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]I am as anti trump as they come.  I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US.  We all saw it.  But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.  [/quote]
If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?[/quote]

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection.   I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states.  If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now.  I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria.  A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

[/quote]

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS.  There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.  
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.  
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.[/quote]
Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now? [/quote]

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.[/quote]

That’s not what PP wrote. President isn’t included in the “officers” specified in the wording. See Robert’s previous ruling.[/quote]

Yeah, that's nonsense.  Colorado already ridiculed that.

And it basically means that rich folks like Trump are above the law.  [/quote]

Colorado is about to get smacked down by SCOTUS because they are flat out wrong on this. The president was included in previous drafts of the amendment and was then removed.[/quote]

"Smacked down." Do you hear yourself? I have no doubt that the Republican partisans on the Supreme Court will, notwithstanding their self-promotion as "textualists" will find a way to ignore the text of the 14th Amendment. But that doesn't mean they are "smacking down" the solid reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court. Just that they have power and will use it for partisan ends. [/quote]

I think Colorado’s case is so weak that it won’t be only the conservatives voting to smack them down. That’s my point. [/quote]

Actually Colorado's case is strong, but more importantly, Colorado's case is protected.  This court including several in the conservative majority have spent most of their SCOTUS careers trying to establish that states rights are protected.  Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney have all had instances where they have said that certain laws should not be federally mandated, but should be left up to the states to decide.  Most notably, they said this is Dobbs when they overturned Roe v Wade.  In this case, the Constitution says that states are responsible for holding elections and determining how to assign state electors to send to Congress on electing the President and Vice President.  The Constitution says that each state determines how to conduct their elections.  This means that Colorado can decide that Trump is not eligible to be on the ballot, but that doesn't have to convey to any other state.

This Yale law professor's arguments are quite sound and convincing for why SCOTUS should uphold Colorado's decision.  First, he argues that Trump does qualify because there was an insurrection that occurred before the civil war when outgoing President James Buchanon's cabinet members  try to do exactly what Trump tried to do, stop the peaceful transfer of power, and they were barred from running for office again.  They were not impeached nor were they accused or convicted in a court of law.  But they were held to be ineligible to be elected to office.  Second, the 50 state solution that the Roberts court has been very supportive of over the last few years, basically returning control in many situations back to the states.  And since the Constitution specifically says that states should conduct elections without instructions for how they do so, this follow the originalist intent of the authors to give states the rights to set the rules for how they determine electors for the offices.  Hence, Colorado has the right to determine that Trump is ineligible in their election.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/opinion/supreme-court-trump-section-3.html[/url][/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