Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

Just like impeachment isn't a criminal process, so too is the 14th Amendment. The Confederate Civil War vets and politicians were not tried for their crimes, they were simply barred from holding office going forward.

Same thing here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

This isn’t about him being guilty of a crime. This is about him being ineligible for the ballot. Imagine if Trump was a Colorado voter and brought a lawsuit saying that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t eligible. There would then be a trial with facts presented and disputed by either side and the court would determine which outcome prevailed. Exactly what happened here.

except that alleging Obama is foreign born isn’t alleging Obama committed a crime which would require a conviction.

For like the 14th time, the 14th Amendment says nothing about conviction.

so did the insurrection clause state it is immune from due process challenges ?

There was a trial, and appeals. That is due process

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

This isn’t about him being guilty of a crime. This is about him being ineligible for the ballot. Imagine if Trump was a Colorado voter and brought a lawsuit saying that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t eligible. There would then be a trial with facts presented and disputed by either side and the court would determine which outcome prevailed. Exactly what happened here.

except that alleging Obama is foreign born isn’t alleging Obama committed a crime which would require a conviction.

For like the 14th time, the 14th Amendment says nothing about conviction.

so did the insurrection clause state it is immune from due process challenges ?

There was due process here. There was a trial, and a verdict, and the verdict was appealed and upheld, and then appealed and upheld again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

This isn’t about him being guilty of a crime. This is about him being ineligible for the ballot. Imagine if Trump was a Colorado voter and brought a lawsuit saying that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t eligible. There would then be a trial with facts presented and disputed by either side and the court would determine which outcome prevailed. Exactly what happened here.

except that alleging Obama is foreign born isn’t alleging Obama committed a crime which would require a conviction.

For like the 14th time, the 14th Amendment says nothing about conviction.

so did the insurrection clause state it is immune from due process challenges ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be overturned by SCOTUS, likely by a 9-0 decision.

And, the Colorado Supreme Court will lose credibility and be revealed to be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

We'll see, won't we? There's a lot of hopeful projection that it'll be overturned in this thread. We're not the ones you need to convince.

SCOTUS determined in 2000 the states run elections not the federal government. SCOTUS seems to be for state rights, and I also the Republicans claim. But I guess only when it’s in their favor.

so if you believe this and a state made Muslims ineligible for office you think federal courts would not do something ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

The word in the constitution is “engage” not incite. Pretty clear he did both.

and he’s been convicted of neither inciting nor engaging in insurrection

There have been numerous J6 folks who stated in court they did it because Trump told them to.

+1 and some of them testified in Colorado.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

This isn’t about him being guilty of a crime. This is about him being ineligible for the ballot. Imagine if Trump was a Colorado voter and brought a lawsuit saying that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t eligible. There would then be a trial with facts presented and disputed by either side and the court would determine which outcome prevailed. Exactly what happened here.

except that alleging Obama is foreign born isn’t alleging Obama committed a crime which would require a conviction.

For like the 14th time, the 14th Amendment says nothing about conviction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

The word in the constitution is “engage” not incite. Pretty clear he did both.

and he’s been convicted of neither inciting nor engaging in insurrection

There have been numerous J6 folks who stated in court they did it because Trump told them to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be overturned by SCOTUS, likely by a 9-0 decision.

And, the Colorado Supreme Court will lose credibility and be revealed to be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

We'll see, won't we? There's a lot of hopeful projection that it'll be overturned in this thread. We're not the ones you need to convince.

SCOTUS determined in 2000 the states run elections not the federal government. SCOTUS seems to be for state rights, and I also the Republicans claim. But I guess only when it’s in their favor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

The word in the constitution is “engage” not incite. Pretty clear he did both.

and he’s been convicted of neither inciting nor engaging in insurrection

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

This isn’t about him being guilty of a crime. This is about him being ineligible for the ballot. Imagine if Trump was a Colorado voter and brought a lawsuit saying that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t eligible. There would then be a trial with facts presented and disputed by either side and the court would determine which outcome prevailed. Exactly what happened here.

except that alleging Obama is foreign born isn’t alleging Obama committed a crime which would require a conviction.

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

The word in the constitution is “engage” not incite. Pretty clear he did both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

"We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection."

Trial? The J6 committee? LOL. Much of that "evidence" this court cites was hearsay and would nover be allowed.

There was an actual trial about this in Colorado. With multiple witnesses and lawyers including Trump’s. This isn’t about the committee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless the Think the insurrection clause does not require due process (ie a conviction FOR insurrection) this will be overruled so quickly . Honestly the judges ruling this way should be removed from the bench and disbarred. Despite what you think of trump everyone is entitled to due process

The clause mentions nothing about a conviction, and was designed to bar former confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the due process clause doesn’t apply? That’s your argument ?

The due process occurred weeks ago when the court determined that Trump engaged in an insurrection as the clause in the 14th describes.

so that court tried Trump for insurrection?

That court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. The clause in the 14th makes no mention of conviction and was designed to apply to confederates who wouldn’t have been convicted of anything.

so the argument is it’s the 19th century and Trump is a confederate ?

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify the Civil War. As written, it applies to ANY act of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

what other provisions does due process not apply to?

There was a trial, and it has worked its way through the Colorado courts. How is that not due process?

the “trial” was over being on the ballot. Not about if he committed insurrection.

The trial determined he engaged in insurrection and therefore is ineligible to be on the ballot.

could a court determine any other crime was committed this way or would there have to have been a criminal trial? Oh wait, so now you think Trump committed insurrection so clearly he can’t be tried for it or do you think double jeopardy doesn’t apply?

Does the constitution — the one you guys are always waving in people’s faces as the ultimate arbiter of our rights and who want the words in the constitution to mean exactly what they say and no more — say specifically that a person has to be tried and convicted in order for the 14th Amendment to kick in?

can you show me any other part of the constitution you think the due process clause doesn’t apply to?

Due process does not always require a criminal conviction. It is a concept that has a spectrum. Depriving someone of their life or liberty generally requires the highest ;evel of due process. Declaring someone ineligible to be on the ballot by virtue of the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment neither threatens someone's life or freedom. Due process, therefore, would not require a criminal conviction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be overturned by SCOTUS, likely by a 9-0 decision.

And, the Colorado Supreme Court will lose credibility and be revealed to be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

We'll see, won't we? There's a lot of hopeful projection that it'll be overturned in this thread. We're not the ones you need to convince.

I would never try to convince you. Just stating the obvious. And, not even hopeful projection.
Go out and celebrate this decision now, because it will not be long before it is overturned and you will be back to other measures like screaming "threat to democracy!" and "dictator!" when this court has proven itself to be more of a threat to democracy than Trump would ever be.

Okay, keep projecting then. You seem particularly bothered and want to just will that overturn into existence. Maybe it'll get overturned, maybe the SC won't want to tie its legacy to a historically bad guy.