Reply to Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed [/quote]

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary. 
[/quote]

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.[/quote]
+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.[/quote]

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.[/quote]

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything. [/quote]

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity.  They had a uniform and got a paycheck.  There was no plausible question of whether they were involved.  Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection.  The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately.  But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).[/quote]

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge.  When are people going to remember this?
[/quote]

Not by the Colorado SC.[/quote]

Colorado has no jurisdiction for an alleged crime in DC.[/quote]

That is not the question.  They have jurisdiction over their ballot, which in turn is dependent on a reading of the constitution,  The Constitution simply says insurrection or rebellion, it does not say anything at all about criminal conviction or any of the other things you wish or imagine it said, Remember that there were not hundreds of thousands of criminal trials for every single person who participated in or supported the confederacy, the authors of the 14th Amendment did not require it.[/quote]

A conviction is required, the confederates who fought in a civil war are not analogous (and some served post war in the federal government anyway) and this is a federal election (see Bush v Gore). Some of you actually think this Colorado case will stand. It won’t. [/quote]

Obviously it won’t stand.  We have a shameless corrupt Supreme Court that serves the republican party’s interests.  Heck, the wife of one of the justices was one of the coup plotters.  You think Thomas is going to rule his wife was involved in an insurrection?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics