Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SCOTUS determined in 2000 the states run elections not the federal government. SCOTUS seems to be for state rights, and I also the Republicans claim. But I guess only when it’s in their favor.

so if you believe this and a state made Muslims ineligible for office you think federal courts would not do something ?

On what basis would Muslims not be eligible? If they are 35 and natural born citizens, then they would be eligible.

I guess if there is as a Constitutional Amendment to that effect (similar to the insurrection one in existence?) Is this what the PP is arguing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SCOTUS determined in 2000 the states run elections not the federal government. SCOTUS seems to be for state rights, and I also the Republicans claim. But I guess only when it’s in their favor.

so if you believe this and a state made Muslims ineligible for office you think federal courts would not do something ?

On what basis would Muslims not be eligible? If they are 35 and natural born citizens, then they would be eligible.

35, natural born citizens and haven’t fomented an insurrection.

[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:

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?

The filings in this case had nothing to do with criminal prosecution.

that’s the freaking point. Insurrection is a crime he hasn’t been convicted of

The 14th Amendment does not stipulate that one needs to have been convicted of insurrection. So you are conjuring up a standard that does not exist.

so could Texas say that Biden has engaged in insurrection over border policy and keep him off the ballot?

Looks like you don't need a reason... Just a feeling.

Wrong. There was a 5 day court case (you know, that whole due process thingy) with evidence, testimony etc. It wasn't "just a feeling"

[Anonymous]

Non important question (from a Democrat): assuming the right wing Supreme Court keeps their corrupt paws off this one, who does the Colorado GOP put on their ballots? Whoever wins the primary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Non important question (from a Democrat): assuming the right wing Supreme Court keeps their corrupt paws off this one, who does the Colorado GOP put on their ballots? Whoever wins the primary?

They’re talking about doing away with the primary, and holding a caucus instead. I’m not sure how that would help Trump’s name get on the ballot in the general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it hinges on the US Constitution the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter. Whatever they decide will be binding on the other 50 states.

I have zero doubt that the "originalists" and "textualists" will find a reason to say that the plain language of the 14th Amendment can't possibly really mean what it says.

THIS.

LBH, this is already decided in the minds of Thomas and the Trump nominated and supported candidates. And it is disgusting.
Clarence, at the least, should not be permitted to be on this case.

And they can parse it however they want. But, Trump incited and encouraged Jan. 6. He has ZERO business being able to run and if the 14th Amendment has any meaning, he will be kept off the ballot for the violent, treasonous, anti-American POS he is. And if he doesn't then we are all screwed. AND this SCOTUS will cement itself as the most corrupt illegitimate SCOTUS in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Non important question (from a Democrat): assuming the right wing Supreme Court keeps their corrupt paws off this one, who does the Colorado GOP put on their ballots? Whoever wins the primary?

I think this case was to determine whether he goes on the primary ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering. If / when Trump wins in 2024, what will you all do?

You can scream about rules and processes or what may or may not have happened on J6 and what Turnip may or may not have done on J6, the fact remains he is the leading R candidate by an enormous margin, staggeringly enormous. And is effectively tied with Biden in the polls.

Is it "democratic" to block Trump from the ballot? Certainly not to the people prepared to vote for him. To them, it would be undemocratic. Have you thought about this and the implications? Just maybe you can use legal trickery to block him but the political price to pay, is it worth it?

That's funny because it's not like a democracy is a free-for-all.

The people who are willing to vote for him will say anything is or isn't "democratic" if it suits their agenda. Was it democratic for the GOP to block a vote for Merrick Garland? See how that works. And, Merrick Garland wasn't a threat to the Republic.

[Anonymous]

I can’t wait to VOTE FOR TRUMP. Please leave if it makes you unhappy when he is elected again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non important question (from a Democrat): assuming the right wing Supreme Court keeps their corrupt paws off this one, who does the Colorado GOP put on their ballots? Whoever wins the primary?

I think this case was to determine whether he goes on the primary ballot.

The general election ballot would have the Republican nominees for President and VP, no matter what happened in the state’s Presidential preference primary. But the justification for keeping him off the primary ballot is because he is not eligible to take office because of the 14th Amendment. That ruling would also disqualify him from the general election ballot if the Republican convention nominated him. That’s why the SCOTUS has to make a ruling on the 14th amendment that would apply to every state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non important question (from a Democrat): assuming the right wing Supreme Court keeps their corrupt paws off this one, who does the Colorado GOP put on their ballots? Whoever wins the primary?

I think this case was to determine whether he goes on the primary ballot.

The general election ballot would have the Republican nominees for President and VP, no matter what happened in the state’s Presidential preference primary. But the justification for keeping him off the primary ballot is because he is not eligible to take office because of the 14th Amendment. That ruling would also disqualify him from the general election ballot if the Republican convention nominated him. That’s why the SCOTUS has to make a ruling on the 14th amendment that would apply to every state.

So the 14th amendment would not apply to all states but the 2nd does?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait to VOTE FOR TRUMP. Please leave if it makes you unhappy when he is elected again!

NP. Show him your support the real way—send him money!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait to VOTE FOR TRUMP. Please leave if it makes you unhappy when he is elected again!

Well, hopefully you don't live in Colorado (unless you're planning to vote for him as a write-in candidate).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non important question (from a Democrat): assuming the right wing Supreme Court keeps their corrupt paws off this one, who does the Colorado GOP put on their ballots? Whoever wins the primary?

I think this case was to determine whether he goes on the primary ballot.

The general election ballot would have the Republican nominees for President and VP, no matter what happened in the state’s Presidential preference primary. But the justification for keeping him off the primary ballot is because he is not eligible to take office because of the 14th Amendment. That ruling would also disqualify him from the general election ballot if the Republican convention nominated him. That’s why the SCOTUS has to make a ruling on the 14th amendment that would apply to every state.

So the 14th amendment would not apply to all states but the 2nd does?

Of course it applies to all states, but they don’t each get to make their own interpretation. The SCOTUS interpretation with regard to Trump and the 14th will apply to all states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering. If / when Trump wins in 2024, what will you all do?

You can scream about rules and processes or what may or may not have happened on J6 and what Turnip may or may not have done on J6, the fact remains he is the leading R candidate by an enormous margin, staggeringly enormous. And is effectively tied with Biden in the polls.

Is it "democratic" to block Trump from the ballot? Certainly not to the people prepared to vote for him. To them, it would be undemocratic. Have you thought about this and the implications? Just maybe you can use legal trickery to block him but the political price to pay, is it worth it?

you understand that trump lost the election in 2020 by the majority and electoral vote, right? And what was trump's reaction? To create a mirage of lies that the election was stolen, to foment an insurrection with the hope that the fake elector scheme would somehow work.

Was THAT democratic? Should Trump be rewarded for his efforts to steal the 2020 election by having another shot at it?