Anonymous wrote:If he is kicked off Colorado ballot, he is off every state ballot.

it will be appealed to the SCOTUS.

They could:

1) offer a stay until they hear the case
2) choose not to hear it, leaving the CO decision in place
3) Choose to hear it and rule one way or the other.

The three dissenting CO justices did so on procedural grounds.

The GOP is going to have a mess if Trump loses this.

I would also submit that if Trump is removed, Biden will withdraw.

Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is DISQUALIFIED from running for president and removed from the state ballot under the 14th Amendment for 'engaging in an insurrection'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12883351/Colorado-Supreme-Court-rules-Trump-DISQUALIFIED-president.html#article-12883351

If he is kicked off Colorado ballot, he is off every state ballot.

Colorado’s Supreme Court just removed Trump from the ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-19-23/index.html

Any guesses how the CO ,Supreme rules? I predict they will overturn trial by judge. If the President isn't an officer then who is!?

Colorado Supreme Court Agrees to Take Up Trump’s 14th Amendment Case
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-14th-amendment-colorado.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Appeal is a go

Reading the opinion, it sounds to me like the Judge believes Trump should be disqualified, but chose to use an absurd loophole to say the 14th Amendment applies to every federal officer EXCEPT the President. Which makes zero sense.

Why did she do this? Because she's scared. She didn't want to have to look over her shoulder for the rest of her life, worrying that some crazy MAGA person will try to kill her. Or what would happen to her if Trump is reelected.

That's why it's so hard to stop fascist movements. Just read the stories of lawyers and judges who tried to stop Hitler.
Example - Hans Litten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Litten

Thank you for posting this. There were people trying to prevent this in Germany. The law meant to be applied using logic, but people are emotional creatures who don't want to believe what logic tells them.

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering. If / when Trump wins in 2024, what will you all do?

You can scream about rules and processes or what may or may not have happened on J6 and what Turnip may or may not have done on J6, the fact remains he is the leading R candidate by an enormous margin, staggeringly enormous. And is effectively tied with Biden in the polls.

Is it "democratic" to block Trump from the ballot? Certainly not to the people prepared to vote for him. To them, it would be undemocratic. Have you thought about this and the implications? Just maybe you can use legal trickery to block him but the political price to pay, is it worth it?

Honestly, this sounds like the exact same argument the Bernie Bros made. "He's so popular that you are thwarting the will of the people!"

There are laws in every state governing eligibility to be on the ballot for an election. Each of the two major political parties have rules governing their own processes. We don't say that's unconstitutional. As to the idea of "legal trickery" - that's just an indication that we have a fairly stupid electorate and citizenry that aren't capable of critical thinking.

That said, I tend to agree that allowing every state to interpret the clause at issue on their own is a recipe for chaos because we have a fairly stupid electorate and citizenry and a lot of those people are on the bench.

To be honest I'm happier with him on the ballot in Colorado. He's not going to win there in November and keeping him off would energize his voters in states that do matter.

The president isn’t an officer? Really?

Nothing matters, I guess

Burn the place down, you fools. I’m out

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the opinion, it sounds to me like the Judge believes Trump should be disqualified, but chose to use an absurd loophole to say the 14th Amendment applies to every federal officer EXCEPT the President. Which makes zero sense.

Why did she do this? Because she's scared. She didn't want to have to look over her shoulder for the rest of her life, worrying that some crazy MAGA person will try to kill her. Or what would happen to her if Trump is reelected.

That's why it's so hard to stop fascist movements. Just read the stories of lawyers and judges who tried to stop Hitler.
Example - Hans Litten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Litten

We have reached the point where Godwin's Law has come into play.
And, it took less than 3 pages. Well done, pp!

When our former President and leading GOP candidate for 2024 says things like this, then is the comparison to 1930's Germany inappropriate?



Let's check in with Mr. Godwin himself, who wrote this in 2018:

But Godwin’s Law was never meant to block us from challenging the institutionalization of cruelty or the callousness of officials who claim to be just following the law. It definitely wasn’t meant to shield our leaders from being slammed for the current fashion of pitching falsehoods as fact. These behaviors, distressing as they are, may not yet add up to a new Reich, but please forgive me for worrying that they’re the “embryonic form” of a horror we hoped we had put behind us.

https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/godwins-law-in-the-age-of-trump/

Reading the opinion, it sounds to me like the Judge believes Trump should be disqualified, but chose to use an absurd loophole to say the 14th Amendment applies to every federal officer EXCEPT the President. Which makes zero sense.

Why did she do this? Because she's scared. She didn't want to have to look over her shoulder for the rest of her life, worrying that some crazy MAGA person will try to kill her. Or what would happen to her if Trump is reelected.

That's why it's so hard to stop fascist movements. Just read the stories of lawyers and judges who tried to stop Hitler.
Example - Hans Litten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Litten

“The decision by District Judge Sarah B. Wallace is the third ruling in a little over a week against lawsuits seeking to knock Trump off the ballot by citing Section 3 of the amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court last week said Trump could remain on the primary ballot because political parties have sole choice over who appears, while a Michigan judge ruled that Congress is the proper forum for deciding whether Section 3 applies to Trump.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055

Anonymous wrote:There's basically three defenses for Trump:
1. January 6 wasn't an insurrection.
2. It was, but Trump wasn't a part of it.
3. The 14th Amendment doesn't matter.

#1 is tough because there are people in federal prison right now serving multi-decade sentences for seditious conspiracy.

#2 is going to get really tough once Trump's trial gets underway.

#3 will be where they hang their hats.

The Court has found that Trump DID incite an insurrection on the 6th and that his speech was not protected by the First Amendment. However, it also found that Trump was not an “officer of the United States.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24171350-109394065