is why the court must qualify which perspective should be used between the two.

So what you’re saying is those CO judges could disqualify an individual for spitting on the capital grounds ruling it as rebellious and participating in an insurrection, why? because they say so. That could lead to 50 state’s qualifying 50 different candidates with 50 different agendas while disqualifying other prospective candidates based on a whim not predicated on the rule of law.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

18 USC 2383 actually states in a round about way [ CONVICTION ] In order to be punished there must be due process under the law.

Section 2383. The law prohibits incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws. The punishment for this crime includes a fine, up to 10 years in federal prison, and ineligibility for federal public office.Nov 24, 2023

The problem with your argument is section 3 of 14th is not about crime,it is a civil process. Which has 9 cases of precedence. The last case being in 2023. So 18 USC 2383 doesn't apply.

But hey, it's all a grey area, who knows what SCOTUS will do.

 

[ll74]

So what you’re saying is those CO judges could disqualify an individual for spitting on the capital grounds ruling it as rebellious and participating in an insurrection, why? because they say so. That could lead to 50 state’s qualifying 50 different candidates with 50 different agendas while disqualifying other prospective candidates based on a whim not predicated on the rule of law.

No, because the Colorado courts have ruled based on the text of the Constitution and the evidence available. And that is why SCOTUS will do the same for all states to clarify how things should be interpreted.

That's how things work in our government.

Some of those things you may disagree with.

And every single state could also do the same, as long as SCOTUS leaves the interpretation/understanding without their input.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So what you’re saying is those CO judges could disqualify an individual for spitting on the capital grounds ruling it as rebellious and participating in an insurrection, why? because they say so. That could lead to 50 state’s qualifying 50 different candidates with 50 different agendas while disqualifying other prospective candidates based on a whim not predicated on the rule of law.

It will be interesting how Gorsuch rules on this. He's the one I'm watching.

From his 2012 Colorado ruling.

“a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

 

[icanhelp1]

No, because the Colorado courts have ruled based on the text of the Constitution and the evidence available. And that is why SCOTUS will do the same for all states to clarify how things should be interpreted.

That's how things work in our government.

Some of those things you may disagree with.

And every single state could also do the same, as long as SCOTUS leaves the interpretation/understanding without their input.

Evidence is a tool to determine guilt.

 

[ll74]

Evidence is a tool to determine guilt.

Yep. And?

 

[icanhelp1]

It will be interesting how Gorsuch rules on this. He's the one I'm watching.

From his 2012 Colorado ruling.

“a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

What is the definition of *constitutionally prohibited*? What is that predicated on?

 

[ll74]

What is the definition of *constitutionally prohibited*? What is that predicated on?

That is predicated on precedent on the established provisions within the Constitution and of there is none, they must make their own interpretation....which is what they did.

And if SCOTUS rules differently, that will then become precedent for future cases of this nature.

That's how the court system works.

 

[icanhelp1]

That is predicated on precedent on the established provisions within the Constitution and of there is none, they must make their own interpretation....which is what they did.

And if SCOTUS rules differently, that will then become precedent for future cases of this nature.

That's how the court system works.

If and when dealing with common law I would agree, however 18 USC 2383 is a federal statute. The provisions within the constitution are equal protection under the law, equal application of the law and due process. To deny, eliminate, disqualify using a federal statute requires a decision based on law, a trial and a conviction. There is no precedent for the court to make their own interpretation in this case, the statute is quite specific.

I’ll wait for the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[ll74]

If and when dealing with common law I would agree, however 18 USC 2383 is a federal statute. The provisions within the constitution are equal protection under the law, equal application of the law and due process. To deny, eliminate, disqualify using a federal statute requires a decision based on law, a trial and a conviction. There is no precedent for the court to make their own interpretation in this case, the statute is quite specific.

I’ll wait for the SCOTUS ruling.

As you should.

Your point was that states can't rule on the qualifications based on the amendment. Gorsuch has already stated that to be incorrect, as was quoted. Your logic is flawed.

And yes, SCOTUS has the final say in the matter, but if they had refused to take up the case, the Colorado ruling would be valid and enforceable.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What is the definition of *constitutionally prohibited*? What is that predicated on?

As you should.

Your point was that states can't rule on the qualifications based on the amendment. Gorsuch has already stated that to be incorrect, as was quoted. Your logic is flawed.

And yes, SCOTUS has the final say in the matter, but if they had refused to take up the case, the Colorado ruling would be valid and enforceable.

What he said. Now STFU.

 

[Rick345]

As VP Breckenridge was exempt because Sec III doesn't apply to the office of President or Vice President. However, trying to hold office as the Senator for Kentucky, Sec III would certainly apply since that's explicitly stated.

Basically, you don't know what you're talking about and are flinging bovine fertilizer again.

Why was he required to get a 2/3 majority before he even be considered? If he was exempt.. The idea VP's and P's are exempt comes from a 1888 case dealing with several county clerks charged with embezzling $10.50 I suggest you read it.. It was a one off remark which has not been been tested in court..

What makes you think that Sec III doesn't apply to the office of President or Vice President?
That somehow the President and Vice President are exempt from the constitution?
Why would anyone want that ever if it were true... That is a very dangerous concept.

 

[Rick345]

And yes, SCOTUS has the final say in the matter, but if they had refused to take up the case, the Colorado ruling would be valid and enforceable.

I can see why they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole but I don't see how they can avoid it..

 

[Rick345]

What is the definition of *constitutionally prohibited*? What is that predicated on?

This:

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.

In simple terms a person who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution and later engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States is prohibited by the constitution from running for any governmental office state or federal.

 

[ll74]

I can see why they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole but I don't see how they can avoid it..

Absolutely. They rightfully took the case and I fully expect 45 to remain on all ballots.

I will be interested in the text of their ruling though.

 

[LLCox]

The oral arguments should be televised.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Absolutely. They rightfully took the case and I fully expect 45 to remain on all ballots.

I will be interested in the text of their ruling though.

The Supreme Court is on thin ice with this one. Since Trump and his lawyer have already claimed that the Justices he appointed should rule in his favor as a quid pro quo, if he’s allowed to remain on the ballot it sends a strong message that the court is corrupt.

 

[ll74]

The Supreme Court is on thin ice with this one. Since Trump and his lawyer have already claimed that the Justices he appointed should rule in his favor as a quid pro quo, if he’s allowed to remain on the ballot it sends a strong message that the court is corrupt.

He bloviated as he always does. The court ruling for or against him, imo, is not indication of their loyalty to the man.

 

[jaF0]

Donny's Pets have ruled against him several times.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

He bloviated as he always does. The court ruling for or against him, imo, is not indication of their loyalty to the man.

I don’t give this court the benefit of the doubt. The question is will they chose self-preservation over their need to placate the Republican base? They know he’s already going to lose the election, so why go down with him?

 

[Rick345]

I don’t give this court the benefit of the doubt. The question is will they chose self-preservation over their need to placate the Republican base? They know he’s already going to lose the election, so why go down with him?

How will they go down? They have lifetime positions..