Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm afraid I have to side against Colorado here--while a sane system would have no problem with the distinction we are in an era of lawfare. Allowing this to stand means a never-ending stream of challenges to any prominent Democrat.

 

[Derec]

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.

Hmm, all 7 of Colorado justices have been appointed by Democrats, and yet this ruling has a slim majority.

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

Anyway, the case that matters will the one in SCOTUS. And I think it is virtually certain that it will overrule this ruling. Possibly by a more than 6-3 majority, i.e. 7-2 or 8-1.
And I also predict that this will end up helping Trump politically, as it feeds into his narrative of being persecuted by the Democrats.

 

[Derec]

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.

It also does not say that state courts may decide on eligibility under 14.3.
The only mention of an enforcement mechanism is in 14.5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Not secretaries of state. Not state courts. Not "the provisions of this article shall be self-executing". No, this power is given to the Congress, via "appropriate legislation".

 

[Derec]

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.

As you say, it was written to deal with Southern successionists[sic].

(although the ones in the pic are, obviously, Northern successionists)
14th Amendment also gives the Congress, not state courts, the power of enforcement.

 

[Derec]

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"

I hear Gaza is nice this time of year.

 

[Derec]

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

Not even this latest court ruling was unanimous. It was 4-3, a bad sign when all the justices are appointed by Democrats.
It is kind of weird for a state court to decide a question of eligibility for a federal office based on a provision of the federal constitution. They should stay within their own bailiwick.
The only court that matters here will be SCOTUS. And I very much doubt they will rule to uphold the Colorado ruling. In fact, it is very possible it will not be 6-3, but 7-2 or 8-1. Hell, it might even be unanimous - for real this time.

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.
What is with Democrats and their lack of inclination for strategic thought?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Ballot access laws are set and enforced by the states.

We know conviction does not appear in section three of the fourteenth amendment. It is interesting to note that it does appear in article two section four of the constitution.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Why is conviction expressed here and not there? Because it is left to the state in deciding access to the ballot.

As to whether or not the president is an officer, the test is the oath taken. An officer takes an oath to support and defend the constitution. Those not officers (formerly known as "placemen") take an oath to discharge a particular duty such as a juror.

I fear the Supreme Court will rule this is up to the states until such time as Congress exercises its authority under section five, states will play fast and loose with enforcement of section three as their political leaning dictate. Will it come down to whether or not swing states exclude Trump from the ballot? Probably. That won't be divisive at all now will it.

 

[Arctish]

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

Not even this latest court ruling was unanimous. It was 4-3, a bad sign when all the justices are appointed by Democrats.
It is kind of weird for a state court to decide a question of eligibility for a federal office based on a provision of the federal constitution. They should stay within their own bailiwick.

They are within their own bailiwick.

Challenges to a candidate's eligibility to be on state's ballot are heard in that state's courts. Since states are required to follow federal law, federal laws regarding eligibility should be upheld along with any applicable state laws. If there is any conflict between state and federal laws, the courts must defer to federal laws.


ETA: what TV and credit cards said ^.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I bet within 60 days there will be an appeal. The SC will overturn this. I am not enough of a legal scholar to say how, but it sets a dangerous precedent where conservative terrorist Presidents can be held accountable. And that means across MULTIPLE states, including split elector vote states. So, obviously, the conservative court will not have that! Now, could the argument be that Congress has to enforce it, that Trump wasn't an insurrectionist, that he was impeached by Congress but not convicted (that is different than merely not convicted...it could be said to be vindicated by conservatives), and/or other aces these bastards have up their sleeves? I don't know. I will just have to watch to see what they do.

 

[Elixir]

I bet within 60 days there will be an appeal.

I hope so, but have much doubt. Doing nothing would leave Cheato on the ballot, as long as they don’t officially refuse to take the case. The Trump court is full of weenies who will impose their will through inaction if possible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Not even this latest court ruling was unanimous. It was 4-3, a bad sign when all the justices are appointed by Democrats.
It is kind of weird for a state court to decide a question of eligibility for a federal office based on a provision of the federal constitution. They should stay within their own bailiwick.

This doesn't make much sense on a couple of levels.

If Trump was convicted of sedition in a Federal Court are you saying that unless Congress passes a law, that the States have no authority to withhold his appearance on the ballot?

Your argument also has issues with the fact that the 14th Amendment applies to the states themselves, not the Federal Government as the states hold the elections, not the Government. And the Constitution clearly provides states the power to manager these elections.

So your idea the State Supreme Court is out of bounds on this, merely by judging on the 14th Amendment, doesn't seem to make sense. I don't see SCOTUS going along with this. Indeed, the 4-3 ruling (regardless of party affiliation) is problematic and indictative that the judgment on this is highly debateable.

The only court that matters here will be SCOTUS. And I very much doubt they will rule to uphold the Colorado ruling. In fact, it is very possible it will not be 6-3, but 7-2 or 8-1. Hell, it might even be unanimous - for real this time.

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.

Trump doesn't need any actual facts to bolster his claims. He is a con man who has lied his entire life, and will continue to, and his cult of personality will help his followers believe anything he says.

The fact of the matter is President Donald Trump attempted to overthrow the results of a legal and fair election through the use of violence. He shouldn't be remotely close to being allowed to run again for President. That we even need to have this case go to SCOTUS is an indicator that the GOP utterly failed in their duty post January 6th.

 

[Elixir]

idea the State Supreme Court is out of bounds on this, merely by judging on the 14th Amendment, doesn't seem to make sense.

That’s because it’s bullshit. This case was heard because it fell within the court’s purview

Not even this latest court ruling was unanimous. It was 4-3, a bad sign when all the justices are appointed by Democrats.

An insipid observation; the salient finding was unanimous;
TRUMP COMMITTED INSURRECTION.

What is still in question is whether applying the 14 Amendment as written, will be done in this case.
Trump is rich and powerful so probably not.

 

[Politesse]

Am I surprised that the most serious challenges to the autonomous rights of the states are all Republican projects right now? Of course not.

They always think it's such a good idea to put the federal government in charge of every minute facet of civic life when they think it's going to be their guy at the reign... when they "win" their case, give the feds absolute control over balloting in the states, there will eventually come a time when it bites them.

 

[TomC]

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.
What is with Democrats and their lack of inclination for strategic thought?

Pretty much this. The Teaparty GOP is hopelessly corrupt and anti-democracy.

 

[Shadowy Man]

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.
What is with Democrats and their lack of inclination for strategic thought?

I thought I had heard that it was Republicans who brought suit in Colorado. Is that incorrect?

 

[starwater]

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.
What is with Democrats and their lack of inclination for strategic thought?

I thought I had heard that it was Republicans who brought suit in Colorado. Is that incorrect?

Yes it was republican voters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

idea the State Supreme Court is out of bounds on this, merely by judging on the 14th Amendment, doesn't seem to make sense.

That’s because it’s bullshit. This case was heard because it fell within the court’s purview

Not even this latest court ruling was unanimous. It was 4-3, a bad sign when all the justices are appointed by Democrats.

An insipid observation; the salient finding was unanimous;
TRUMP COMMITTED INSURRECTION.

What is still in question is whether applying the 14 Amendment as written, will be done in this case.
Trump is rich and powerful so probably not.

Hey... careful, I didn't say the second quote.

And where is my biscotti?!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.
What is with Democrats and their lack of inclination for strategic thought?

Pretty much this. The Teaparty GOP is hopelessly corrupt and anti-democracy.

Are we seriously worried that Trump supporters will get more energized to vote than they already are?

The 2024 election will be decided by moderate Republican and liberal Democrat turnout, not whether Trump supporters are 102% or 101% energized to vote.

 

[ZiprHead]

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.
What is with Democrats and their lack of inclination for strategic thought?

The contitution has provided us a clear, concise and legal means to stop a seriously dangerous person from taking over our government. We should use it.

 

[bilby]

All this 14th Amendment nonsense will of course merely help Trump politically. It will bolster his claims of persecution.
What is with Democrats and their lack of inclination for strategic thought?

The contitution has provided us a clear, concise and legal means to stop a seriously dangerous person from taking over our government. We should use it.

That's what they said about the Electoral College in 2016...