Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[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.

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.

Except for the minor issue that you raised... the Federal Government couldn't possibly try every secessionist who raised arms against the US or governed within the rebel territory. The 14th Amendment covered that for them. The 14th Amendment allowed a blanket judgment on an insurrection that could not possibly be viewed as anything but an insurrection/rebellion.

That isn't what we have here. We already have hundreds of convictions of people that caused the US Capitol to be evacuated on January 6th. Indeed, even the US House acted on impeaching Trump for his part in it, but Congress did not impeach. While an argument could be made that this would be separation of powers, and SCOTUS could act as a check on the Executive in this case, this isn't a Federal question. It is a state one. And that question is whether a State may disallow a person from being on the ballot in light of the 14th Amendment because of accusations against a potential candidate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

We indeed did witness that. He did create a riot with the intention of holding onto power. But that isn't enough.

We can see people saying likewise about Democrats using much much much weaker evidence. And there would be no standard to reject one claim over the other.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It has never been proven in a court of law that Trump meets the age requirement, so perhaps he’s ineligible to run.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

We indeed did witness that. He did create a riot with the intention of holding onto power. But that isn't enough.

We can see people saying likewise about Democrats using much much much weaker evidence. And there would be no standard to reject one claim over the other.

Simply not taking action to defend the Capitol should qualify for comforting the enemy.

His inaction has never been in dispute and has been testified to in Congressional hearings.

 

[bilby]

it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act.

They aren't. They are asserting that he committed a disqualifying act, in his bid to become President.

 

[Shadowy Man]

it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act.

They aren't. They are asserting that he committed a disqualifying act, in his bid to become President.

And it wasn’t “asserted”. There was a trial and it was determined from the evidence presented.

 

[Elixir]

We indeed did witness that. He did create a riot with the intention of holding onto power. But that isn't enough.

According to two courts so far, it is more than enough. Unanimously.
There is nothing in A14.3 that poses a requirement of criminal conviction.

We can see people saying likewise about Democrats using much much much weaker evidence.

Seeing “people” saying shit is of zero consequence. When courts are saying, then you should pay attention.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act.

They aren't. They are asserting that he committed a disqualifying act, in his bid to become President.

And it wasn’t “asserted”. There was a trial and it was determined from the evidence presented.

Determined based on what standard?

The funny thing here is that SCOTUS has been providing cover to disenfranchise minority voters. They've also be giving cover for states to gerrymander the heck out of their state. IE, they been stepping back and letting states be states. The question then becomes, on what basis, does SCOTUS have for even intervening in this case. The Constitution says states make the rules on elections. But the Constitution sets the parameters for who can run. Trump qualifies based on his age and nation of origin. So that leads us to the 14th Amendment as far as disqualification.

I mean, isn't the first question from SCOTUS going to be, "So, can any panel of State Supreme Court justices rule a person has committed an insurrection, even if they have not been convicted of a single crime?"

 

[Elixir]

Determined based on what standard?

Preponderance of EVIDENCE is sufficient.
This isn’t being tried in criminal court, and if the SCOTUS takes it up, the ruling won’t be unanimous. But it will be binding. No matter WHAT “people are saying”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We indeed did witness that. He did create a riot with the intention of holding onto power. But that isn't enough.

According to two courts so far, it is more than enough. Unanimously.
There is nothing in A14.3 that poses a requirement of criminal conviction.

Because the whole point of the 14th Amendment was that the Federal Government couldn't try over 1,000,000 Southerners!

We can see people saying likewise about Democrats using much much much weaker evidence.

Seeing “people” saying shit is of zero consequence. When courts are saying, then you should pay attention.

We got a court in Texas saying that the FDA can't approve an abortion drug. We got a court in Florida with a judge so unbelievably incompetent and partisan to Trump. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that a woman with an unviable pregnancy couldn't get an abortion because her doctor was "objective" enough. Is it enough for a State Supreme Court to merely proclaim it as fact?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Determined based on what standard?

Preponderance of EVIDENCE is sufficient.
This isn’t being tried in criminal court, and if the SCOTUS takes it up, the ruling won’t be unanimous. But it will be binding. No matter WHAT “people are saying”.

I see this being a unanimous decision. The fact that Colorado ruled 4-3, I'd be close to putting money on a unanimous decision.

 

[Elixir]

Because the whole point of the 14th Amendment was that the Federal Government couldn't try over 1,000,000 Southerners!

No, it was to keep a relative handful of them from becoming the bad apples that rotted the entire government.
IOW, it was custom designed to keep Trump and his ilk out of power.

 

[Elixir]

Determined based on what standard?

Preponderance of EVIDENCE is sufficient.
This isn’t being tried in criminal court, and if the SCOTUS takes it up, the ruling won’t be unanimous. But it will be binding. No matter WHAT “people are saying”.

I see this being a unanimous decision. The fact that Colorado ruled 4-3, I'd be close to putting money on a unanimous decision.

Really? Have you determined which way they will (would?) rule?
I can’t see Thomas or Alito turning on their cash cows, and I can’t see the principled justices failing to support the Constitution.
It is telling that the three dissenters agreed that Trump committed insurrection.

 

[laughing dog]

We indeed did witness that. He did create a riot with the intention of holding onto power. But that isn't enough.

According to two courts so far, it is more than enough. Unanimously.
There is nothing in A14.3 that poses a requirement of criminal conviction.

Because the whole point of the 14th Amendment was that the Federal Government couldn't try over 1,000,000 Southerners!

We can see people saying likewise about Democrats using much much much weaker evidence.

Seeing “people” saying shit is of zero consequence. When courts are saying, then you should pay attention.

We got a court in Texas saying that the FDA can't approve an abortion drug. We got a court in Florida with a judge so unbelievably incompetent and partisan to Trump. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that a woman with an unviable pregnancy couldn't get an abortion because her doctor was "objective" enough. Is it enough for a State Supreme Court to merely proclaim it as fact?

Your examples indicate suggest the answer to your question is “ yes”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We indeed did witness that. He did create a riot with the intention of holding onto power. But that isn't enough.

According to two courts so far, it is more than enough. Unanimously.
There is nothing in A14.3 that poses a requirement of criminal conviction.

Because the whole point of the 14th Amendment was that the Federal Government couldn't try over 1,000,000 Southerners!

We can see people saying likewise about Democrats using much much much weaker evidence.

Seeing “people” saying shit is of zero consequence. When courts are saying, then you should pay attention.

We got a court in Texas saying that the FDA can't approve an abortion drug. We got a court in Florida with a judge so unbelievably incompetent and partisan to Trump. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that a woman with an unviable pregnancy couldn't get an abortion because her doctor was "objective" enough. Is it enough for a State Supreme Court to merely proclaim it as fact?

Your examples indicate suggest the answer to your question is “ yes”.

You do realize that is why SCOTUS won't allow this, right?

 

[Elixir]

We got a court in Texas saying that the FDA can't approve an abortion drug. We got a court in Florida with a judge so unbelievably evidence. . Is it enough for a State Supreme Court to merely proclaim it as fact?

Your examples indicate suggest the answer to your question is “ yes”.

Bingo. Those State SC rulings are subject to federal appeal. Meanwhile, they go into effect. Hence the brouhaha.

 

[Rhea]

I recall reading a pretty detailed discussion of the existing precedent in this case, and the upshot is, the USA has ALREADY used this amendment to prevent people from ruinning for or holding office based on cases with no criminal conviction.

The precedent exists. It has already happened. The people who wrote the amendment have already used it exactly like this. So the “originalist” viewpoint must comport with the way the original writers used it. Which was to prevent people who were a part of, not necessarily convicted for, insurrection.

And the previous J6 cases have already proved there was an insurrection.


Although here is their article today, which does not predict the ballot-off-tossing to be upheld.

Trump Booted Off of Colorado Ballot

Click on the map for the article

www.electoral-vote.com

 

[Elixir]

You do realize that is why SCOTUS won't allow this, right?

Allow what? The TX misogyny ruling or the CO 14.3 interpretation?
What grounds do you figure SCOTUS will use to deny the plain reading of 14.3?
I guess they’re going to have to take it up eventually, but they’ll try to put it off until after the primary, since CO stayed their own ruling pending the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Shadowy Man]

it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act.

They aren't. They are asserting that he committed a disqualifying act, in his bid to become President.

And it wasn’t “asserted”. There was a trial and it was determined from the evidence presented.

Determined based on what standard?

I haven’t read the trial transcript.

But the Constitution sets the parameters for who can run. Trump qualifies based on his age and nation of origin.

Do we really know this? By what standard has it been determined he meets these qualifications? Is this part “self-executing”?

Have we seen his birth certificate?

 

[Elixir]

the “originalist” viewpoint must comport with the way the original writers used it.

The Trumppointed justices say they are originalists. I think they’re about to reveal themselves as hypocrists. Again.