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

Not necessarily.
But if enough luke warm Republican voters get pressured to vote the results might not be as clear as 2020 and that could end U.S. democracy.
Trump lost by ~8,000,000 and there are still people who believe that he won.
Tom
 
Trump lost by ~8,000,000 and there are still people who believe that he won.
In 2020 there was a thread where my intimation - that no margin of loss would be sufficient to get Trump to admit defeat - drew lots of ire and even ridicule from trumpsuckers and i'mnotatrumpsuckers alike. "Of course he will admit it if he loses!"
Turns out the trick is, now, after lots of encouragement from Trump for his suckers to believe what he says rather than what they see with their own eyes, the right is saying, "See? He never lost (or he would have admitted it)!"
The more cogent individuals among them simply refrain from opening their mouths and being thought fools, rather than opening their mouths and removing all doubt.

 
They are within their own bailiwick.
I do not think questions about insurrection against the United States or candidates' eligibility under the federal constitution are within the bailiwick of the state courts. But I guess SCOTUS will get to rule on that.
I am not a lawyer and I reckon you are not one either? So, we are both just engaging in Sunday morning quarterbacking. The game will be played on the Capitol Ave. in DC soon enough.
 
Not necessarily.
But if enough luke warm Republican voters get pressured to vote the results might not be as clear as 2020 and that could end U.S. democracy.
He might even win legitimately. Polls are already looking bad for Biden and the far left/Muslims are threatening to not vote for him because of the war that Hamas-ruled Gaza started against Israel. Energizing more Republicans will just help him further.

Trump lost by ~8,000,000 74 and there are still people who believe that he won.
Tom
FIFY.
 
Trump lost by ~8,000,000 74 and there are still people who believe that he won.
Tom
FIFY.
Oh that's right. I forgot.
You don't believe in democracy. "We The People" don't matter, the people who really run this country do, the rich and powerful elite and their employees in state legislatures.

Sorry I forgot that part.
Tom
 
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?
If Trump can be convicted of sedition (or insurrection, would the distinction matter?) in Federal Court, that means that Congress passed a law defining the crime. I do not think 14.5 means that Congress has to pass a bill of attainder for each individual candidate or anything like that. But some sort of Congressional action seems to be required, otherwise it may become a free for all.
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.
But it does not give states or state courts the authority over 14.3.

Jimmy, are you a lawyer? I am not, and just go by plain reading of the text.

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.
But facts certainly help. Especially to persuade those outside his already convinced base.

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.
I do not think that has been demonstrated sufficiently. And I do not think SCOTUS will buy.

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.
And yet ironically, this gambit will almost certainly fail, and very likely will help Trump politically.
It was a foolish strategy from the beginning.
 
Oh that's right. I forgot.
You don't believe in democracy. "We The People" don't matter, the people who really run this country do, the rich and powerful elite and their employees in state legislatures.
Are UK or Germany not democratic? US system to elect the president is a lot more directly democratic than either of those two countries (as well as many other countries considered democracies). UK and Germany do not vote for their chief executive at all, as they are elected not by "they the people" but by the lower house of their respective parliaments. They also do not vote for the (largely ceremonial) head of state. In Germany that vote is done by the Bundesversammlung, a body composed of members of federal and state legislatures, and in the UK it is a hereditary position.

I think EC should be abolished and that we should have a popular vote for president (with runoff, plurality should not be enough). I also think House should be elected proportionally, rather than by single-member districts. But that does not mean that only one system is "democratic".
 
Are we seriously worried that Trump supporters will get more energized to vote than they already are?
Maybe not his hardcore supporters, but these incessant attacks will make Trump more popular among the more moderate Republicans and even some independents. Esp. if one or two Democratic appointed justices vote in his favor in the almost certainly upcoming SCOTUS case.
People generally do not like their choices abridged, esp. if it is perceived that the attempts to restrict their choice are partisan machinations.
 
Are we seriously worried that Trump supporters will get more energized to vote than they already are?
Maybe not his hardcore supporters, but these incessant attacks will make Trump more popular among the more moderate Republicans and even some independents.
Are you kidding? Moderate Republicans want Trump gone.
 
Are you kidding? Moderate Republicans want Trump gone.
Not all of them, surely, or else Trump would not be either leading or tied with Biden in presidential general election polls.
If you used how the bones rolled out, you’d have more convincing evidence than popularity polls a year removed from the polls.
 
I do not think questions about insurrection against the United States or candidates' eligibility under the federal constitution are within the bailiwick of the state courts. But I guess SCOTUS will get to rule on that.
So if a 28 yr old wanted to be put on the ballot even though clearly unqualified by constitutional mandate the SOS should just go ahead and allow him on the ballot?
 
Agree With It or Not, Colorado Supreme Court’s Opinion Disqualifying Trump Is a Triumph of Judicial Engagement

Given how many hurdles the court had to jump through to get to the merits, it’s kind of amazing it did. Take, for example, the very first argument made by Trump: his attorneys argued that the electors could not sue to prevent the Secretary of State from putting him on the ballot because the Secretary has no duty to independently investigate the candidate’s eligibility. Instead, she need only rely on the political party’s statement that the person is their bona fide candidate. This is exactly the type of pedantic argument government attorneys make all the time, but the court wasn’t having it.

First, states have the authority to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates. Citing then‐Judge Neil Gorsuch, the court wrote that states have a “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits [them] to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

Second, Colorado election law does not just allow people to challenge the Secretary’s breach of affirmative duties; it allows people to sue for any wrongful act. And it would certainly be wrongful for the Secretary to put an unqualified person on the ballot when the code explicitly states that all candidates must be qualified.

The Colorado Supreme Court next dispensed with the argument that taking Trump off of the ballot would violate the free association rights of the Republican Party. If that were true, the court said, it would mean any political party could override the Constitution by putting ineligible people on the ballot (i.e., people who are too young, not a natural born citizen, etc.) and states couldn’t do anything about it.
 
Agree With It or Not, Colorado Supreme Court’s Opinion Disqualifying Trump Is a Triumph of Judicial Engagement

Given how many hurdles the court had to jump through to get to the merits, it’s kind of amazing it did. Take, for example, the very first argument made by Trump: his attorneys argued that the electors could not sue to prevent the Secretary of State from putting him on the ballot because the Secretary has no duty to independently investigate the candidate’s eligibility. Instead, she need only rely on the political party’s statement that the person is their bona fide candidate. This is exactly the type of pedantic argument government attorneys make all the time, but the court wasn’t having it.

First, states have the authority to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates. Citing then‐Judge Neil Gorsuch, the court wrote that states have a “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits [them] to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

Second, Colorado election law does not just allow people to challenge the Secretary’s breach of affirmative duties; it allows people to sue for any wrongful act. And it would certainly be wrongful for the Secretary to put an unqualified person on the ballot when the code explicitly states that all candidates must be qualified.

The Colorado Supreme Court next dispensed with the argument that taking Trump off of the ballot would violate the free association rights of the Republican Party. If that were true, the court said, it would mean any political party could override the Constitution by putting ineligible people on the ballot (i.e., people who are too young, not a natural born citizen, etc.) and states couldn’t do anything about it.
Let's hope each member of SCOTUS reads this article in full. My fear is that most have already made up their minds. It will be interesting to get Gorsuch's take. He will have to be the most clever if he's to get off the hook he has himself on. Or else he can just abrogate his responsibilities and vote his biases like Thomas. We will see.
 

Gorsuch writing for the court:

...Mr. Hassan claims it was still an unlawful act of discrimination for the state to deny him a place on the ballot. But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
 
Agree With It or Not, Colorado Supreme Court’s Opinion Disqualifying Trump Is a Triumph of Judicial Engagement

Given how many hurdles the court had to jump through to get to the merits, it’s kind of amazing it did. Take, for example, the very first argument made by Trump: his attorneys argued that the electors could not sue to prevent the Secretary of State from putting him on the ballot because the Secretary has no duty to independently investigate the candidate’s eligibility. Instead, she need only rely on the political party’s statement that the person is their bona fide candidate. This is exactly the type of pedantic argument government attorneys make all the time, but the court wasn’t having it.

First, states have the authority to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates. Citing then‐Judge Neil Gorsuch, the court wrote that states have a “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits [them] to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

Second, Colorado election law does not just allow people to challenge the Secretary’s breach of affirmative duties; it allows people to sue for any wrongful act. And it would certainly be wrongful for the Secretary to put an unqualified person on the ballot when the code explicitly states that all candidates must be qualified.

The Colorado Supreme Court next dispensed with the argument that taking Trump off of the ballot would violate the free association rights of the Republican Party. If that were true, the court said, it would mean any political party could override the Constitution by putting ineligible people on the ballot (i.e., people who are too young, not a natural born citizen, etc.) and states couldn’t do anything about it.
Let's hope each member of SCOTUS reads this article in full. My fear is that most have already made up their minds. It will be interesting to get Gorsuch's take. He will have to be the most clever if he's to get off the hook he has himself on. Or else he can just abrogate his responsibilities and vote his biases like Thomas. We will see.
Come come now! I’m sure that Thomas will recuse himself since his wife was with the insecurrection!
 
Agree With It or Not, Colorado Supreme Court’s Opinion Disqualifying Trump Is a Triumph of Judicial Engagement

Given how many hurdles the court had to jump through to get to the merits, it’s kind of amazing it did. Take, for example, the very first argument made by Trump: his attorneys argued that the electors could not sue to prevent the Secretary of State from putting him on the ballot because the Secretary has no duty to independently investigate the candidate’s eligibility. Instead, she need only rely on the political party’s statement that the person is their bona fide candidate. This is exactly the type of pedantic argument government attorneys make all the time, but the court wasn’t having it.

First, states have the authority to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates. Citing then‐Judge Neil Gorsuch, the court wrote that states have a “legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits [them] to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

Second, Colorado election law does not just allow people to challenge the Secretary’s breach of affirmative duties; it allows people to sue for any wrongful act. And it would certainly be wrongful for the Secretary to put an unqualified person on the ballot when the code explicitly states that all candidates must be qualified.

The Colorado Supreme Court next dispensed with the argument that taking Trump off of the ballot would violate the free association rights of the Republican Party. If that were true, the court said, it would mean any political party could override the Constitution by putting ineligible people on the ballot (i.e., people who are too young, not a natural born citizen, etc.) and states couldn’t do anything about it.
Let's hope each member of SCOTUS reads this article in full. My fear is that most have already made up their minds. It will be interesting to get Gorsuch's take. He will have to be the most clever if he's to get off the hook he has himself on. Or else he can just abrogate his responsibilities and vote his biases like Thomas. We will see.

Countdown to MAGA labeling CATO as "radical left liberals" who "hate America" in 3...2...
 
And now the Trump extremists are proving their colors once again:

Violent online rhetoric heats up after Colorado ballot ruling on Trump (Link)


Ready to commit insurrection (and other crimes) again

Violent rhetoric is up in some online spaces where supporters of former President Donald Trump are reacting to news that he is ineligible to appear on Colorado's primary ballot.

Personal information, including phone numbers and addresses, of the Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled against Trump are circulating on some far-right platforms. So, too, are calls for his base to take up arms.


These people are violent extremists and tend toward terrorism. Can we acknowledge that?
 
Back
Top Bottom