Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

Trump hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. Neither has even ONE person on J6 been charged with insurrection.

You keep on keeping on. It'll get easier and easier to ignore you.

Where does it say CHARGED in the 14th amendment?

No, it says that in the sixth amendment, idiot. It's called due process.

Find a friend who is a lawyer who can explain to you that due process means different things in different contexts. There isn't "one thing" that is due process, and due process has not been denied here: he had notice, counsel, evidentiary proceedings, an impartial decision maker (in this case, a court, but it doesn't always have to be a court), appeals, and so on. Lots and lots of due process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

Trump hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. Neither has even ONE person on J6 been charged with insurrection.

You keep on keeping on. It'll get easier and easier to ignore you.

Where does it say CHARGED in the 14th amendment?

How exactly do we determine if one commits a crime (insurrection), unless one is charged and convicted of the crime?
An accusation is not proof.

I suggest some light reading on the OJ Simpson cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

Trump hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. Neither has even ONE person on J6 been charged with insurrection.

You keep on keeping on. It'll get easier and easier to ignore you.

Where does it say CHARGED in the 14th amendment?

How exactly do we determine if one commits a crime (insurrection), unless one is charged and convicted of the crime?
An accusation is not proof.

It’s not just an accusation. There was an entire five-day bench trial where evidence was presented from both sides and a determination was made by a judge that survived two appeals. You can find the docket here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240

This is not the same as a charge, a trial and a conviction in a court of law. He was deprived of due process as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Due process, as defined in the Bill of Rights in the 5th amendment, contends that no individual may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal proceedings - a trial, the burden of proof required to convict someone, and limitations for carrying out such a process.

Colorado did not hold a jury trial to determine if Trump was an insurrectionist, nor did they provide the evidence to be used against him. Colorado did not adhere to stringent rules of evidence or procedures. They included hearsay in their evidence. And the burden of proof used against Trump was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Rules matter. Due process matters.

Due process doesn’t mean you have to apply criminal trial rules to a civil matter. Ballot access is a civil, not criminal, issue. Civil rules are applied all the time even when the conduct could also be a crime. See for example the civil sexual assault lawsuit against trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

Trump hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. Neither has even ONE person on J6 been charged with insurrection.

You keep on keeping on. It'll get easier and easier to ignore you.

Where does it say CHARGED in the 14th amendment?

How exactly do we determine if one commits a crime (insurrection), unless one is charged and convicted of the crime?
An accusation is not proof.

You better reach to Trumps crack legal team to let them know about your insightful argument because they forgot to include it in their appeal.

SCOTUS wil handle it.

SCOTUS is going to make arguments for Trump that his own counsel didn’t make? I mean, I know they are biased partisan hacks, but even I don’t think they’ll go that far.

[Anonymous]

States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

Trump hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. Neither has even ONE person on J6 been charged with insurrection.

You keep on keeping on. It'll get easier and easier to ignore you.

Where does it say CHARGED in the 14th amendment?

How exactly do we determine if one commits a crime (insurrection), unless one is charged and convicted of the crime?
An accusation is not proof.

It’s not just an accusation. There was an entire five-day bench trial where evidence was presented from both sides and a determination was made by a judge that survived two appeals. You can find the docket here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240

This is not the same as a charge, a trial and a conviction in a court of law. He was deprived of due process as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Due process, as defined in the Bill of Rights in the 5th amendment, contends that no individual may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal proceedings - a trial, the burden of proof required to convict someone, and limitations for carrying out such a process.

Colorado did not hold a jury trial to determine if Trump was an insurrectionist, nor did they provide the evidence to be used against him. Colorado did not adhere to stringent rules of evidence or procedures. They included hearsay in their evidence. And the burden of proof used against Trump was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Rules matter. Due process matters.

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

Trump hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. Neither has even ONE person on J6 been charged with insurrection.

You keep on keeping on. It'll get easier and easier to ignore you.

Where does it say CHARGED in the 14th amendment?

No, it says that in the sixth amendment, idiot. It's called due process.

Find a friend who is a lawyer who can explain to you that due process means different things in different contexts. There isn't "one thing" that is due process, and due process has not been denied here: he had notice, counsel, evidentiary proceedings, an impartial decision maker (in this case, a court, but it doesn't always have to be a court), appeals, and so on. Lots and lots of due process.

Reposting for anyone who missed.

[Anonymous]

Trump had the process due for a person trying to get their name on a state”s election ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

I don't think people fully realize how momentous this is. It has taken 160 years for a case to arise involving 14.3, because everyone pretty much punted in the end after the Civil War. Whatever the SC does will establish precedent, in more ways than one.

What's strange is the Colorado case involved way more actual legal procedure than Trump's impeachment trial did, and it worries me that the SC will regard the outcome of that trial as conclusive. OTOH, a 2/3 win in that trial would have been more persuasive (and equal to the number required to overturn disqualification), PLUS the party that controlled the impeachment trial was the same party as Trump, and included senators who refused to certify Boden's win. Which leads me to regard the impeachment trial as a poisoned well, but will the Supreme Court hold their noses about it?

AFAIK the impeachment trial did not come into the Colorado case, though (anyone know? I don't recall seeing that in the decision)--could it be introduced now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

You aren’t worried that Democrats start doing what MAGA is doing? When Trump wins guess Biden supporters can storm the Capitol, probably not poop in the halls, and halt the certification of the election. Maybe Dem politicians will take over. You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous]

Based on this post today, Trump should be banned in all 50 states and all territories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missouri Secretary of State is working to kick Biden off the ballot!

Excellent! We can have this game state by state.

Then SCOTUS will step in and say "everyone sit down and shut up. We're not having anymore of this nonsense. NO ONE is getting kicked from the ballot....."

Or they enforce the constitution and kick off trump since he engaged in insurrection and Biden didn’t. But I don’t expect fidelity to the constitution from the republicans on this corrupt court.

Trump hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. Neither has even ONE person on J6 been charged with insurrection.

You keep on keeping on. It'll get easier and easier to ignore you.

Where does it say CHARGED in the 14th amendment?

How exactly do we determine if one commits a crime (insurrection), unless one is charged and convicted of the crime?
An accusation is not proof.

You better reach to Trumps crack legal team to let them know about your insightful argument because they forgot to include it in their appeal.

SCOTUS wil handle it.

SCOTUS is going to make arguments for Trump that his own counsel didn’t make? I mean, I know they are biased partisan hacks, but even I don’t think they’ll go that far.

I’m actually really curious to see how those Trump lovers who call themselves textualists wiggle their way through this. The outcome is certain, I’m just not sure how they’ll get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump had the process due for a person trying to get their name on a state”s election ballot.

THIS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States get to set rules for their elections. However, the SC will not allow states to bastardize the Constitution to do so.

If Colorado wants to keep him off the ballot because of mean tweets go for it, but not because of the misapplication of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS is trying to figure out how to thread this needle to get him back on the ballot without creating terrible precedent in the name of protecting an obvious criminal. The landmark decision they're about to make will be their legacy...putting an insurrectionist back on the ballot. And they're stuck.

I don't think people fully realize how momentous this is. It has taken 160 years for a case to arise involving 14.3, because everyone pretty much punted in the end after the Civil War. Whatever the SC does will establish precedent, in more ways than one.

What's strange is the Colorado case involved way more actual legal procedure than Trump's impeachment trial did, and it worries me that the SC will regard the outcome of that trial as conclusive. OTOH, a 2/3 win in that trial would have been more persuasive (and equal to the number required to overturn disqualification), PLUS the party that controlled the impeachment trial was the same party as Trump, and included senators who refused to certify Boden's win. Which leads me to regard the impeachment trial as a poisoned well, but will the Supreme Court hold their noses about it?

AFAIK the impeachment trial did not come into the Colorado case, though (anyone know? I don't recall seeing that in the decision)--could it be introduced now?

Why are you bringing in the impeachment at all? Impeachment is not a prerequisite for keeping any person off of a state ballot.