Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

Conviction is not the only mechanism to officially declare culpability. Ask E. Jean Carroll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

And he’s still innocent, he’s just ineligible. Same as if he was 30, or if he was born in Germany.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal for a sitting president to foment insurrections at any time, which obviously makes no sense.

If Trump is not barred from being elected, what is to stop any president losing an election in December from refusing to allow Congress to convene in January to count and certify the electoral vote. He can just gather any militia to come and prevent the electoral college from meeting at the Capitol. It doesn't have to be violent if they just barricade the Capitol and prevent the Congressmen and Senators from convening. If they were not violent, then it wouldn't be insurrection. If the military or LEO appeared, the militia would just be defending themselves from attack and ensuring a free state, but protecting the POTUS's rights.

This argument that what Trump did, in trying to impede and overturn a legally and multply recounted election that he lost, not being an insurrection and that as a then-sitting lame duck president, he have immunity would completely undermine our entire system of government by giving carte blanche power to the president to reject his departure from office, essentially declaring himself an authoritarian leader.

This is a really good point I hadn’t seen anywhere else. Bravo/a.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

Sadly, I agree with this. I've said before that America is over, and sadly, I think it really may be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well the last time democrats wanted to keep a republican off the ballot was Lincoln in 1860.

Alabama did not have President Truman on the ballot in 1948. Strom Thurmond was listed as the Democratic nominee in several Southern states, but Alabama was the only state that did not have Truman on the general election ballot at all. Several Southern states also had alternate slates of Dewey electors on the ballot, the old Black and Tan Republicans and the new Lily White Republicans. Thurmond and other segregationist Democrats joined with the Lily Whites a few years later to establish the modern Republican Party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well the last time democrats wanted to keep a republican off the ballot was Lincoln in 1860.

The last time the Republicans wanted to keep a Republican off the ballot was Trump in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the last time democrats wanted to keep a republican off the ballot was Lincoln in 1860.

The last time the Republicans wanted to keep a Republican off the ballot was Trump in 2023.

Exactly! The case was filed by six Republicans, and the Colorado Supreme Court cited a previous ruling by Justice Gorsuch in their decision.

Trump's own party did this, not Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

The court found him culpable of participating in an insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

And what's going to happen? Biden has been President for three years now, and the MAGA crazies don't believe he was fairly elected. What are we collectively suffering beyond message board whining such as your post?

[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 ?

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

I guess this is a good example of how FOX and ONANISM channel do not cover news that their viewers don’t want to hear. PP is clueless because he’s in an information bubble. It was widely covered, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans brought the case. There was a trial in which Trump participated. The evidence demonstrated that he tried to use violence to prevent Congress from transferring power to the rightful President in order to take control of the government himself. That meets even the narrowest definition of "insurrection." The Constitution says that insurrectionists, like people under 35 and people not born in the U.S., can't hold federal office.

People are bending themselves in knots trying to pretend that attempting to violently overthrow the government isn't "insurrection," or that the office of the President isn't an "office," or that a five day trial isn't due process or any number of other contortions that would prevent their cult leader from taking control of the U.S. Because they hate liberals more than they love our country.

that you need to lie to have an argument speaks volumes. Also Trump wasn’t charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Why the obsession with conviction? Did you figure out how that’s relevant yet?

DP, but we do have a presumption of innocence in our system. So a conviction, the only mechanism to officially declare culpability, seems pretty relevant.

Nope, this is legally and factually wrong. Colorado went through a legal proceeding with a finding of fact that was not disputed by the Trump team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what happens (and it seems obvious that this decision was wrong on multiple levels), this basically guarantees that the next election will be far, far worse than the last. Republicans will think that lawfare was used against their candidate, essentially rigging the election. And democrats will think a person with no legitimate basis to be on the ballot won the presidency. No matter the outcome of the election, 50% of the public will think the election is illegitimate. If you are shrugging this stuff off, you've spent exactly zero time in a war zone.

You are wrong on so many levels.

1) Conservative legal jurists not only agree with the decision, but that SCOTUS should uphold it, so it is not wrong on multiple levels.
2) Bush v Gore and rigging elections was fine when it went against Gore. Voter suppression is fine when it is black people who cannot vote. Gerrymandering is fine except in blue states. See a pattern of judicial interference?
3) democrats didn't do this. The plaintiffs are republicans and independents. That said, I don't see democrats trying to keep any candidates off the ballot, and certainly not any who didn't participate in an insurrection.
4) Trump LOST the last election, he knew it and got people ginned up with his lies to force violence at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. The only people who thought the election was illegitimate were the people he lied to. It is the same thing here and the MAGAs will fall for it again, as is evidenced by your post.

[Anonymous]

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.

1 and 2 are easy because the prosecutions are political.

[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.

1 and 2 are easy because the prosecutions are political.

How?

The litigants in this case are republicans.
The people testifying in the Jan 6 hearings and in the court cases are all republicans.