Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be overturned by SCOTUS, likely by a 9-0 decision.

And, the Colorado Supreme Court will lose credibility and be revealed to be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

We'll see, won't we? There's a lot of hopeful projection that it'll be overturned in this thread. We're not the ones you need to convince.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could a court “determine” someone a rapist without a criminal conviction or even a civil assault verdict? What else can courts determine? Could a court determine Obama to be a “traitor”?

Are you just trying to get people to google “Judge confirms Trump is a rapist”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

Does the constitution — the one you guys are always waving in people’s faces as the ultimate arbiter of our rights and who want the words in the constitution to mean exactly what they say and no more — say specifically that a person has to be tried and convicted in order for the 14th Amendment to kick in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

Does the constitution — the one you guys are always waving in people’s faces as the ultimate arbiter of our rights and who want the words in the constitution to mean exactly what they say and no more — say specifically that a person has to be tried and convicted in order for the 14th Amendment to kick in?

can you show me any other part of the constitution you think the due process clause doesn’t apply to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In that case, they couldn't pursue a criminal trial because the statute of limitations had expired, but they could still prove it in a civil trial and then held him liable for damages.

And, let's not forget that Kathy Hochul signed a law that allowed this to happen..... We know it was an effort to target one person.
Nov., 2022
"The Adult Survivors Act went into effect on Thursday, giving survivors a one-year window to file civil suits."
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-adult-survivors-act-sexual-assault-trump-jean-carroll-2022-11

Are you pro-rapist? Sounds like you don’t believe in being on the victims’ side. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could a court “determine” someone a rapist without a criminal conviction or even a civil assault verdict? What else can courts determine? Could a court determine Obama to be a “traitor”?

Are you just trying to get people to google “Judge confirms Trump is a rapist”?

I think a lot of Republican voters exist in a constant state of agony, aware that they’re defending a criminal but still so beholden to the tribe and its increasingly outlandish beliefs that they’re still online, crap posting lies and nonsense.

We see you. You used to be normal. You know when you went to the dark side; you can still come back.

For anyone curious, Lawfare is tracking all the states that have or have had suits similar to Colorado: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

Does the constitution — the one you guys are always waving in people’s faces as the ultimate arbiter of our rights and who want the words in the constitution to mean exactly what they say and no more — say specifically that a person has to be tried and convicted in order for the 14th Amendment to kick in?

can you show me any other part of the constitution you think the due process clause doesn’t apply to?

Why don’t you answer the previous question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In that case, they couldn't pursue a criminal trial because the statute of limitations had expired, but they could still prove it in a civil trial and then held him liable for damages.

And, let's not forget that Kathy Hochul signed a law that allowed this to happen..... We know it was an effort to target one person.
Nov., 2022
"The Adult Survivors Act went into effect on Thursday, giving survivors a one-year window to file civil suits."
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-adult-survivors-act-sexual-assault-trump-jean-carroll-2022-11

That act was designed to help victims of child abuse particularly by catholic priests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be overturned by SCOTUS, likely by a 9-0 decision.

And, the Colorado Supreme Court will lose credibility and be revealed to be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

We'll see, won't we? There's a lot of hopeful projection that it'll be overturned in this thread. We're not the ones you need to convince.

I would never try to convince you. Just stating the obvious. And, not even hopeful projection.
Go out and celebrate this decision now, because it will not be long before it is overturned and you will be back to other measures like screaming "threat to democracy!" and "dictator!" when this court has proven itself to be more of a threat to democracy than Trump would ever be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

"We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could a court “determine” someone a rapist without a criminal conviction or even a civil assault verdict? What else can courts determine? Could a court determine Obama to be a “traitor”?

Are you just trying to get people to google “Judge confirms Trump is a rapist”?

I think a lot of Republican voters exist in a constant state of agony, aware that they’re defending a criminal but still so beholden to the tribe and its increasingly outlandish beliefs that they’re still online, crap posting lies and nonsense.

We see you. You used to be normal. You know when you went to the dark side; you can still come back.

For anyone curious, Lawfare is tracking all the states that have or have had suits similar to Colorado: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker

And, I am sure they will write a lengthy piece about the 14th amendment once this decision is overturned and other states either drop their suits or are forced to drop their suits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

"We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection."

Trial? The J6 committee? LOL. Much of that "evidence" this court cites was hearsay and would nover be allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's basically three defenses for Trump:
1. January 6 wasn't an insurrection.
2. It was, but Trump wasn't a part of it.
3. The 14th Amendment doesn't matter.

#1 is tough because there are people in federal prison right now serving multi-decade sentences for seditious conspiracy.

#2 is going to get really tough once Trump's trial gets underway.

#3 will be where they hang their hats.

Didn't Trump say that he would pardon the "insurrectionists'?

Yup I hope at trial they play all his incoherent rants about helping the insurrectionists!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

This isn’t about him being guilty of a crime. This is about him being ineligible for the ballot. Imagine if Trump was a Colorado voter and brought a lawsuit saying that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t eligible. There would then be a trial with facts presented and disputed by either side and the court would determine which outcome prevailed. Exactly what happened here.