Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[laughing dog]

Yesterday, in s 4 to 3 ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the bsllot because of his part in the insurrection, I’d post a link but my phone is not cooperating.

Of course this is not end of this cade, but it may be the beginning of many more.

 

[starwater]

I am very proud of my State for taking this on. We still have bobble head though to deal with.

My prediction is that the Supremes will either boot this to Congress to decide or find some tiny little side issue that they can throw it out.

 

[Elixir]

I am very proud of my State for taking this on.

+1
Disgusting how Republicans are fundraising on this “partisan attack”, crying to be allowed to violate the constitution because they say “voters say so”.
THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS
You have to change the Constitution TO WHICH YOUR PRESIDENT TAKES AN OATH FIRST if you want to let him do shit that’s currently unconstitutional.
They’re a day late and a dollar short, and it’s a shame because they will likely succeed nonetheless with getting the ruling overturned.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Colorado went to Biden so this is not really a surprise. But it is a good thing. Will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules. They will find some kind of wiggle way to get out of doing their duty.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am very proud of my State for taking this on. We still have bobble head though to deal with.

My prediction is that the Supremes will either boot this to Congress to decide or find some tiny little side issue that they can throw it out.

On Reddit, the buzz is "they didn't declare trump an enemy of the state like they did the confederates the last time this happened"

The whole f'n point is not to get to the point where there are armies marching this time, though, so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am very proud of my State for taking this on. We still have bobble head though to deal with.

My prediction is that the Supremes will either boot this to Congress to decide or find some tiny little side issue that they can throw it out.

On Reddit, the buzz is "they didn't declare trump an enemy of the state like they did the confederates the last time this happened"

The whole f'n point is not to get to the point where there are armies marching this time, though, so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

This sort of stuff matters. What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection? Congress didn't rule as such. He hasn't been convicted of such a statute.

This is effectively walking around Due Process. I can't imagine SCOTUS will say this is legit. And I imagine Trump will be shielded via due process. That the court ruled this 4-3 is almost certain to be DOA in SCOTUS.

Congress (or more accurately the GOP in Congress) failed to fulfill their duty in impeaching that fucker after January 6th.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am very proud of my State for taking this on. We still have bobble head though to deal with.

My prediction is that the Supremes will either boot this to Congress to decide or find some tiny little side issue that they can throw it out.

On Reddit, the buzz is "they didn't declare trump an enemy of the state like they did the confederates the last time this happened"

The whole f'n point is not to get to the point where there are armies marching this time, though, so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

This sort of stuff matters. What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection? Congress didn't rule as such. He hasn't been convicted of such a statute.

This is effectively walking around Due Process. I can't imagine SCOTUS will say this is legit. And I imagine Trump will be shielded via due process. That the court ruled this 4-3 is almost certain to be DOA in SCOTUS.

Congress (or more accurately the GOP in Congress) failed to fulfill their duty in impeaching that fucker after January 6th.

I expect that's how it's going to go as well... Have any of his criminal trials started yet? I'm pretty sure there was a Cert case elevated to SCOTUS to expedite whether he has immunity for crimes committed while in office, and the ruling is set to happen soonish.

I expect a similar cert petition for whether Trump can be retried in a real court for whether he is a criminal after having been impeached, which is not a criminal proceeding, but a process of state which is merely a removal from office (and a basis of admissible evidence in criminal proceedings).

The thing is, if he does, then Biden is still president right now... That's a lot of power to give to the president.

 

[Politesse]

This sort of stuff matters. What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection? Congress didn't rule as such. He hasn't been convicted of such a statute

Judges are supposed to follow the letter of the law, not their personal feelings. And there's nothing in the law that says a person must be criminally convicted for the law to apply to them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This sort of stuff matters. What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection? Congress didn't rule as such. He hasn't been convicted of such a statute

Judges are supposed to follow the letter of the law, not their personal feelings. And there's nothing in the law that says a person must be criminally convicted for the law to apply to them.

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system. Unlike Russia and Iran, it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act. It must be proven in court.

Suppose Ocasio-Cortez is involved in a protest in 2025 against President *sobbing* Trump's latest policy for putting migrant children in max security prisons. What is to stop a court from saying that she participated in an insurrection and can't run for President on the ballot in Wisconsin eight years later?

Assertion of guilt by the US Government or State Government is not supposed to be enough to conclude guilt.

 

[laughing dog]

This sort of stuff matters. What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection? Congress didn't rule as such. He hasn't been convicted of such a statute

Judges are supposed to follow the letter of the law, not their personal feelings. And there's nothing in the law that says a person must be criminally convicted for the law to apply to them.

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system. Unlike Russia and Iran, it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act. It must be proven in court.

Suppose Ocasio-Cortez is involved in a protest in 2025 against President *sobbing* Trump's latest policy for putting migrant children in max security prisons. What is to stop a court from saying that she participated in an insurrection and can't run for President on the ballot in Wisconsin eight years later?

Assertion of guilt by the US Government or State Government is not supposed to be enough to conclude guilt.

The amendment was written with the Southern successionists in mind. I doubt that trying them for crimes was the intent. A strict reading of the amendment does not require a conviction.

Whether the strict constructionists on SCOTUS agree is a different matter.

 

[Politesse]

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system.

I agree that for a person to be convicted of a crime, their guilt must be proven in court. But being convicted of a crime is not the standard set for being placed on a state's ballot or not, nor is being delisted from a ballot a criminal punishment.

I do not believe that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is, or should be, held to a different standard in this regard. Indeed, if this conviction stands, expect an solid avalanche of attempts by the far right to disqualify Mr Biden on the same grounds, no matter how tortured a case they must construct to support them.

 

[Jarhyn]

This sort of stuff matters. What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection? Congress didn't rule as such. He hasn't been convicted of such a statute

Judges are supposed to follow the letter of the law, not their personal feelings. And there's nothing in the law that says a person must be criminally convicted for the law to apply to them.

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system. Unlike Russia and Iran, it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act. It must be proven in court.

Suppose Ocasio-Cortez is involved in a protest in 2025 against President *sobbing* Trump's latest policy for putting migrant children in max security prisons. What is to stop a court from saying that she participated in an insurrection and can't run for President on the ballot in Wisconsin eight years later?

Assertion of guilt by the US Government or State Government is not supposed to be enough to conclude guilt.

The amendment was written with the Southern successionists in mind. I doubt that trying them for crimes was the intent. A strict reading of the amendment does not require a conviction.

Whether the strict constructionists on SCOTUS agree is a different matter.

It did, however, involve a federal declaration as enemies of the state of the South.

There needs to be due process, and he hasn't gotten the process he is due. Yet.

Personally I'm on the side of "get out of the US before my only option to do so is as a refugee bound to a refugee camp"

 

[Elixir]

What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection?

We saw him incite, support and encourage one, then continue to aid and comfort his minions who stupidly participated in the one that we saw.
It was planned, as shown in the J6 hearings.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is basis of saying he was part of an insurrection?

We saw him incite, support and encourage one, then continue to aid and comfort his minions who stupidly participated in the one that we saw.
It was planned, as shown in the J6 hearings.

But there still needs to be due process.

Otherwise southern states will remove Biden from the ballot for (insert j6-er line here)

 

[Ford]

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system.

I agree that for a person to be convicted of a crime, their guilt must be proven in court. But being convicted of a crime is not the standard set for being placed on a state's ballot or not, nor is being delisted from a ballot a criminal punishment.

From what I understand, that is essentially what the court's ruling says. Of course, this may all be moot as Colorado has also said that if there is an appeal in progress by January 5th, he will remain on the ballot.

 

[Jarhyn]

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system.

I agree that for a person to be convicted of a crime, their guilt must be proven in court. But being convicted of a crime is not the standard set for being placed on a state's ballot or not, nor is being delisted from a ballot a criminal punishment.

From what I understand, that is essentially what the court's ruling says. Of course, this may all be moot as Colorado has also said that if there is an appeal in progress by January 5th, he will remain on the ballot.

Um, are you really sure the turnabout here is worth it? Biden will get removed from ballots for bullshit reasons unless due process is involved.

 

[Ford]

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system.

I agree that for a person to be convicted of a crime, their guilt must be proven in court. But being convicted of a crime is not the standard set for being placed on a state's ballot or not, nor is being delisted from a ballot a criminal punishment.

From what I understand, that is essentially what the court's ruling says. Of course, this may all be moot as Colorado has also said that if there is an appeal in progress by January 5th, he will remain on the ballot.

Um, are you really sure the turnabout here is worth it? Biden will get removed from ballots for bullshit reasons unless due process is involved.

Not really making a judgement call on that yet, just providing the info for context.

 

[Jarhyn]

That can't possibly be any more wrong. This is the underlying principle of our judicial system.

I agree that for a person to be convicted of a crime, their guilt must be proven in court. But being convicted of a crime is not the standard set for being placed on a state's ballot or not, nor is being delisted from a ballot a criminal punishment.

From what I understand, that is essentially what the court's ruling says. Of course, this may all be moot as Colorado has also said that if there is an appeal in progress by January 5th, he will remain on the ballot.

Um, are you really sure the turnabout here is worth it? Biden will get removed from ballots for bullshit reasons unless due process is involved.

Not really making a judgement call on that yet, just providing the info for context.

That's fair. Just thought it deserved a mention for anyone getting "gung ho". The correct path is interestingly that Colorado needs to be shot down *over lack of due process*, THEN Trump needs to get their due process, THEN all the others need to pull Trump because he got due process so that MAGA traitor states can't pull Biden.

 

[starwater]

The whiney Colorado GOP wants to take their ball and go home.

Colorado GOP threatens to withdrawal from the Presidential ballot

Colorado GOP Chairman Dave Williams told The Colorado Sun on Tuesday night that if Trump isn’t on the ballot, the party would ask the state to cancel the Republican presidential primary. Instead, Republican voters would caucus to select delegates to the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee next year.

 

[Elixir]

But there still needs to be due process

The process is, the courts decide.
They have so far ruled unanimously that Trump violated 14.3.