Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[ideologyhunter]

Meanwhile in, let's make it harder for SCOTUS to rule in Trump's favor, Trump's lawyer effectively states in interview that Kavanaugh owes Trump.

You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up.

Thursday, February 8
SCOTUS, Court Chamber
3 hrs. into hearing

Justices Thomas/Kavanaugh: Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Chief Justice Roberts: We have heard the main statement of attorney Habba, for the former President, but I have a follow-up. Counsellor, you made reference to exculpatory findings on the President's inaction during the rioting. I may have missed those details, or you may not have fully stated them. Could you go into that now, counsellor?
Habba: Thank you, your honor. Certainly. Let me locate the proper file (shuffles papers).
Thomas/Kavanaugh: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Habba: Here it is, your honor. The state attorneys made scurrilous references to the President's so-called 187 minute 'dereliction.' I do not wish to repeat everything they said. As you may know, it was Ambrose Bierce who defined a bore as, quote, "a person who talks when you wish them to listen." Again, that was Ambrose Bierce.
Kavanaugh: Zzzz -- mm? Mmphh? -- Zzzz.
Habba: The President did have his television on, this is true. The court should be apprised that the movie Grand Hotel was on that day, on local channel 17, a movie starring Wallace Beery. This film has a run time of 113 minutes, but with commercials, it nearly fills a three hour slot. So, for nearly three hours, the President was watching Wallace Beery.
Thomas: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Kavanaugh: Zzzz -- mm, mmmph...b-b-beer?...Beer?...Zzzzzz.
Habba: So, one must picture the President engrossed in a Wallace Beery movie, snacking on Beer Nuts, and --
Justice Jackson: Hold it, sister. We don't need the 411 on what the President was snackin' on.
Kavanaugh: Who said beer?
Habba: Objection noted. We have the President watching a lengthy Wallace BEERY film.
Kavanaugh: I like BEER. I like to drink BEER. BEER. I find for defendant. BEER.
Thomas: Who the hell is shouting? Brett? You? I find for defendant. (Points to Kavanaugh) What he said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are hanging way too much weight on "factual findings". I think ld's remark regarding the Congressional Report on 1/6 would carry a substantially greater amount of weight than "factual findings". However, that report can be handwaved as being a commission and not Congress itself. The 14th Amendment allows an act of Congress to undisqualify an insurrectionist. We'll see.

I suppose another angle to approach this is "Are states powerless to stop a coup d'état?" I think the answer might be yes. This is the problem with a Constitutional Democracy and a shithead like Trump, being enabled by a rather amoral Republican Party.

Sometimes, the adults have to be adults. Would a SCOTUS be willing to say 8-1... "Fuck yeah that was insurrection! Why are you dumbasses still giving him money?!" SCOTUS ruling on some technicality to avoid having to set a standard, could effectively legalize a successful coup d'état.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think part of the interpretation of the law would be to provide a relevant standard for what qualifies as an "insurrectionist".

How about "attempting to prevent the constitutional transfer of power?"

 

[Elixir]

The 14th Amendment allows an act of Congress to undisqualify an insurrectionist.

That would be so obviously more important to Republican Congresscritters than their actual jobs, I can't imagine why they haven't already taken up and disposed of the matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think part of the interpretation of the law would be to provide a relevant standard for what qualifies as an "insurrectionist".

How about "attempting to prevent the constitutional transfer of power?"

"...includes attempting to prevent the constitutional transfer of power". Don't need to completely define it, as much as say it is under the umbrella of it. I'd love a 6-3 court finding, with 3 GOP appointed justices ruling against Trump (saying he is disqualified from the ballot period!), including two appointed by him (Kavanaugh and Barrett)!

The 14th Amendment allows an act of Congress to undisqualify an insurrectionist.

That would be so obviously more important to Republican Congresscritters than their actual jobs, I can't imagine why they haven't already taken up and disposed of the matter.

2/3's vote, both houses.

 

[Elixir]

I'd love a 6-3 court finding, with 3 GOP appointed justices ruling against Trump (saying he is disqualified from the ballot period!), including two appointed by him (Kavanaugh and Barrett)!

Don't give up hope. There's an outside chance that the billionaires who own the Court will decide that this is a great opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome problem, i.e. a perennial LOSER who is about to lose them the Presidency (again) as well as maybe the House AND the Senate. "Mr. Generic Republican" does so much better in polls against Sleepy Joe, they might decide that the Court needs to disqualify the insurrectionist.

2/3's vote, both houses.

Why don't they just hold a vote and SAY they got 2/3, just like they SAY Trump won in 2020?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Honestly, they could just as likely rule 5-4 that elections are unconstitutional and Trump is now our king.

 

[ZiprHead]

Lots of Republicans agreed Trump was responsible... then.

 

[Elixir]

Honestly, they could just as likely rule 5-4 that elections are unconstitutional and Trump is now our king.

They might lose their heads (literally) if they did that, for past transgressions they didn’t know they were committing. You know, they ruled against some of his idiocy …

 

[ideologyhunter]

Honestly, they could just as likely rule 5-4 that elections are unconstitutional and Trump is now our king.

They might lose their heads (literally) if they did that, for past transgressions they didn’t know they were committing. You know, they ruled against some of his idiocy …

What's the worst he could do to them, to humiliate them? Make them wear a pair of his shorts over their heads for an hour? (Oh, Jesus. I'm going to skip dinner tonight.)

 

[ZiprHead]

'That's not factual sir': CNN anchor challenges Missouri official's threat about Biden

If you don't want to watch the video...

Sanchez and Ashcroft sparred repeatedly during the interview, which got particularly heated when the CNN anchor was forced to read from Missouri’s state constitution to correct a claim from Ashcroft.
“Um, the brief that I will be filing with the United States Supreme Court is not going to say that President Trump was a bad person. It’s not going to say that he’s a good person. What it’s going to say is that this extra-judicial means of removing people from the ballot is catastrophic to our country if it’s allowed to continue, because if Democrats can do it, you know that Republicans will do it. And if Republicans will do it then Democrats will do it more,” Ashcroft said.

“To that point, secretary, in order to remove President Biden from the ballot, according to your state constitution, you would need to go to court,” Sanchez clarified, asking, “What do you think would be your strongest argument?”

“Not, not at all,” Ashcroft shot back.

“Your state constitution actually states that the Secretary of State lacks authority to assess qualifications of a candidate, to determine whether to place a candidate’s name on a primary ballot. That’s according to Section 15-387 of your state constitution,” Sanchez replied, reading from the document.

“Sir, sir. What I’m saying is, if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling out of Colorado,” Ashcroft replied as Sanchez interjected, “Which went to court to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot, so you, according to your state constitution, would need to go to court.”

“Sir, let’s just be clear. First of all, you’ve already said you’re not an attorney and you don’t know what happened in Colorado,” Ashcroft hit back.

“I know what happened in Colorado, sir. What I said was that I didn’t read through all of the evidence specifically to be able to qualify, whether there was hearsay or not. To get back to my question. You said that you would decide to remove Joe Biden from the ballot in your state according to your state constitution, which I just read to you from. It says you need to go to court. I’m asking you what you think your strongest argument is?” Sanchez replied, not missing a beat.

“And I continue to try to answer your questions, and you continue to try to tell me stuff that just isn’t true,” Ashcroft replied.

After a lengthy back and forth regarding the role of the Supreme Court in the decision to keep Trump on or off the ballot in Colorado and Maine, Sanchez then asked, “I’m wondering, though, what would then be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri? Has he engaged in your mind in some kind of insurrection?”

“Uh, there have been allegations that he’s engaged in insurrection,” Ashcroft replied as Sanchez immediately asked for examples.

“I am continuing, but you interrupted me before I could back it up. Are you scared of the truth?” Ashcroft hit back.

“Oh, I’m not terrified of the truth at all. It seems like you might be. Let’s hear what you have to say,” Sanchez replied.

“What did Joe Biden do in your mind that equates insurrection? What allegations are you talking about?” Sanchez pressed again after Ashcroft tried to pivot.

Ashcroft then cited allegations from Texas and Florida, adding, “They made allegations and all it took for the president, for former President Trump to be taken off the ballot in Colorado and in Maine were allegations. We should not be a country that removes people from the ballot based on allegations. I think you can agree with that.”

Sanchez replied saying it’s a question of “degree,” to which Ashcroft said of course he would say that about “his guy.”

“My guy, Joe Biden is not my guy. You don’t know who my guy is. The point is, sir, the point is that it’s not clear whether the 14th Amendment is self-executing or not. In other words, it doesn’t matter to a court at that point whether there was a conviction of Donald Trump for insurrection or not. That is a debate for the Supreme Court to have,” Sanchez hit back.

The two continued to debate the points and Sanchez ended the issue on a conciliatory note as Ashcroft rolled his eyes.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump cannot legally qualify for Nevada’s 2024 primary ballot - The Nevada Independent

The Nevada GOP, which decided the same primary election process that’s been used to select every other non-presidential Republican candidate in the state for decades is still not good enough for presidential candidates in 2024.

thenevadaindependent.com

No, Trump is ineligible for Nevada’s primary ballot because Trump’s campaign didn’t fill out an application to place him on Nevada’s primary ballot.

As hilarious as it would have been if this was the product of a paperwork snafu committed by an incompetently run campaign, Trump’s absence from Nevada’s primary ballot was wholly intentional. They merely followed the directions provided to them by a truly incompetently run organization — the Nevada GOP, which decided the same primary election process that’s been used to select every other non-presidential Republican candidate, including our current governor, in the state for decades is still not good enough for presidential candidates in 2024. In case anyone didn’t get the memo, the state party warned presidential campaigns that if it saw their candidates’ names on the primary ballot, those candidates would be ineligible to participate in and receive delegates from the caucus.

Oopsie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Neither Congress nor the courts have not yet determined that it was an insurrection.

A violent attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power in order to install the loser of a free and fair election, is hard to exclude from ANY definition of insurrection.
If J6 is an example of what is allowed, we should be working on a repeat for next January, just in case Trump wins. Hopefully Dems can re-capture the House so we can get away with it, right?

You miss my point. While we know what happened there hasn't been a trial. I'm not saying of His Flatulence himself, but of the insurrection as a whole. Don't declare guilt (throw him and any who helped off the ballot) without a trial (a legal determination that there was an insurrection.) Otherwise you leave "insurrection" as an undefined term and open things up to bogus claims of insurrection.

What are you talking about? Multiple courts have determined that an insurrection occurred, including all of those we're currently discussing.

It has been incidental to various decisions, not central. They are convicting the guys based on their actions, not as insurrectionists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You miss my point. While we know what happened there hasn't been a trial. I'm not saying of His Flatulence himself, but of the insurrection as a whole. Don't declare guilt (throw him and any who helped off the ballot) without a trial (a legal determination that there was an insurrection.) Otherwise you leave "insurrection" as an undefined term and open things up to bogus claims of insurrection.

Was there ever a "trial" to determine that the Civil War actually occurred? The confederacy was an amalgamation of victimized freedom fighters who just had a different view of what it means to be free. That's perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Amirite?

There was a formal surrender.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So who or what is the arbiter of the 14th Amendment, who gets to say there was an insurrection? Insurrection as related to the 14th Amendment is a federal related crime. States are not allowed to manage federal related justice. If a Federal Court (or Congress) doesn't rule or state or find it was insurrection, is it an insurrection?

That's my issue with the case. We have no clear definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection and we need to define what meets it.

I'm not saying he didn't do it, but rather that the law fails to adequately define it. If it were anything less than the Constitution I would say to yeet it, but since that's not an option we need a formal determination that it actually is an insurrection. (And, unfortunately, given the way the QOP is these days, I doubt we will get one.)

 

[ZiprHead]

That's my issue with the case. We have no clear definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection and we need to define what meets it.

You really should research before you make blanket statements like the above.

FindLaw Legal Dictionary
The FindLaw Legal Dictionary -- free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries.
term:

Insurrection​

insurrection n
: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also
: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]

 

[Elixir]

That's my issue with the case. We have no clear definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection and we need to define what meets it.

You really should research before you make blanket statements like the above.

FindLaw Legal Dictionary
The FindLaw Legal Dictionary -- free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries.
term:

Insurrection​

insurrection n
: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also
: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]

Thx. I was tiring …

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's my issue with the case. We have no clear definition of exactly what constitutes insurrection and we need to define what meets it.

You really should research before you make blanket statements like the above.

Come on... how many times has SCOTUS done a ruling based on Webster's dictionary?

Law is all about definitions. Constitutional law weighs even more heavily on it. What is insurrection? Who gets to say there was insurrection?

 

[Elixir]

ruling based on Webster's dictionary

I think the reference provided was from FindLaw. It’s a legal dictionary.

But I’m sure Teh Donald agrees with you that there’s no such thing as an insurrection. Thomas and Alito too.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Let's look at when the insurrection act has been invoked previously. Note: I picked the most applicable ones.

from here:

[T]oday’s Insurrection Act can be traced all the way to the Calling Forth Act of 1792. In the 230 years since then, the Insurrection Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises.
. . . .
1873-May-22 The results of the 1872 gubernatorial election in Louisiana were contested between white supremacist Democrats and pro-Reconstruction Republicans, which threw the state's politics into turmoil and led to widespread violence, especially in rural areas. The violence reached its apogee on April 13, 1873 in Colfax, Louisiana, when a heavily armed white mob massacred between 60 and 150 black militiamen after they surrendered (sources differ as to the number of victims). A month after the Colfax massacre, President Grant issued a proclamation under the Insurrection Act, calling on the belligerents in Louisiana to disperse. However, no additional federal troops were deployed other than those already stationed in Louisiana as part of Reconstruction.
. . . .
1874-May-15 The Brooks-Baxter War. The 1872 Arkansas gubernatorial election was disputed between two Republican candidates, Elisha Baxter and Joseph Brooks. In 1874, Brooks, who had narrowly lost the election, attempted to overthrow Baxter's government. Both parties gathered their own militia forces and engaged in an extended stand-off, punctuated by occasional incidents of violence. All the while, federal troops stationed in the area as part of Reconstruction interposed themselves between the two forces in order to forestall the outbreak of full war. In May, after the state assembly was finally able to meet and declare Baxter the winner, President Grant ratified their decision and invoked the Insurrection Act, ordering the supporters of Brooks to disperse, who did so without the need for additional federal troops.
. . . .
1874-Sep-15 Continued disputes over the 1872 gubernatorial election in Louisiana culminated in a violent white supremacist coup d'état in New Orleans - then the state capital - in 1874. President Grant invoked the Insurrection Act and deployed troops, who drove the insurrectionists out of the city and reinstated the ousted governor. However, the insurgents established their own competing government, which effectively controlled much of Louisiana outside of New Orleans for the next three years. This situation persisted until the federal troops protecting New Orleans were withdrawn as part of the Compromise of 1877, and white supremacist "Redeemers" fully took control of the state.
. . . .
1876-Oct-17 In advance of the 1876 South Carolina gubernatorial election, thousands of white supremacists in South Carolina who opposed Reconstruction organized into heavily armed paramilitary groups known as "rifle clubs." Worried that these groups would interfere with the election and were too large to be controlled with the state militia, the governor appealed to President Grant for military aid. Grant issued a proclamation under the Insurrection Act ordering the clubs to disperse, and sent additional federal troops to South Carolina to reinforce those already stationed there. These troops kept the peace after the election, remaining until all federal forces were withdrawn from the former Confederacy as part of the Compromise of 1877.

I mean, I'm sure it's only coincidence that so many of the invocations of this rather over the top, and occasionally (IMO) abused, power has been used to quell white people acting violently when they didn't get their way. Based on what we saw Jan 6, I think it can easily be called an insurrection. I guess the only 'question' is how directly involve the orange shitgibbon was. It seems pretty obvious to everyone without a dog in the proverbial fight, but then again, everyone in the US has a dog in that fight whether they know it or now.