Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion

◄ 1 2 3 ... 29 30 31 ... 52 53 54 ► Go

Go to page...

12/21/2023 00:02

Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a trumper, but this ends badly for us citizens overall. Don’t care if Trump is the nominee or not, but you can’t just use courts to weaponize your opponents.

Had he been convicted of started an insurrection, I’d be onboard. But this is the worst way to do it. The ones who are ok with this are saying “hey I’m good with losing my rights and losing democracy to vote for who I want”. It has dangerous consequences.

Granted, Trump being elected is dangerous in itself. But at least the voters are making that decision. Not a handful of judges.

Be careful what you wish for…

So you are saying that someone who tried to steal an election and foment a coup shouldn't be held accountable under the terms of the US Constitution?

May as well ball up the document and toss it in the can.

You have trouble reading. So I’ll say it again.

If he’s convicted, yes, please take him off the ballot. Until then, there’s not much of a case here. You can’t take someone off based on feeling. This is the United States, we have due process. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, I DESPISE Trump. But going about it this way will not end well and only will not only have SCOTUS overturn this, but will also have people who are on the fence, will support Trump.

This isn’t difficult to understand. The people cheering for this will have a rude awakening. This isn’t the way to go about this. Convict him first, then do it this way.

Cites for your legal theory that the 14th Amendment requires a conviction in a criminal case?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe DUE PROCESS?

Maybe that Trump was ACQUITTED at impeachment of insurrection and no one in the capitol on Jan 6th has been charged with insurrection?

You really believe 4 judges are going to decide this election for the country? I'm just not seeing it. But you do you.

SCOTUS is going to shoot this ruling down. Take that like it's coming from the burning bush.

The CoSC addressed that:
https://www.cato.org/blog/agree-it-or-not-colorado-supreme-courts-opinion-disqualifying-trump-triumph-judicial

Trump’s team also argued that the expedited procedures required under the Election Code deprived him of due process. But as the court rightly pointed out, that was exactly the type of constitutional argument that Trump argued the other side was making and which can’t be made in this case. Instead, any constitutional challenges (rather than a statutory challenge based on a “wrongful act”) must be brought under the normal jurisdictional rules that apply to constitutional cases. And in any event, election challenges must move quickly given their nature, the procedures in this case were thorough, and Trump did not identify any particular ways in which he was supposedly denied a fair hearing. (Over at Reason, Ilya Somin argues that depriving someone of public office doesn’t deprive them of life, liberty, or property, and therefore the Due Process Clause doesn’t even apply.)

If he is going to legally claim he was deprived of due process, he needs to file that claim in federal district court, not disagree with the CoSC decision because that's a constitutional, e.g. federal claim, not a state claim. The state acted within their jurisdiction to restrict him from the ballot. Colorado and the Colorado judicial system were not holding a criminal trial for him, they were only evaluating his eligibility for inclusion on the ballot. They held a 5-day trial in November to evaluate and determine that his actions on January 6 met the definition of engaging in insurrection which made him ineligible to be on the Colorado state allot for president. They have no jurisdiction to decide whether he was criminally convictable. But Trump's lawyers participated in the 5-day trial and Trump was invited to testify and declined. So, they have provided him adequate due process.

Even if he did want to claim he was deprived of due process, the clause does not apply here because neither the court ruling nor the court decision are covered by the due process clause. One doesn't have a constitutional right to be put on a ballot for president nor to be elected president. Presidential aspiration is a privilege, not a right and denying him that does not threaten his life, liberty or property.

I supposed that since the primary reason for him to run for reelection is to evade his various court troubles and the 91 counts against him, that denying him the chance to be president again could be construed as denying him liberty because without becoming president again, he very likely faces prison time for either the New York, the Georgia or the federal cases against him.