Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Politesse]

Nothing says "anyone who accuses my leader of insurrection is a lying scoundrel" like staging an insurrection to prove his innocence.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I really hope the FBI takes these seriously. They need to, if just to stop the fringe extremists from constantly being emboldened and egged on by the rest of the armchair basement warriors.

 

[Elixir]

States run elections, including federal ones.
Imnotatrumpsuckers might not like it the way they do when arguing for States’ Rights, but the US constitution designates States to run elections, and it is (has always been) up to them to determine eligibility.

 

[Derec]

States run elections, including federal ones.

So I guess we should get rid of the Voting Rights Act too if federal government should have no involvement in elections?
And SCOTUS should not decide anything about elections, right?
Supreme Court rejects Alabama's defiance in voting case

Imnotatrumpsuckers might not like it the way they do when arguing for States’ Rights,

It's funny how quickly leftists turn into states rights absolutists when it benefits them.

Letting the Colorado decision stand would set a very dangerous precedent. But I guess anything is good as long as it harms the Orange Man.
Note that had the Democratic Party and its standard bearer Hillary had their shit together in 2016, "President Trump" would have been fodder for a Harry Turtledove novel at most.

 

[Derec]

16 other states have challenges to keep tRump off ballets.

I sure hope so. He would look ridiculous in a tutu.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, they'll vote for the muslim ban guy.

Unlikely. But they may stay home of vote for an anti-Israel candidate like Jill Stein or Cornell West.

I am not making this stuff up. It has been written about extensively. Example:
Group of swing state Muslims vows to ditch Biden in 2024 over his war stance
Btw, I love this PBS station's call letters: WHYY. Indeed.

 

[Derec]

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?

Age is well-defined and obvious. Insurrection far less so. It needs a federal law to define, according to Section 5.

 

[Elixir]

So I guess we should get rid of the Voting Rights Act too if federal government should have no involvement in elections?
And SCOTUS should not decide anything about elections, right?

Did you ever EVEN school?
Yes, States do run elections. They do so within constraints posed by federal statutes.

LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE STATES DO.

federal government should have no involvement in elections?

Putting words in other people's mouths becomes a really transparent bit of dishonesty when it's done in writing.

 

[laughing dog]

Letting the Colorado decision stand would set a very dangerous precedent.

So does overturning it.

The Colorado Supreme court gave a fact based carefully reasoned basis for their decision. One may not agree with it but it was not arbitrary or partisan. If it overturned, the decision should be based on a fact based carefully reasoned argument as well. I hope the SCOTUS ruling gives clear and definitive guidelines on what circumstances merit disqualification under the Constitution .

 

[Elixir]

Letting the Colorado decision stand would set a very dangerous precedent.

So does overturning it.

The Colorado Supreme court gave a fact based carefully reasoned basis for their decision. One may not agree with it but it was not arbitrary or partisan. If it overturned, the decision should be based on a fact based carefully reasoned argument as well. I hope the SCOTUS ruling gives clear and definitive guidelines on what circumstances merit disqualification under the Constitution .

The problem is that the facts and reason are misaligned with the Court's generous benefactors' preferences, which must be accommodated AT ALL CO$T

 

[Derec]

So does overturning it.

I do not think so.

The Colorado Supreme court gave a fact based carefully reasoned basis for their decision.

Maybe. I am not a lawyer. Are you?

I hope the SCOTUS ruling gives clear and definitive guidelines on what circumstances merit disqualification under the Constitution.

The plain reading of the Amendment authorizes the Congress, not states, with enforcement.

 

[Derec]

Did you ever EVEN school?

I did. Did you?

Yes, States do run elections. They do so within constraints posed by federal statutes.

Exactly. Colorado does not get to decide unilaterally.

Putting words in other people's mouths becomes a really transparent bit of dishonesty when it's done in writing.

I am not putting words in your mouth.

These are your words.

States run elections, including federal ones.
Imnotatrumpsuckers might not like it the way they do when arguing for States’ Rights, but the US constitution designates States to run elections, and it is (has always been) up to them to determine eligibility.

Sounds like state rights absolutism, and anybody who thinks SCOTUS might have something to say about the Colorado decision is dismissed as a "Trumpsucker".
For the record, I object to this nonsense because it will help Trump politically and thus make it more likely he wins in 2024.

 

[laughing dog]

So does overturning it.

I do not think so.

The Colorado Supreme court gave a fact based carefully reasoned basis for their decision.

Maybe. I am not a lawyer. Are you?

One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what facts are or reasoned analysis.

I hope the SCOTUS ruling gives clear and definitive guidelines on what circumstances merit disqualification under the Constitution.

The plain reading of the Amendment authorizes the Congress, not states, with enforcement.

Not according to some lawyers.

 

[ZiprHead]

So does overturning it.

I do not think so.

The Colorado Supreme court gave a fact based carefully reasoned basis for their decision.

Maybe. I am not a lawyer. Are you?

One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what facts are or reasoned analysis.

I hope the SCOTUS ruling gives clear and definitive guidelines on what circumstances merit disqualification under the Constitution.

The plain reading of the Amendment authorizes the Congress, not states, with enforcement.

Not according to some lawyers.

Like Gorsuch.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Letting the Colorado decision stand would set a very dangerous precedent.

So does overturning it.

The Colorado Supreme court gave a fact based carefully reasoned basis for their decision. One may not agree with it but it was not arbitrary or partisan. If it overturned, the decision should be based on a fact based carefully reasoned argument as well. I hope the SCOTUS ruling gives clear and definitive guidelines on what circumstances merit disqualification under the Constitution .

The problem is what happens if the QOP starts declaring things like BLM to be an insurrection?

I think the 14th needs a high bar on defining insurrection.

 

[bilby]

what happens if the QOP starts declaring things like BLM to be an insurrection?

Then they would be wrong.

As usual.

What if they started declaring being a registered Democrat, or a self-confessed atheist as treason?

There's literally no limit to the number or absurdity of specious claims; But as they are specious, they should form no part of any serious policy discussion or legal proceeding before they have even been made; And should only merit derision and immediate dismissal if made.

Literally everything else is more important than our fears about what a bunch of loonies might possibly say at some future moment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

what happens if the QOP starts declaring things like BLM to be an insurrection?

Then they would be wrong.

As usual.

What if they started declaring being a registered Democrat, or a self-confessed atheist as treason?

There's literally no limit to the number or absurdity of specious claims; But as they are specious, they should form no part of any serious policy discussion or legal proceeding before they have even been made; And should only merit derision and immediate dismissal if made.

Literally everything else is more important than our fears about what a bunch of loonies might possibly say at some future moment.

The problem is a Trumper judge removing the Democrat before the election and not leaving enough time for that to be overturned.

 

[ZiprHead]

Motion filed to remove Trump from Virginia ballots

“Mr. Trump has declared his candidacy for president again in 2024,” reads the motion. “However, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Trump is constitutiona…

www.wric.com

 

[Elixir]

The problem is a Trumper judge The Supreme Court removing the Democrat before the election.

FIFY
If it’s a lower court (e.g. Colorado SC) the ruling would be held pending appeal, like CO’s ruling is currently being held.
But with the Insurrection Party in control of the SCOTUS there is zero assurance that it won’t happen.
This Country has been corrupted and is rotting from the judicial head.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Our SCOTUS conservatives, much as they style themselves as originalists, have carved out brand new definitions and principles in this century. Money is the same as speech; corporations have a right to free speech and apparently religious convictions; a coach who pushes prayer on his team is really only praying for himself; any religious symbol or monument can stay public as long as it has a 'historical tradition'; 49 years of Roe had to end because two generations isn't tradition enough; the "major questions" doctrine means corporations can get around the EPA. Remarkable how creative you can get when you're dissent-proof. I think their Trump/Colorado decision will be simple: Trump has to be convicted of insurrection first, even though that wasn't insisted upon during Reconstruction or written into Article 14. They'll say it's equal justice for the Orangeman. I predict it'll be another 7-2 decision. 6-3 at the very least. Trump will come out smelling a lot sweeter than his Depends.