Colorado Supremes kick Trump off ballot

[canadyjd]

So DT, at this time, is off the primary ballot in Colorado based on the decision by the Colorado State Supreme Court. Do we support States rights in elections or not?

First, the decision was stayed by the Colorado Supremes (someone noted above) to give the SCOTUS a chance to hear the appeal. There is a very short period of time for DT to file the appeal and for the SCOTUS to agree to hear. Otherwise, it goes into affect within a few weeks (I think). The timing is odious.

The State of Colorado cannot supersede Federal election law. The GOP (as well as all other parties) has a constitutional right to nominate candidates for public office.

The GOP has complied with Colorado law concerning nominations. The libs don’t like DT so they want to deprive his voters of their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice. That is an attack on democracy. The libs are destroying this country and the rule of law.

If you look at the election law, I suspect any write in votes for historical figures like Jesus will not be counted by the SOS.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Well, just write Jesus in again, Austin. What do you care, there's no way He'd ever win Minnesota.

zactly - Woke Jack tried to have the ruling fast-tracked, expedited, in order to have Trump in court just around Super Tuesday and it blew up in his face. I have to wonder why Jack thought it was just so urgent seeing as this "case" happened three years ago.

due process
Moore v. Harper - Wikipedia

Nobody thinks it'll stand, but they'd probably just go to a caucus if it did. Orange man bad. Orange man elusive. But Orange Man bad.

I truly think these two cases have been coordinated by the Dems.

Smith is attempting to push the SCOTUS into a corner. They ruled his case must go to the lower court. If they send the Colorado case to the lower court (9th circuit California), then it appears the ruling will stand, the stay lifted and DT off the ballot for the primary.

If the SCOTUS takes the Colorado case, then the death threats against the Justices will begin and accusations of a “Trump Court” not following their own precedent (let the lower court decide first) will be the mantra throughout the lib press.

It is an assault on democracy by the highest court in Colorado and was executed in a particularly partisan and underhanded manner.

The only good news, imo, is that it makes DT (and the GOP) more likely to do well in Colorado.

peace to you

 

[777]

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Just saw SCOTUS has declined to hear Smiths case about whether DT has immunity.

This means that case must be heard by the lower court first, then a ruling, then an appeal then another ruling before the trail begins.

No way that gets done before March (current trial date) and could push that trial beyond 2024 election.

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.

Maybe the rule of law will win out after all.

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

Don’t get too excited? Really? We are witnessing in real time a coordinated plot by libs in general and Dems in particular to undermine democracy in the US. They are destroying our institutions, they are attacking our constitution, they undermining the rule of law.

They are attempting to kick DT off the ballot for “insurrection” (14th Amendment) without DT ever being charged, let alone convicted, of insurrection.

Yeah, it’s time to get excited, get organized and vote the bums out

BTW, I don’t believe Nixon was ever charged with a crime. He resigned to avoid impeachment. Ford “pardoned” him to end the “long national nightmare”.

Not sure why you think there is “settled law” concerning immunity for the actions of presidents taken while they are president.

peace to you

 

[Baptist Believer]

I don't think it matters that the amendment originally grew out of the Civil War (as it was made an amendment to the US Constitution).

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 main issue, IMHO, is that Colorado determined Trump's guilt without due process. Trump has not been found guilty of insurrection.

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.

—

Roberts hates to get involved in state rulings. I see him as potentially just refusing to hear it.

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.

I will say again, this smells of a coordinated assault on democracy by liberals.

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Not sure why you think there is “settled law” concerning immunity for the actions of presidents taken while they are president.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Then the 14th Amendment should never have been written (an Amendment is to the US Constitution which is the law of the US).

That said, it would be up to the SCOTUS to decide if the amendment applies to others who attempt an insurrection.

And.....that said....I do not believe that Trump committed insurrection. Those who physically entered the US Capitol with the intent to disrupt Congress are insurrections by definition. But Trump did not participate in a violent act against the US Government (most of the protestors didn't....but many did).

 

[Baptist Believer]

Then the 14th Amendment should never have been written (an Amendment is to the US Constitution which is the law of the US).

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.

And.....that said....I do not believe that Trump committed insurrection. Those who physically entered the US Capitol with the intent to disrupt Congress are insurrections by definition. But Trump did not participate in a violent act against the US Government (most of the protestors didn't....but many did).

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Are there any other Amendments that were only applicable for one generation?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Are there any other Amendments that were only applicable for one generation?

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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.

You stated Ford had to pardon Nixon because it was “settled law” sitting presidents could be indicted and charged.

I pointed out Nixon was never indicted or charged before Ford pardoned him.

Smith has proven himself to be a partisan political hack. He has charged DT with having docs which DT told them they could have and they declined and told him to put a lock on the door, which he did.

Biden had classified Ukraine docs in his garage, that his crack head son and whoever happened to be with him could access.

Now, according to you statement above, Biden should be indicted simply by following the precedent Smith has set with DT.

Have you ever called for Biden to be indicted?

I didn’t think so.

Glad to see you are posting again.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

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.

So a group trying to stop the government from performing its Constitutional duty by undermining the Constitutional rule of law via violence doesn't fall under the Amendment?

 

[777]

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 .....