Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:52     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.


+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+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.


My guess is some bullshit spin on ripeness or standing that they conjure up which will invalidate the decision without grappling with the merits.

Or, conceivably, SCOTUS might just decline to hear it at all. That would surprise me a little, but I can see where only Thomas and Alito might be in love with the guy; and Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett don't want the Supreme Court to die along with everything else Trump touches.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:49     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Yes it’s totally desperate and anti-democratic to suggest that someone should be thrown off of a ballot.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:48     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.


+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+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.


They may, but everybody knows Trump is a criminal bad guy. They'll be compromising their historical legacies for a guy like that who will only be alive for a couple more years anyway. Alito and Thomas are compromised so their votes are already pocketed, but I'm not sure about the rest.
what crime has Trump been convicted of? If I described a black guy charged with a crime as a criminal before a conviction you’d be throwing tantrums


This is not a criminal case. They aren’t sending him to prison. The U.S. Constitution says he is not eligible for any federal office because he previously violated his oath of office by engaging in insurrection.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:46     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.


+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+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.


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

That’s not really an option since the Colorado primary ballots need to be printed in January.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:45     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.


+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+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.


I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:44     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.


No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.


Of course we all know that SCOTUS will reverse. The court is bought and paid for by the GOP.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:28     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.


+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+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.


They may, but everybody knows Trump is a criminal bad guy. They'll be compromising their historical legacies for a guy like that who will only be alive for a couple more years anyway. Alito and Thomas are compromised so their votes are already pocketed, but I'm not sure about the rest.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:23     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.


+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+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.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:15     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
This reminds me of all the election lawsuits in 2020. They were so sure Trump and the Kraken would be victorious in court. It wasn’t based in law, just whatever disinformation they could get repeated on Twitter.

You think they’d learn.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:10     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.


No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.


Meh, not really. We're playing with house money on this one. Trump's the one that needs SCOTUS to establish precedent and write their own professional legacies for the historical record by siding with him. We'll see what happens, but Democrats have absolutely nothing to lose here.


It’s not that simple. SCOTUS can’t overturn it over due process because there was due process, more due process than in most civil actions. They won’t just overturn the CO SC ruling because the lower court ruled that Trump did engage in insurrection. SCOTUS can’t substitute its own finding of facts, it is an appellate court. The only way they can save Trump is to send it back to the lower court with an absurdly narrow definition of insurrection.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:08     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.


+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:04     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


There was due process, no matter how much you want to claim there wasn't. Repeating it often doesn't make it true.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 11:03     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty interesting how the strict constitutionalists have decided they would rather ignore this part of the constitution and the “voters should decide.” For some reason they don’t take the same position on the many other anti-democratic parts of the constitution.


No, it's not interesting at all. You've made a bunch of false assumptions and twisted definitions (and the Constitution). SCOTUS will hand your head to you.


Actually it is very interesting.

Numerous cases deferring to states on abortion and voting rights, including a direct parallel case where the decision was written by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch.
would rhe Defer to states of states made lgbt people ineligible for public office? No you’d be Demanding federal courts act. Because you hate Trump you ignore the possibility this could be done to someone you don’t hate


That would be discrimination based on gender, which is illegal.

Discriminating because someone took part in a coup is not illegal.

See the difference?
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 10:59     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


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.
Anonymous
Post 12/21/2023 10:57     Subject: Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot
Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed


Why would anybody riot? Is that just part of your political playbook now? It may be reversed, it may not. Democrats have nothing to lose on this one. Trump needs it to be reversed to just get back to status quo.