• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
As dangerous as it sounds, not being permitted to "hold office" means you can put forward and vote for whomever you want. You just can't seat them. The precedent is Worthy v. The Commissioners. Colorado acted early.
 
TV and credit cards said:
As dangerous as it sounds, not being permitted to "hold office" means you can put forward and vote for whomever you want. You just can't seat them. The precedent is Worthy v. The Commissioners. Colorado acted early.
Click to expand...
A candidate not being permitted to appear on ballots after having been found ineligible by a court of law or the State's elections commission doesn't mean he or she can't be a write-in candidate.

Some years back, Sen. Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican primary to a Tea Party candidate. She won election to the U.S. Senate as a write-in. Her campaign flooded the airwaves to make sure voters knew how to spell her name correctly.

I don't really see why Trump can't do the same in Colorado while the district courts and/or Supreme Court figures out if he's eligible to hold office.
 
www.nybooks.com

A Historic Abdication | Sean Wilentz

The Supreme Court justices’ responses last Thursday to the oral arguments over Donald Trump’s disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
www.nybooks.com www.nybooks.com
The Supreme Court justices’ responses last Thursday to the oral arguments over Donald Trump’s disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment were worse than an embarrassment—they were a disgrace. With the partial exception of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the members of the Court appeared woefully ignorant of the historical and constitutional issues before them. They took up in detail the ramifications of an eccentric 1869 circuit court ruling by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, In re Griffin, that Section 3 could not be enforced without congressional approval, overlooking, except briefly and in passing, that in that case Chase flatly contradicted what he had ruled in another trial a year earlier. They fretted over whether the section’s disqualifications applied to the presidency and vice-presidency as offices “under the United States,” ignoring the explicit evidence from the Senate debates over the amendment in 1866, expressed most directly by Senator Lot Morrill of Maine, that they plainly did.
Click to expand...
 
www.foxnews.com

Supreme Court rules unanimously for Trump in Colorado ballot disqualification dispute

The Supreme Court sided with former President Donald Trump in his challenge to the state of Colorado’s attempt to kick him off the 2024 primary ballot.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Obviously.

The only part I don’t agree with is that Congress is the one that makes such calls in Federal elections. I still think that if a candidate has been convicted in Federal Court of a “insurrection,” that would suffice.
 
DeplorableInfidel said:
The only part I don’t agree with is that Congress is the one that makes such calls in Federal elections. I still think that if a candidate has been convicted in Federal Court of a “insurrection,” that would suffice.
Click to expand...
It's dumbassery from Republicans, per usual.

States rights are important when it's women's reproductive rights. But not when it's state laws concerning election laws. WTF?

Honestly, I think Colorado would have done better announcing that anybody can vote for anyone that they want. But anybody who is, by their standards, ineligible will not get an EC delegates from Colorado.

Of course, all this would be easier if Republicans stopped taking a sledgehammer to basic American institutions. But the party as a whole doesn't have that much integrity.
Tom
 
Presumably, following the logic of the opinion, the States may also not disqualify candidates for federal offices for other restrictions, like age and citizenship.

Some interesting text from the liberal justices (emphasis mine):

Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legisla- tion under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “ ‘ “ascer- tain[ ] what particular individuals” ’ ” should be disqualified. These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.

To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the major- ity’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context). In fact, the text cuts the opposite way. Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. Even petitioner’s lawyer acknowledged the “tension” in Section 3 that the majority’s view creates.

Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 524 (1997); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 20 (1883). Similarly, other constitutional rules of disqualification, like the two-term limit on the Presidency, do not require implementing legislation. ... Nor does the majority suggest otherwise. It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.
Click to expand...
 
Someone here predicted in another thread on this subject, that the SC would just kick it to congress so they really don't have to make any decision. Cowards.
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...rump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291

In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Although this ruling will no doubt inflame the Trump haters even more, I believe it was the correct one as not to enter a slippery slope in the future. Also considering that no one appears to have any faith in US government institutions at this point, it will make little difference who actually wins the next POTUS election because neither side will accept the result no matter who wins.
 
Of course, common sense would have also included Congress convicting Trump and dq'ing him from ever being President again.
 
RVonse said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...rump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291

In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which had determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Although this ruling will no doubt inflame the Trump haters even more, I believe it was the correct one as not to enter a slippery slope in the future. Also considering that no one appears to have any faith in US government institutions at this point, it will make little difference who actually wins the next POTUS election because neither side will accept the result no matter who wins.
Click to expand...
If Trump wins, and Biden refuses to defend the Capitol from murderous insurrectionists, and he leads his supporters in promoting lies, you will be right. If not, you will be proven wrong yet again.

BTW, Mr. Trump makes me ashamed to be a white male US citizen. I don;'t hate him. I just wish he shut up and go away. However, I think only a massive stroke or death will accomplish that outcome. I don't want that for him, but if it were to occur, I would not shed a tear.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Of course, common sense would have also included Congress convicting Trump and dq'ing him from ever being President again.
Click to expand...
You must be referring to the two imbecile impeachment efforts.

Actually, common sense dictated the Senate outcome in both impeachment effort.
 
TomC said:
DeplorableInfidel said:
The only part I don’t agree with is that Congress is the one that makes such calls in Federal elections. I still think that if a candidate has been convicted in Federal Court of a “insurrection,” that would suffice.
Click to expand...
It's dumbassery from Republicans, per usual.

States rights are important when it's women's reproductive rights. But not when it's state laws concerning election laws. WTF?

Honestly, I think Colorado would have done better announcing that anybody can vote for anyone that they want. But anybody who is, by their standards, ineligible will not get an EC delegates from Colorado.

Of course, all this would be easier if Republicans stopped taking a sledgehammer to basic American institutions. But the party as a whole doesn't have that much integrity.
Tom
Click to expand...
Confusion seems to be clouding your thinking. This case has basically zip zilch nothing and squat to do with “state rights.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom