Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

How will it apply to all states when this is based on Colorado law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The Republicans are the ones suing to keep him off the ballot, so they need to internally huddle I think. Or it could be that the Colorado Republicans are innovating by showing some decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will it apply to all states when this is based on Colorado law?

Are you saying they used a Colorado state definition of insurrection ? But it’s a federal crime and if the crime took place it occurred in DC .

[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?

Do you know the definition of "insurrection", you #$%#$ moron?

OP likely doesn't even know the .meaning of #$%#$ moron! When speaking to members of the Deplorables Basket, you need to remember they are functionally illiterate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will it apply to all states when this is based on Colorado law?

Colorado Supreme Court is (1) interpreting the US Constitution to disqualify Trump from serving in office, and then (2) applying state law that an ineligible candidate cannot be on the ballot. If the SCOTUS says Trump isn’t disqualified under the US Constitution, there is no state law question. It’s pretty simple. All that matters is the SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th Amendment with regard to Trump’s coup attempt.

[Anonymous]

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

Serious question, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Serious question, why?

I mean you can read the answer in the question. Poster is 'owning the libs'. This is the extent of most of their "thinking".

[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?

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

Due process does not mean criminal process, even if the alleged facts could be prosecuted as a crime. Not all criminal acts are processed in a criminal system. Lets take a PP's rape example.

The government can decline to prosecute a man for rape, or prosecute through trial resulting in a acquittal. Note: declining to prosecute and acquittal do not mean the man is innocent. Convicted or not, the criminal trial is due process.

The rape victim may then sue the man in civil court alleging rape. Without regard to the criminal matter, she can win and the court can award damages for the rape. See, e.g. the OJ murder and wrongful death cases. This is due process in a rape case without a criminal conviction.

Even if both of those cases have rulings in favor of the rapist, lets say they work together, and she tells HR about the rape, they do a sound internal investigation and reasonably conclude that the rape occurred and fire him. "Due process" does not apply to that situation because the employer isn't the government and most employees are employed at will. Same if he's on a Board of Directors and gets voted off because of the rape.

But maybe he decides to sue the employer for wrongful discharge or the Board for defamation, which he is entitled to do. In spite of the other two proceedings, a court can conclude that the rapist's wrongful discharge case fails because the employer's conclusion that a rape occurred was reasonable, or that the claim for defamation fails because truth is a defense that is found to apply here. Again, that is affording due process without a criminal proceeding.

So, as no particular process is provided in this constitutional article except for a process by which a ban can be lifted (via Congress), the question is, what is due process here? Is it self-executing, or was Congress supposed to have enacted legislation addressing the issue, but forgot to do so over the past 155 years? In prior cases where this clause was used to ban a person from office, what process was used or required?

We shall have to wait and see how this shakes out, but the "due process means it has to be a criminal proceeding" crowd is simply wrong.

[Anonymous]

I am old enough to remember two impeachments of Trump where the GOP senators said they would not vote to remove because it should be left to the courts.

Well, here is a court that has spoken, and now the GOP are saying, no no no, it should be the ballot box.

Yet, the restrict voting rights, to many Americans and gut the Voting Rights Act...so they really don't mean that either.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am old enough to remember two impeachments of Trump where the GOP senators said they would not vote to remove because it should be left to the courts.

Well, here is a court that has spoken, and now the GOP are saying, no no no, it should be the ballot box.

Yet, the restrict voting rights, to many Americans and gut the Voting Rights Act...so they really don't mean that either.

What you cite, plus the GOP’s creation of Project 2025 should remove anyone’s doubt that the GOP has abandoned democracy. They don’t give a crap about due rights or anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

If Trump is barred from the ballot in Colorado his write-in votes would not count either.

[Anonymous]

Thinking about the Colorado decision / insurrection compared to Bush v. Gore in 2000. This one seems a lot easier for a court - any court - to justify affecting an election. It’s not like they’d be removing him from office, just saying he can’t run. Republican Party is welcome to nominate someone else.

[Anonymous]

Being part of an insurrection is a disqualifying characteristic to hold office... Just like there are age requirements and nationality requirements


The funny thing is Trump tried to get Obama disqualified by trying to prove he was from Kenya but we know how that turned out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Serious question, why?

Why do people say dumb sh-- like "just leave." No . . . that's not how America works, actually. And I'll stay, thank you, to make his job of becoming a tyrant as impossible as I can. Mmmmk, first pP?