Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Colorado Presidential primary is winner take all pledged delegates to the Republican National Convention. Trump could tell his supporters to all vote for Vivek, elect Trump supporters as the convention delegates pledged to Vivek, and then when Vivek formally withdraws before the convention, his delegates are released from their pledge and can vote for Trump at the convention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Colorado Presidential primary is winner take all pledged delegates to the Republican National Convention. Trump could tell his supporters to all vote for Vivek, elect Trump supporters as the convention delegates pledged to Vivek, and then when Vivek formally withdraws before the convention, his delegates are released from their pledge and can vote for Trump at the convention.

If the SCOTUS says Trump is not eligible under the 14th amendment, then if the GOP nominates him, he still wouldn't be eligible. So what does your hypothetical solve?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

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 ?

There are no requirements or disqualifications for religions, which is why Bernie Sanders, a Jew, and Vivek Ramaswamy, a Hindu, were both considered eligible to run for POTUS.

And a state that made Muslims ineligible for office would have the law overturned because the first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is against federal law for there to be a restriction based on religion, so states would not be allowed to violate that federal law.

[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 ?

There are no requirements or disqualifications for religions, which is why Bernie Sanders, a Jew, and Vivek Ramaswamy, a Hindu, were both considered eligible to run for POTUS.

And a state that made Muslims ineligible for office would have the law overturned because the first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is against federal law for there to be a restriction based on religion, so states would not be allowed to violate that federal law.

The Supreme Court also basically established their specific religious beliefs as abortion law in forced birther states, so let’s not pretend that the GOP cares a tinkle about the separation of church and state. They don’t; they are trying to establish a theocracy.

But it’s a red herring in this thread about Trump. Trump is unfit; so are a bunch of Republican electeds.

[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 ?

Well the current protections of the 2nd amendment are arguing that it's the 18th century and private citizens are a militia designed to protect the right to a free state. So if you think that the 14th amendment from the 19th century is outdated, then the 2nd amendment from the 18th century should also be outdate and that there is no need for private citizens to maintain or be a member of a militia.

And no, the argument is not that he is a confederate. The 14th amendment does not specify that they be a member of the Confederacy. It specifies those that engage in insurrection (violent rebellion against the government). Trump gave his speech at the Jan 6 rally and urged his followers to march up to the Capitol and object to certain Congressmen performing their Constitutionally mandated jobs. He also encouraged Mike Pence to take actions that he was not legally entitled to take. So, he definitely engaged in the mob that descended on the Capitol and there is no lack of evidence that the mob behaved violently causing a significant amount of injury and damage and tried to interfere with Congress passing the electoral college vote, a Constitutionally mandated process. So, there was definitely violent rebellion to prevent the government from operating and duly electing their next commander-in-chief. That's insurrection; and Trump most definitely engaged in the acts of January 6.

[Anonymous]

If the Supreme Court says that the office of President isn't an "office" or that attempting to violently overthrow the United States government isn't an "insurrection," then the state courts are probably stuck with the Supreme Court's Humpty-Dumpty definitions.

But, if they didn't weigh in on the subject and then Trump were to win the national Republican primary, he'd still likely be off the ballot in Colorado. (Someone would bring a similar challenge with respect to the general election and the courts would follow the same path.) Part of our federalist structure is seen in state-level ballot access procedures.

[Anonymous]

Another cold hard irony that Republicans will have to deal with is the fact that the Colorado decision rode on case law that was settled by none other than Trump-appointed SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch.

[Anonymous]

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 ?

They would protected under the voting rights in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution about primaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Colorado Presidential primary is winner take all pledged delegates to the Republican National Convention. Trump could tell his supporters to all vote for Vivek, elect Trump supporters as the convention delegates pledged to Vivek, and then when Vivek formally withdraws before the convention, his delegates are released from their pledge and can vote for Trump at the convention.

If the SCOTUS says Trump is not eligible under the 14th amendment, then if the GOP nominates him, he still wouldn't be eligible. So what does your hypothetical solve?

Nothing in that case. I believe that SCOTUS is not going to uphold the CO Supremes ruling that Trump is disqualified but they also won’t restore the lower court ruling that he engaged in insurrection but is not an officer. They may send it back to the lower court with a narrow definition of insurrection meant for the court to find that Trump’s actions are not insurrection. I don’t think this will be 100% resolved soon and Trump may be on the ballot but with some question that his votes could be voided if he is later found to be ineligible.

[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?

Sounds like you don't know the definition of insurrection.

That’s Rob DeSantis’s rubber/glue argument. It’s… not a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

The Republicans who brought the suit didn’t think an insurrectionist should be eligible to run. The CO SC heard the case and agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Colorado Presidential primary is winner take all pledged delegates to the Republican National Convention. Trump could tell his supporters to all vote for Vivek, elect Trump supporters as the convention delegates pledged to Vivek, and then when Vivek formally withdraws before the convention, his delegates are released from their pledge and can vote for Trump at the convention.

If the SCOTUS says Trump is not eligible under the 14th amendment, then if the GOP nominates him, he still wouldn't be eligible. So what does your hypothetical solve?

Nothing in that case. I believe that SCOTUS is not going to uphold the CO Supremes ruling that Trump is disqualified but they also won’t restore the lower court ruling that he engaged in insurrection but is not an officer. They may send it back to the lower court with a narrow definition of insurrection meant for the court to find that Trump’s actions are not insurrection. I don’t think this will be 100% resolved soon and Trump may be on the ballot but with some question that his votes could be voided if he is later found to be ineligible.

How can the Commander in Chief not be an officer of the country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like someone is smoking too much marijuana out in CO.

Trump must be on the ballot. Or CO will turn into a total $hith*le state.

I really don’t need to read any other replies. This this this.

Why a group of democrat judges thought a completely partisan ruling was wise is beyond me.

Narrator: it was republicans that brought the case.