Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[laughing dog]

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.

Then there’d be no time to get that person off the ballot.

 

[Arctish]

I don't know if it's true in every state, but in Alaska someone whose name does not appear on the ballot can still be a write-in candidate. Most states probably allow for something similar.

When Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican primary to a Tea Party candidate she launched an independent campaign that focused on making sure voters knew how to spell her name correctly. It worked. She won the general election because a majority of voters wrote her name correctly on the 'other' line.

A similar strategy might get Trump the votes he wants but there would still be the question of whether he could be sworn in as President.

 

[bilby]

someone whose name does not appear on the ballot can still be a write-in candidate

But are write in votes for ineligible candidates counted?

Do they even count votes for a candidate who is too young, or who isn't a natural born citizen? Certainly they wouldn't be able to be sworn in; But would they even be separately counted, or just lumped into a 'invalid vote' bracket along with votes for Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader?

 

[Gospel]

It just falls back to the constitution. Which says

1. Natural-born citizen
2. 35+
3. Resident in the United States for at least 14 years

Yeah I know, it reads like a list of user preferences on a dating app. If they don't meet the requirements they get swiped left.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It just falls back to the constitution. Which says

1. Natural-born citizen
2. 35+
3. Resident in the United States for at least 14 years

Yeah I know, it reads like a list of user preferences on a dating app. If they don't meet the requirements they get swiped left.

Orange is 35+ but has the mental function of an eight year old.

 

[jonatha]

But are write in votes for ineligible candidates counted?

In some states at least candidates whose names are not on the ballot must inform the Secretary of State that they intend to stand for an office. Write-in votes for anyone who has not done so are not counted.

 

[TV and credit cards]

someone whose name does not appear on the ballot can still be a write-in candidate

But are write in votes for ineligible candidates counted?

Do they even count votes for a candidate who is too young, or who isn't a natural born citizen? Certainly they wouldn't be able to be sworn in; But would they even be separately counted, or just lumped into a 'invalid vote' bracket along with votes for Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader?

This is looking like a good read:
Disloyalty & Disqualification: Reconstructing Section 3 of the Disloyalty & Disqualification: Reconstructing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
The whole point of section three is to keep those who lost the civil war (rebellion) from winning a political one.

Also Worthy v. Barrett

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maine now disqualified Trump.

Maine disqualifies Trump from presidential primary ballot, citing insurrection clause

Move comes days after Colorado supreme court removes Trump from state primary ballot for same reason

www.theguardian.com

This is a big deal because states that can split electors may not always have all the electors go to Democrats. Last election, Trump had 1 of the Maine electors for example.

So this is why I think this is going to go to the SC. From earlier:

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!

Emphasis added.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Maine now disqualified Trump.

Maine disqualifies Trump from presidential primary ballot, citing insurrection clause

Move comes days after Colorado supreme court removes Trump from state primary ballot for same reason

www.theguardian.com

This is a big deal because states that can split electors may not always have all the electors go to Democrats. Last election, Trump had 1 of the Maine electors for example.

So this is why I think this is going to go to the SC. From earlier:

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!

Emphasis added.

What will the Supreme Court do other than to tell Congress to adopt appropriate legislation as per section five. It’s up to Congress to set a standard for all states not the Supreme Court.

 

[Politesse]

When Congress refuses to act, the Supreme Court becomes our Congress.

 

[Elixir]

When Congress refuses to act, the Supreme Court becomes our Congress.

And when the Court chickens out and simply rules that it’s the purview of the legislatures to codify the definitions and penalties related to Section 3, it’s back to the States?

 

[Politesse]

When Congress refuses to act, the Supreme Court becomes our Congress.

And when the Court chickens out and simply rules that it’s the purview of the legislatures to codify the definitions and penalties related to Section 3, it’s back to the States?

That would have seemed like the most likely outcome, back when the Court was more politically balanced. Not sure now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maine now disqualified Trump.

Maine disqualifies Trump from presidential primary ballot, citing insurrection clause

Move comes days after Colorado supreme court removes Trump from state primary ballot for same reason

www.theguardian.com

This is a big deal because states that can split electors may not always have all the electors go to Democrats. Last election, Trump had 1 of the Maine electors for example.

So this is why I think this is going to go to the SC. From earlier:

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!

Emphasis added.

What will the Supreme Court do other than to tell Congress to adopt appropriate legislation as per section five. It’s up to Congress to set a standard for all states not the Supreme Court.

Conservative judicial activists do all kinds of stretching beyond confines of settled law and logic. I am unable to predict what lie they will tell.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It just falls back to the constitution. Which says

1. Natural-born citizen
2. 35+
3. Resident in the United States for at least 14 years

Yeah I know, it reads like a list of user preferences on a dating app. If they don't meet the requirements they get swiped left.

Orange is 35+ but has the mental function of an eight year old.

Yeah, but if he was your eight-year-old you'd be saying, "Quit whining! Grow a pair! You're acting like a little baby!"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When Congress refuses to act, the Supreme Court becomes our Congress.

And when the Court chickens out and simply rules that it’s the purview of the legislatures to codify the definitions and penalties related to Section 3, it’s back to the States?

SCOTUS is going to rule in some kind of "stay" fashion. until congress can act. That might be another 100 years. So Orange Insurrectionists and Traitors will be on the ballots for some decades to come.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

US supreme court under pressure to rule swiftly on states’ Trump ballot bans

Court faces pressure to rule on Maine and Colorado’s decisions preventing ex-president from appearing on presidential ballots

www.theguardian.com

 

[Worldtraveller]

Maine has now joined CO in banning the orange shitgibbon from the ballot.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maine elections official who removed Trump from primary ballot targeted in swatting incident, police say | CNN Politics

State police say they responded to a swatting call at the home of Maine State Secretary of State Shenna Bellows on Friday night, a day after she removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Rhea]

Hope they catch the perps and prosecute.

 

[ZiprHead]

Poll: Majority of voters would support disqualifying Trump under 14th Amendment

Fifty-one percent say Trump engaged in insurrection and can be barred from running again, according to a new POLITICO | Morning Consult poll.

www.politico.com

The first question asks if Americans “support or oppose” that section of the amendment. Broadly, voters agree with it — 63 percent said they either strongly or somewhat support it, which includes a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents. Just 16 percent said they somewhat or strongly oppose it.

But as Trump is introduced in the following questions, respondents separate into their partisan camps. When asked if they believed Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” 51 percent said either definitely or probably yes, and 35 percent said definitely or probably no.



That number is divided sharply on party lines: 79 percent of Democrats — and 49 percent of independents — say that he did, while just under a quarter of Republicans agree. The margins are similar for an additional question that asked if Trump gave “aid and/or comfort” to those engaged in insurrection and rebellion.

The fourth and final question — on whether Trump should be disqualified under the 14th Amendment — roughly tracks with respondents’ opinions on whether he engaged in or aided an insurrection, and includes a similar partisan divide.