Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't just make stuff up to get someone you hate thrown off the ballot. He didn't incite an insurrection, hence he was never charged, nor was he convicted.

If you truly believe this, then you need to get news sources of information. The ones who lied to you about a stolen election, Seth rich and Vince foster are also lying to you about this.

From NPR, your favorite news source:

The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection.

The acquittal comes more than a month after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were counting the electoral results that certified Trump's loss.

“Senate Acquits Trump In Impeachment Trial — Again”

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967098840/senate-acquits-trump-in-impeachment-trial-again

It wasn’t a court of law. It was a vote by partisan politicians, not neutral judges, to remove or not remove him from office based on his conduct and actions in that office. The vote neither absolved him from being guilty of those actions nor made a definitive judicial statement about the nature of his actions, only that the majority of senators from his own party decided not to remove him from office.

You can say the same thing about the House that voted to impeach him. And the J6 committee. Neither were courts of laws but highly partisan bodies. And it must also be admitted many courts are becoming highly partisan bodies themselves too, which is also disappointing. You can't accuse a certain court like SCOTUS of being partisan without acknowledging other courts are also highly partisan in favor of the Democrats. Nonetheless, regarding the Colorado court and many of the posts on here, it is worth noting on that count that the criminal indictment of Donald Trump over January 6, filed in Washington DC in the summer, did not include an insurrection charge — focusing instead on his ‘conspiracy to defraud the United States’ over the 2020 election.

The J6 committee was bi-partisan, no matter how much you want to claim the GOP members were somehow not GOP.

Snorts with laughter.

Pelosi handpicked the few Republicans on the committee and blocked the ones the GOP wanted to recommend. It was not bipartisan by any stretch of the imagination. All the Republicans on the committee (three?) were defeated in their subsequent primaries or redistricted out or didn't run again because they knew they would lose. Cheney herself was blown out in a hugely embarrassing defeat.

Hard to call that bipartisan when the Democrats blocked the Republicans from appointing their own preferred people to the committee. It was no more bipartisan than the Republicans' decision to shut down the committee once they took control of Congress. J6 was utterly and thoroughly partisan.

This is why your party no longer exists.

You know this thread has run its course when people post stuff like this. Who controls Congress? Which party is leading in the polls for the presidency?

I don't know why I waste my time being pragmatic and realistic on the political forum.

Pssst, neither party controls Congress right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

how does a court “determine” something that? Do they “determine” larceny, rape murder or are there criminal prosecutions and convictions ?

[Anonymous]

14th Amendment:

Section 3. 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.

It does not say anything about criminal conviction. In Colorado, the State Supreme Court held a trial of due process and made a legal determination and ruling that he had indeed engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, so the condition is satisfied for him to be disqualified.

Who may appear on a state ballot is set by [i]state law. Federal law only dictates the time and place of the election, NOT who may or may not appear on the ballot. Neither Congress nor SCOTUS have any jurisdiction over state law where it comes to who may or may not appear on a ballot. That's solely a matter up to state legislatures and state courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

how does a court “determine” something that? Do they “determine” larceny, rape murder or are there criminal prosecutions and convictions ?

Trump is a rapist in a civil court decision. Does that help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

how does a court “determine” something that? Do they “determine” larceny, rape murder or are there criminal prosecutions and convictions ?

You don't understand the courts. It doesn't have to be a criminal trial with a criminal conviction, it can be a civil trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

how does a court “determine” something that?

This isn’t a criminal trial. You can read the decision here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24171350-109394065

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

how does a court “determine” something that? Do they “determine” larceny, rape murder or are there criminal prosecutions and convictions ?

Trump is a rapist in a civil court decision. Does that help?

the saddest part is you are probably a lawyer too. I hope you understand the difference between civil and criminal actions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The decision is that Trump engaged in an insurrection and is ineligible to appear on the Colorado ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

how does a court “determine” something that? Do they “determine” larceny, rape murder or are there criminal prosecutions and convictions ?

You don't understand the courts. It doesn't have to be a criminal trial with a criminal conviction, it can be a civil trial.

so civil insurrection causes of action exist and Trump was held liable or do you have no clue what you are talking about ? Stop crying a zealot. I hate Trump but this is obviously going to be overturned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

How is there not due process when this has been through a trial and worked its way up to the state Supreme Court?

so if I said you were a rapist and you are never prosecuted or convicted of rape you could be barred from elected office ? Say there was a similar clause but for rape or being a communist party member

I guess you should hope that there’s never an amendment prohibiting rapists from being president because, well, Trump’s not doing so well there either. Maybe when you use other crimes as examples to defend him, don’t pick the stuff he’s done (been charged with, or lost civil cases over, or admitted to publicly).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

Do you think that's the argument PP is making? Are you just playing devil's advocate or are you actually this simple-minded?