Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many judges decided the election for the country in 2000?

I was responding to the person who stated this was a unanimous decision. It was not. I guess you didn't catch that?

[Anonymous]

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.

He has not been convicted of what you're accusing him of. Is this super complicated for you?

Show where in the Constitution a "conviction" is the threshold.

Per PP, Robert E. Lee was eligible to be President after the civil war because he wasn't convicted of a crime that hadn't been written at the time he took up arms against the United States. That's some good originalism for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

BTW another major case heading to SCOTUS that will have ramifications for most of the J6 protestors arrested and prosecuted and convicted. If SCOTUS rules against DOJ and there's strong suggestions they will, most of the convictions will be overturned and the protesters released. And this will be in the summer of 2024. Just in time for the election. Oy vey indeed. Feeling like 2024 is shaping up to be an utter and complete disaster for the Democrats.

Some legal pundits have opined that Chief Justice Roberts does not want a repeat of the 2000 election where the Supreme Court played a very direct role. It would seem likely that the Supreme Court would prefer to let the voters decide this time around.

Roberts is basically a quivering bowl of jello. He’ll do whatever his paymasters tell him. He doesn’t think.

You might be surprised if one of the liberal justices also agrees that the Supreme Court should not play a direct role either. Both conservative and liberal justices have often sided with the other in various opinions.

Yes, Old enough to remember when they refused to get involved in Gore/Bush.

Gore asked for a recount in four specific counties and no others. Nope.

[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.

He has not been convicted of what you're accusing him of. Is this super complicated for you?

Show where in the Constitution a "conviction" is the threshold.

Per PP, Robert E. Lee was eligible to be President after the civil war because he wasn't convicted of a crime that hadn't been written at the time he took up arms against the United States. That's some good originalism for you!

He didn't try, thus didn't test the law. But there were others who tried to run for lower seats and were denied. So...

There have also been others in NM, CO and other states who were banned from running for office...that was the case that Gorsuch already ruled on, deferring to the state of Colorado.

[Anonymous]

A 25 year old foreign national should be allowed on the ballot if they haven't been convicted of being under 35 and not natural born. Otherwise it's a violation of due process even if there is a five day trial where the court finds that, as a matter of fact, they are under 35 and not natural born. This is according to the genius legal scholars who have suddenly emerged in response to the Colorado decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 25 year old foreign national should be allowed on the ballot if they haven't been convicted of being under 35 and not natural born. Otherwise it's a violation of due process even if there is a five day trial where the court finds that, as a matter of fact, they are under 35 and not natural born. This is according to the genius legal scholars who have suddenly emerged in response to the Colorado decision.

False logic to the nth degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 25 year old foreign national should be allowed on the ballot if they haven't been convicted of being under 35 and not natural born. Otherwise it's a violation of due process even if there is a five day trial where the court finds that, as a matter of fact, they are under 35 and not natural born. This is according to the genius legal scholars who have suddenly emerged in response to the Colorado decision.

False logic to the nth degree.

Logic is dead. see this whole thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 25 year old foreign national should be allowed on the ballot if they haven't been convicted of being under 35 and not natural born. Otherwise it's a violation of due process even if there is a five day trial where the court finds that, as a matter of fact, they are under 35 and not natural born. This is according to the genius legal scholars who have suddenly emerged in response to the Colorado decision.

False logic to the nth degree.

Textualism to the nth degree.

[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.

He has not been convicted of what you're accusing him of. Is this super complicated for you?

Show where in the Constitution a "conviction" is the threshold.

Per PP, Robert E. Lee was eligible to be President after the civil war because he wasn't convicted of a crime that hadn't been written at the time he took up arms against the United States. That's some good originalism for you!

No Lee took an oath as a US Military officer. The point of the 14th was to stop the southern state from putting form confederates in the US government. So yes it would apply to Lee and everyone else. Read it. This is a retroactive addition to ban all people disloyal to the US and the constitution.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Lees oath


I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support(and defend added in 1862) the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 25 year old foreign national should be allowed on the ballot if they haven't been convicted of being under 35 and not natural born. Otherwise it's a violation of due process even if there is a five day trial where the court finds that, as a matter of fact, they are under 35 and not natural born. This is according to the genius legal scholars who have suddenly emerged in response to the Colorado decision.

Also if we’re all going to ignore the 14th Amendment so people can vote for Trump, we should also get to ignore the 22nd Amendment so we people vote for Obama. 😎

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He has not been convicted of what you're accusing him of. Is this super complicated for you?

Show where in the Constitution a "conviction" is the threshold.

Per PP, Robert E. Lee was eligible to be President after the civil war because he wasn't convicted of a crime that hadn't been written at the time he took up arms against the United States. That's some good originalism for you!

No Lee took an oath as a US Military officer. The point of the 14th was to stop the southern state from putting form confederates in the US government. So yes it would apply to Lee and everyone else. Read it. This is a retroactive addition to ban all people disloyal to the US and the constitution.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Lees oath


I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support(and defend added in 1862) the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Not sure what your point is. Lee and Trump both previously took oaths to support the constitution of the United States, then broke those oaths with their subsequent rebellion and insurrection.

[Anonymous]

I think the best thing that could happen is Trump is excluded, Nikki Haley runs, Biden steps down. Let's have a fair election with new personalities and let the best man/woman win. A fresh start. I am very afraid of where all this insanity is taking us.

First order of business, a bi partisan commission to address the weaknesses the last 8 years have revealed in our requirements for Potus and elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It also denies him property, since running for president is the only thing he does that's actually profitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

BTW another major case heading to SCOTUS that will have ramifications for most of the J6 protestors arrested and prosecuted and convicted. If SCOTUS rules against DOJ and there's strong suggestions they will, most of the convictions will be overturned and the protesters released. And this will be in the summer of 2024. Just in time for the election. Oy vey indeed. Feeling like 2024 is shaping up to be an utter and complete disaster for the Democrats.

Some legal pundits have opined that Chief Justice Roberts does not want a repeat of the 2000 election where the Supreme Court played a very direct role. It would seem likely that the Supreme Court would prefer to let the voters decide this time around.

Roberts is basically a quivering bowl of jello. He’ll do whatever his paymasters tell him. He doesn’t think.

You might be surprised if one of the liberal justices also agrees that the Supreme Court should not play a direct role either. Both conservative and liberal justices have often sided with the other in various opinions.

Yes, Old enough to remember when they refused to get involved in Gore/Bush.

Gore asked for a recount in four specific counties and no others. Nope.

You’re right, it should have been all of them because he actually won.

[Anonymous]

Mike, I want you to reject those votes. Threat, what threat, I bought you a ricotta pie!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB9u7-SbP5w