Colorado Supremes kick Trump off ballot

he'll be on that ballot:

Trump back on ballot in Colorado while state Republicans appeal ban to Supreme Court

something similar was just shot down in MI, all this means is the state of Colorado is going to print up the ballots with Trump's name on them next week - check out this by the Maine SOS:

Maine secretary of state rules Trump ineligible for state's 2024 primary ballot

$$$$$$$$$ for Trump, this is tyranny.

 

Don’t get too excited. Trump has almost no chance of winning the immunity case. This is all about delay in hopes that he can win the election, or have another candidate win the election so they can pardon him.

The DC circuit court has already scheduled the hearings in a matter of days and will likely reject Trump’s claim of immunity very quickly. This is a matter of settled law (it is why Nixon needed a pardon from Ford), so Trump doesn’t have much of a case. (Go read the filings from both sides if you doubt me.) At that point, Trump will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, hoping they will take the better part of a year to make a decision. They are just as likely to reject the case (since it is a matter of settled law and they already have a “hot potato” case with “Trump versus the 14th Amendment”) as they are to accept it. Even if they accept it, it will likely be decided quickly and the Jack Smith prosecution can easily conclude their case before the election if they begin by June or July.

The Supreme Court has no need to undertake the case since there is already established precedent, unlike the the question of a former President who was apparently involved in an insurrection plot (fake electors, January 6th actions, etc.) who is trying to regain the presidency. That question is more than enough of a fast-track burden on the Court given how the lunatic fringes on the left and the right are likely to react, no matter the decision.

No man is above the law (that’s part of the “rule of law” thing that you claim you support), so I’m sure you understand that Trump is simply stalling for time.

Trump’s claim of immunity is a claim to be a sovereign monarch, which is ridiculously unAmerican and unconstitutional. If a President is determined to be immune from prosecution for criminal activity during his Presidency, then that means that Biden doesn’t have to leave office and can take unconstitutional actions against Donald Trump and all persons Biden does not like.

I hope no one wants to give a President that power, but many so-called Republicans are too cowardly to say so because they fear scorn from MAGA folks.

 

If the conservative Supreme Court Justices abide by their stated of “original intent,” then it is extremely relevant that it came out of the aftermath of the Civil War. The nation was trying to determine who, if anyone, would be prosecuted for treason, and whether or not former Confederate politicians would be allowed to run again for office to Congress to represent the former Confederate states after participating in an insurrection.

Historically, I think the only person indicted for treason was Jefferson Davis, the former Confederate President (someone please correct me if I have missed some others). And he was only indicted, not tried for the crime.

The 14th Amendment DOES NOT require someone to have been found guilty of an insurrection. Historically, no one from the Confederacy was “found guilty” of an insurrection, it was simply apparent by a reasonable assessment of the facts. In the same way, the lower court in Colorado determined, based on publicly known facts, that Donald Trump participated in an insurrection (not just January 6th events) and has given aid and comfort to those who used violence against the government. The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the assessment was correct. The Supreme Court may have a different opinion, but according to the “original intent” and historical practice around the 14th Amendment, Trump does not even have to be indicted of insurrection to be disqualified.

—

If they believe in right of states to run elections as they see fit, then he would not want to get involved. But I really don’t think they have much of a choice here since it is a pressing question in more than just Colorado.

This is Republican-led almost all the way. The legal theory for the 14th Amendment disqualifying Trump from the ballot came from a careful analysis of the 14th Amendment entitled, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three” (of the 14th Amendment) prepared by William Maude and Michael Stokes Paulsen — both conservative Republicans and members of the Federalist Society — for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 2024. Almost all of the witnesses against Trump are Republicans, and many of his codefendants and attorneys have taken plea deals. You can believe what you want, but the facts are against you.

 

Because there is. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean others don't know things.

If you don't know where to start, look up the actual court documents for Trump's immunity claims -- read what the Trump team has written and then compare it to how Jack Smith's team has responded. They both cite the legal precedents, Smith much more than Trump.

 

It doesn't matter what we think about it, it is the law of the land. And the Supreme Court has (in theory) to rule on the Constitution as it is, not how you or I might want it to be.

For instance, I don't think the clause that gave the Three-Fifths Compromise should have been included in the Constitution but this same 14th Amendment (Section 2) nullified the language. I don't think the 18th Amendment should have been ratified, but it was nullified by the 21st Amendment. There is a process to change the Constitution, but a case before the Supreme Court is not where that is done.

I'm not a constitutional expert, but I imagine the Justices could potentially make an argument that the due process rights of American citizens overrule Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but that would be an activist and novel approach for "conservative" members of the court. Moreover, I have not yet had the opportunity to read all of the arguments that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing or not, so I could be missing a salient point for or against. I'm not going to comment much more since I haven't completed all of the reading of the most relevant documents. I like to deal in facts, not emotionally-motivated opinions or wish-casting.

You are using an extremely narrow lens to look at insurrection claim. You have apparently limited it to merely the actions of those who entered the Capitol instead of all the relevant events before and afterward, including the fake elector scheme; Trump's invitation to come to Washington D.C. for a "wild" event; his inaction during the assault on the Capitol (as well as refusal to act); and his "aid and comfort" to those who committed violent acts against Congress.

 

I do not know of ANY amendments applicable to one generation.

The 14th Amendment is certainly applicable as a principle -- even Section 3 -- since no one who supports the Constitution want to put people in positions of power in our government who want to undermine the Constitution itself. And that's what an insurrection is... undermining the constitutional rule of law.

 

Sheesh, a complicated thread has gotten even more complicated. Now you're talking about presidential immunity as well as the Colorado case. They are intertwined in a sense, but both are going to go up to SCOTUS and I'm glad - this needs to be settled once and for all.

Starting with the immunity case, more of an uncharted territory thing. Look, there's never been a former POTUS in the country's history that has been indicted or prosecuted for anything that happened in the presidency. As someone above has said, Nixon did get that pardon, but it wasn't because Ford thought Nixon didn't have immunity - he may have, he may not have, Ford didn't want to "go there". But there we are.

What's SCOTUS gonna do? You never know, but I don't see how Trump could be convicted of insurrection. He was tried in the Senate and acquitted - if that had never happened:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

That implies to me that indicting Trump for insurrection is double jeopardy. I think SCOTUS will narrow down the immunity question as specifically as possible to avoid an "anything goes, he's untouchable" ruling to a "you can indict him for anything, Let's dig up Thomas Jefferson now" ruling. So I think the court will decide Trump has immunity for Jan 6 in the end.

Now that other case, Colorado and Maine, there's several ways that could go. Hmmm, Most likely, a reversal for sure, due process would actually be a harder path for Trump because the court would have to say that the disqualification procedure was wrong and how, and that would tell them exactly how to disqualify him (and Biden and anyone else). SCOTUS could overturn it without comment, and doing that would beget even MORE lawsuits

Guess they could squint their eyes and claim that the president is NOT an officer of the US, so no section 3, very unlikely. A little more probable is to rule that disqualification under section 3 is an exclusive federal issue, they just can't. And there's no way SCOTUS will say Trump wasn't an officer of the US at the time, nor will they delay a ruling. They could say these two states are full of it, they might have thought it was an insurrection, but it wasn't but the easiest way to do this is to define "insurrection" and then explain why Jan 6 wasn't. That's the most likely outcome, SCOTUS tries to go out of its way to resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds and here it is! Don't see how they can duck that on the immunity case, though .....