Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Elixir]

Have they?

Yes. In Colorado both the district and supreme courts found that Trump participated in an insurrection. That was a finding of FACT, and as such, in principle, is not under review by SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not a trial court; it relies on the fact findings of lower courts in order to make its rulings on the relevant laws. It does NOT (normally) argue facts presented by the lower courts.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Have they?

Yes. In Colorado both the district and supreme courts found that Trump participated in an insurrection. That was a finding of FACT, and in principle, is not under review by SCOTUS.

In Maine it was a hearing not a trial but it will be appealed to a court.

 

[Elixir]

Have they?

Yes. In Colorado both the district and supreme courts found that Trump participated in an insurrection. That was a finding of FACT, and in principle, is not under review by SCOTUS.

In Maine it was a hearing not a trial but it will be appealed to a court.

Right. That court will, in all likelihood, find that Trump participated in an insurrection. It will go through at least one more court on its way to SCOTUS where the fact findings may be altered. But once it gets to SCOTUS it’s about how those facts relate to the law, not about whether those facts are facts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Have they?

Yes. In Colorado both the district and supreme courts found that Trump participated in an insurrection. That was a finding of FACT, and as such, in principle, is not under review by SCOTUS.

First thing you need to remember is that this SCOTUS isn't like other ones. Wasn't CJ Roberts whining about how standing didn't make a difference in whether they can take a case? This court has ruled it can rule however it darn well chooses.

Secondly, SCOTUS is not beholden to any alleged fact if they choose not to believe it.

The 14th Amendment is a US Constitution thing, not a state thing. If Trump was convicted specifically of insurrection (if that is a thing), a state couldn't allow him to run. It'd violate the Constitution. That could suggest the State has no choice. After all, isn't that the whole reason for the 14th Amendment? It was to prevent southern states from electing certain people.

So who or what is the arbiter of the 14th Amendment, who gets to say there was an insurrection? Insurrection as related to the 14th Amendment is a federal related crime. States are not allowed to manage federal related justice. If a Federal Court (or Congress) doesn't rule or state or find it was insurrection, is it an insurrection?

 

[Elixir]

this SCOTUS isn't like other ones

I am too well aware of that. Hence my use of the word “normally”.
Still, I don’t believe there has EVER been a case where SCOTUS “overturned” fact findings of the lower courts. They don’t do that because SCOTUS doesn’t see and hear evidence or fact witnesses.

If they were to make a finding that lower courts got their FACTS (rather than the law) wrong, it would be an epic departure from their Constitutionally designated function. They might as well go ahead and appoint our next executive leader, and determine the (un-appealable) “fact” that he was elected, despite any lower court finding that no election has ever yet been held.

Not that they wouldn’t like to do that, but I don’t think they will - it would be such an abuse that the ensuing upheaval would probably effect their grifting.

SCOTUS is not beholden to any alleged fact if they choose not to believe it.

Can you come up with a single example?

AFAIK they can decide that the Constitution doesn’t say what a plain reading shows that it says, e.g. they may say that 14A Sec3 doesn’t prohibit an insurrectionist from holding office.

But they can’t decide that Trump isn’t an insurrectionist after the lower courts have examined the evidence, heard the witnesses, heard the arguments and determined that he is an insurrectionist.

 

[TV and credit cards]

You miss my point. While we know what happened there hasn't been a trial. I'm not saying of His Flatulence himself, but of the insurrection as a whole. Don't declare guilt (throw him and any who helped off the ballot) without a trial (a legal determination that there was an insurrection.) Otherwise you leave "insurrection" as an undefined term and open things up to bogus claims of insurrection.

Was there ever a "trial" to determine that the Civil War actually occurred? The confederacy was an amalgamation of victimized freedom fighters who just had a different view of what it means to be free. That's perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Amirite?

Or the '92 Los Angeles riots or the '68 Chicago riots or the '68 Baltimore riots or the '68 DC riots or the '67 Detroit riots and various strikes and uprisings throughout history, all of which the Insurrection Act was invoked by the president. There's only one glaring difference here. The POTUS instigated this one and did nothing to quell it. Does it make any less of an uprising? I think not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS is not beholden to any alleged fact if they choose not to believe it.

Can you come up with a single example?

I don't need to. This SCOTUS and the slightly less insane version before it felt precedence wasn't something to be bothered by, poor fact checking can be used to support their legal arguments, and adherence to hyper-technicalities is viable legal interpretation for clearly partisan decisions. What I do think this SCOTUS doesn't want to do is set a standard. They want to say as little as possible.

AFAIK they can decide that the Constitution doesn’t say what a plain reading shows that it says, e.g. they may say that 14A Sec3 doesn’t prohibit an insurrectionist from holding office.

But they can’t decide that Trump isn’t an insurrectionist after the lower courts have examined the evidence, heard the witnesses, heard the arguments and determined that he is an insurrectionist.

Actually, as I described in my post, I think that is exactly what the case is going to be about. Who gets to say a person was an insurrectionist? There are no established rules on this. Heck, what is insurrection? Harper's Ferry, armed BLM occupation, egging on supporters on Twitter after VP Pence doesn't follow the plan exactly (he did change the script for what had been said before by the VP)?

It gets even more complicated. Because the 14th Amendment says insurrectionists can't run for office... if Colorado and Maine rule he is an insurrectionist, are the other states required to comply? Does the 14th Amendment cover the country... is it a litmus test limited to a state's opinion? For the Civil War, this was pretty straight forward, no... the state's don't get to say (they already spoke with the 14th Amendment passage). And again, if Trump were convicted, a state isn't presumably allowed to have an opinion. He is disqualified.

This 14th Amendment issue has two parts, I think. One that is clearly not up to the states (can an insurrectionist run?) as the states ceded that power as it was engrained in the Constitution as an amendment, and one that is clearly undefined (who can claim a person is an insurrectionist?). It would seem unlikely that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to allow for 30+ states to ring a verdict on such an action. Which would then mean it is a Federal proclamation or some sort. This, I think, is the SCOTUS's out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You miss my point. While we know what happened there hasn't been a trial. I'm not saying of His Flatulence himself, but of the insurrection as a whole. Don't declare guilt (throw him and any who helped off the ballot) without a trial (a legal determination that there was an insurrection.) Otherwise you leave "insurrection" as an undefined term and open things up to bogus claims of insurrection.

Was there ever a "trial" to determine that the Civil War actually occurred? The confederacy was an amalgamation of victimized freedom fighters who just had a different view of what it means to be free. That's perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Amirite?

Or the '92 Los Angeles riots or the '68 Chicago riots or the '68 Baltimore riots or the '68 DC riots or the '67 Detroit riots and various strikes and uprisings throughout history, all of which the Insurrection Act was invoked by the president. There's only one glaring difference here. The POTUS instigated this one and did nothing to quell it. Does it make any less of an uprising? I think not.

There is a substantial difference, as your post indicates, the Insurrection Act was "invoked". That would be a federal action declaring a certain type of event. That has not occurred, as far, as I'm aware, in the case of January 6th, 2021.

I'm not saying Trump isn't guilty as all heck and shouldn't have been impeached and disqualified from ever running again by Congress. But it is a technicality that matters. Neither Loren or I think Trump should be allowed to run for President, but the mechanism to ensure that was Congress and impeachment. It is much harder to get a President down in court, which is why Congress has the power for impeachment. Mueller made that point clear years ago.

 

[Elixir]

Who gets to say a person was an insurrectionist?

That’s not at issue. The courts have ruled that Trump is an insurrectionist. No contrary argument has even been put forth and SCOTUS, despite their disregard for precedents, isn’t going to make up a set of “facts” de novo to countervail the fact findings of all the lower courts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who gets to say a person was an insurrectionist?

That’s not at issue.

If Colorado and Maine say he is an insurrectionist, can Trump legally run on any ballot in the country?

The courts have ruled that Trump is an insurrectionist. No contrary argument has even been put forth and SCOTUS, despite their disregard for precedents, isn’t going to make up a set of “facts” de novo to countervail the fact findings of all the lower courts.

Two states have indicated as such. Does Colorado control Texas elections? Does Texas allowing Trump to be on the ballot mean that he isn't an insurrectionist? Are states allowed to make this call individually? The 14th Amendment would imply no, they aren't. Insurrectionists are not allowed to run. But we have states saying he is while most of the others inaction implies they don't feel he is. This problem doesn't go away because of "facts".

 

[Elixir]

If Colorado and Maine say he is an insurrectionist, can Trump legally run on any ballot in the country?

That’s a question of law. SCOTUS will decide.

Does Colorado control Texas elections? Does Texas allowing Trump to be on the ballot mean that he isn't an insurrectionist? Are states allowed to make this call individually? The 14th Amendment would imply no, they aren't.

Also questions of law. The States Rights stance that the Court has repeatedly evinced, would leave it to the States. But if being hypocrites about that better serves the immediate interests of the corrupt grifter element of the Court, they’re perfectly within their rights to be hypocrites.

 

[laughing dog]

Who gets to say a person was an insurrectionist?

That’s not at issue.

If Colorado and Maine say he is an insurrectionist, can Trump legally run on any ballot in the country?

The courts have ruled that Trump is an insurrectionist. No contrary argument has even been put forth and SCOTUS, despite their disregard for precedents, isn’t going to make up a set of “facts” de novo to countervail the fact findings of all the lower courts.

Two states have indicated as such. Does Colorado control Texas elections? Does Texas allowing Trump to be on the ballot mean that he isn't an insurrectionist? Are states allowed to make this call individually? The 14th Amendment would imply no, they aren't. Insurrectionists are not allowed to run. But we have states saying he is while most of the others inaction implies they don't feel he is. This problem doesn't go away because of "facts".

Does Texas control Colorado elections? The SCOTUS gets to unravel the Gordian Knot of the application of the 14th amendment.

 

[Elixir]

Does Texas control Colorado elections? The SCOTUS gets to unravel the Gordian Knot of the application of the 14th amendment.

Exactly. But they don’t get to decide that Trump is or is not an insurrectionist based on their own hearing of evidence and testimony. Because THEY DON’T DO EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. They INTERPRET THE LAW.

 

[laughing dog]

Does Texas control Colorado elections? The SCOTUS gets to unravel the Gordian Knot of the application of the 14th amendment.

Exactly. But they don’t get to decide that Trump is or is not an insurrectionist based on their own hearing of evidence and testimony. Because THEY DON’T DO EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. They INTERPRET THE LAW.

I think part of the interpretation of the law would be to provide a relevant standard for what qualifies as an "insurrectionist".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Colorado and Maine say he is an insurrectionist, can Trump legally run on any ballot in the country?

That’s a question of law. SCOTUS will decide.

Does Colorado control Texas elections? Does Texas allowing Trump to be on the ballot mean that he isn't an insurrectionist? Are states allowed to make this call individually? The 14th Amendment would imply no, they aren't.

Also questions of law. The States Rights stance that the Court has repeatedly evinced, would leave it to the States.

But the 14th Amendment isn't up to the states. That was signed off on when it became an amendment. It made it a Federal decree. A person "shall" be disqualified from holding office. It is inconceivable that this declaration can be left up to individual states, it is an order!

 

[TV and credit cards]

As far as I know, Congress has created no overarching legislation regarding section three as is their prerogative in section five. They have acted on individual incidents but nothing sustaining. The federal government by their inaction has left voting requirements on the state and federal level up to the states individually. The states have a variety of ways in which they execute their voting procedures. With this in mind, how does the US Supreme Court make any decision affecting all fifty states when only presented with argument from one individual state? To do so would be to create legislation at the court, would it not? None of this should affect any other state.
Until such time as congress acts, this is all up to the states individually.

On the other hand, I do think their may be some merit to JH's well you should have impeached the fucker position.

 

[laughing dog]

If Colorado and Maine say he is an insurrectionist, can Trump legally run on any ballot in the country?

That’s a question of law. SCOTUS will decide.

Does Colorado control Texas elections? Does Texas allowing Trump to be on the ballot mean that he isn't an insurrectionist? Are states allowed to make this call individually? The 14th Amendment would imply no, they aren't.

Also questions of law. The States Rights stance that the Court has repeatedly evinced, would leave it to the States.

But the 14th Amendment isn't up to the states. That was signed off on when it became an amendment. It made it a Federal decree. A person "shall" be disqualified from holding office. It is inconceivable that this declaration can be left up to individual states, it is an order!

Neither the Colorado nor Maine ruling disqualifies Mr. Trump from holding office: it disqualifies him from the ballot in those states.

Your argument prevents states from disqualifying underage candidates from ballots or someone who is not a "natural born citizen" (whatever that is) from the POTUS ballot.

That is why SCOTUS needs to deliver a decisive and clear ruling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Colorado and Maine say he is an insurrectionist, can Trump legally run on any ballot in the country?

That’s a question of law. SCOTUS will decide.

Does Colorado control Texas elections? Does Texas allowing Trump to be on the ballot mean that he isn't an insurrectionist? Are states allowed to make this call individually? The 14th Amendment would imply no, they aren't.

Also questions of law. The States Rights stance that the Court has repeatedly evinced, would leave it to the States.

But the 14th Amendment isn't up to the states. That was signed off on when it became an amendment. It made it a Federal decree. A person "shall" be disqualified from holding office. It is inconceivable that this declaration can be left up to individual states, it is an order!

Neither the Colorado nor Maine ruling disqualifies Mr. Trump from holding office: it disqualifies him from the ballot in those states.

“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court wrote in its 4-3 decision.

link

Colorado case, at the least, did explicitly disqualify Trump from holding office of President, not merely not being on the ballot.

Your argument prevents states from disqualifying underage candidates from ballots or someone who is not a "natural born citizen" (whatever that is) from the POTUS ballot.

I disagree. States would be following the rules as set forth in the Constitution.
1) Age
2) Residency
3) Citizenship status
4) Involved in insurrection/rebellion/aided the enemy status

I imagine number 4 (14th Amendment) is an all or nothing status, much like age. A 14 year old can't run for President in Nebraska, while other states forbid it, as required. General Lee couldn't run for President on the ballot in Virginia.

That is why SCOTUS needs to deliver a decisive and clear ruling.

I wouldn't expect one. The closest I think we could get is who gets to create the Insurrectionist declaration, and I think they'll say it is a Federal accusation to be made, not state.

 

[laughing dog]

Your argument prevents states from disqualifying underage candidates from ballots or someone who is not a "natural born citizen" (whatever that is) from the POTUS ballot.

I disagree. States would be following the rules as set forth in the Constitution.
1) Age
2) Residency
3) Citizenship status
4) Involved in insurrection/rebellion/aided the enemy status
I imagine number 4 (14th Amendment) is an all or nothing status, much like age. A 14 year old can't run for President in Nebraska, while other states forbid it, as required. General Lee couldn't run for President on the ballot in Virginia.

But the states are following the rules set forth in the Constitution right now. They just have different interpretations.

That is why SCOTUS needs to deliver a decisive and clear ruling.

I wouldn't expect one. The closest I think we could get is who gets to create the Insurrectionist declaration, and I think they'll say it is a Federal accusation to be made, not state.

Well, Congress in its Jan. 6 report pretty much did just that.

 

[Elixir]

If Colorado and Maine say he is an insurrectionist, can Trump legally run on any ballot in the country?

That’s a question of law. SCOTUS will decide.

Does Colorado control Texas elections? Does Texas allowing Trump to be on the ballot mean that he isn't an insurrectionist? Are states allowed to make this call individually? The 14th Amendment would imply no, they aren't.

Also questions of law. The States Rights stance that the Court has repeatedly evinced, would leave it to the States.

But the 14th Amendment isn't up to the states. That was signed off on when it became an amendment. It made it a Federal decree. A person "shall" be disqualified from holding office. It is inconceivable that this declaration can be left up to individual states, it is an order!

Republicans, as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out, no longer feel bound by what the law says they "shall" do.
SCOTUS will almost certainly not allow States - ANY States - to remove their boy from any State's ballots at the end of the day. But they will NOT reach that decision on the basis of denying the factual findings of Colorado and other States' Courts. (can't cite chapter and verse, but some have declined to remove Trump after finding that he DID participate in an insurrection. AFAIK, none have ruled that Trump is NOT an insurrectionist)

Who gets to say a person was an insurrectionist? There are no established rules on this. Heck, what is insurrection?

State Courts get to say since the Constitution places the running of federal elections under their jurisdiction.
I guess it's like porn, As a Republican once said, "I don't know much about art but I know porn when I see it".