Trump Is Disqualified From 2024 Ballot, Colorado Court Says in Explosive Ruling
The decision, the first by a court to find that Donald Trump is ineligible to hold office again because he engaged in insurrection, is likely to put a monumental case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conservative judge, J. Michael Luttig:
"1) The Supreme Court will affirm the masterful decision of the Colorado Supreme Court and disqualify Trump from appearing on the ballot.
2) This decision is not political. It has nothing to do with politics, only constitutional law.
3) Neither the Colorado Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court is a political court. "I don't recognize politics within the judicial system. All 9 Justices will apply the law as written and disqualify Trump."
4) I have nothing to comment on regarding Judge Clarence Thomas. I regard the Supreme Court with reverence and no decision can change that.
All Americans should accept that."
53 comments:
Shaw, You and your moronic Lad Boy Dave Dubya is trying with everything you have to make Donald Trump look Bad. But all your efforts are Failing. So keep it up.
OK, will do.
PS. We don't have to do a thing to make Donald Trump look bad.
He does a bang-up job of that all by himself.
Have a nice day.
So a leftist state supreme court ruled someone can't be on a ballot before he has been convicted. Why not let a judge pick a president or maybe china. I was always taught the president serves at the will of the people by voting. Guess the game changed and the leftist should be parading in the street.
skud So a leftist state supreme court ruled someone can't be on a ballot before he has been convicted. Why not let a judge pick a president or maybe china.
Well, skud, I don't remember your protestations when the Conservative judges on the SCOTUS overturned 50 years of settled law on abortion rights. Correct me if I missed your outrage then.
Why not let a judge pick a president?
Have you already forgotten what the SCOTUS did in the 2000 election?
We've been waltzing towards authoritarian fascism in the good ole USA for years. Furher Trump stands in waiting.
Tom Nichols
@RadioFreeTom
Republicans: Federalism is awesome
Colorado Supreme Court: We interpret the constitution to mean that Trump cannot serve
Republicans: WTF I hate federalism now
This is for skud, who wrote this: "So a leftist state supreme court ruled someone can't be on a ballot before he has been convicted."
From someone who knows the law:
“[George] Conway joined Morning Joe [and] was asked who will determine whether Donald Trump committed insurrection against the Constitution. Conway answered Joe Scarborough’s question by noting that the constitutional provision doesn’t say it only applies to those who’ve been convicted of insurrection; therefore, ‘the courts are free to determine on their own, based upon valid judicial processes what is an insurrection and whether the facts meet that.’”
Also:
"What happened here was there was a five-day trial where Donald Trump and his lawyers got to participate, and the judge made extensive findings. A judge that actually ruled for him on a bogus ground found that he engaged in insurrection, found this by not just a preponderance of the evidence, which is your lower basic civil court standard, but by clear and convincing evidence, which means it’s way more than more likely than not. It’s very strong evidence.
And you don’t see the dissent challenging those findings at all. And in fact, there’s no basis to challenge the findings. When you go to the majority opinion and you read the 30 or 40 pages on what happened on January 6th and what Donald Trump did before and during January 6th, there’s no dispute. We saw it on television. We know what happened. He fomented. He engaged in an insurrection. He wanted this to happen. And not only that, there’s another provision in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment that talks about giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution. Well, he did that. We was an enemy of the Constitution!
If this decision gets overturned, it’s not going to be on the basis of the factual findings. And I’ll say this about a jury trial. There’s no basis for demanding a jury trial here. Any first year law student will tell you that because this is not the civil case for damages where you do get a 7th Amendment right to a jury trial. This is election litigation."
The judge in the lower court in this lawsuit already confirmed as fact that the former guy led and incited the January 6 insurrection. They declined to make an opinion as to the ballot issue which is why the State Supremes took the case.
That said, skud's selective memory is working overtime. Since I've been reading this blog skud refuses to call Hillary Clinton by her name, preferring slang terms which imply she is guilty - all without being indicted by a grand jury, having any charges filed, or as skud likes to say - found guilty by a jury of their peers. Guess only one side gets to be protected but not held liable by the law.
Regarding the Colorado ruling - as I understand voting standards Colorado has adopted what is considered the gold standard, meaning a person is registered to vote when they get their state ID or drivers license, a step put to the voters a while back. They also send out ballots to those who've asked for one - yep skud, your worst nightmare - only each ballot is tracked to ensure it gets to the correct person when that person is expecting it. Emails are sent when the ballot is mailed and again when it's been officially received and counted. Transparency and redundant tracking every step of the way to ensure if any fraud does occur it's easy to track and resolve. As I said, gold standard.
Also for skud - yes, undocumented immigrants qualify for Colorado drivers licenses and state ID's. How else are they going to cash their checks to spend their hard earned monies in the state? I guess one could refuse to issue such ID's and watch those monies go elsewhere but Colorado is a tourist stop state who knows all too well the value of repeat customers. A majority of the moneys stay in state, a system that seems to be working from what I observe.
In 2020 the voters of Colorado passed Amendment 76 amending the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years of age or older can vote in Colorado.
Also, Judge Michael Luttig:
Judge Luttig has repeatedly explained that as a self-executing provision, 14th A, Section 3 doesn't require any action by Congress, and it doesn't require a criminal conviction.
(J. Michael Luttig served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 15 years, from 1991 to 2006.)
Read the 14th Amendment, Section 3:
Article 3 of the 14th Amendment uses the term "engaged"
- Not "charged"
- Not "indicted"
- Not "convicted"
- Not "accused"
E-N-G-A-G-E-D.
That's all it needs.
The Colorado lower court and Supreme Court have ruled he engaged in a insurrection
That’s the only thing required to enforce the constitution
And yet it remains to be seen if it will be enforced. Not betting on it that's for certain.
The republican party and conservative judges are in lockstep against democracy. Believe the tyrants when they tell you who they are.
The Colorado lower court and Supreme Court have ruled he engaged in a insurrection .
THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF DOING THAT!
Peter
The information in the above comments will inform you that NO COVICTION IS NECESSARY!
You obviously are not a lawyer, nor a careful reader.
"Judge Luttig has repeatedly explained that as a self-executing provision, 14th A, Section 3 doesn't require any action by Congress, and it doesn't require a criminal conviction."
Have a nice day.
Yes, don't let the truth get ya down and cause ya to sulk Peter. Truth shall set ya free!
Anonymous @12:58PM
Peter's left several comments here today, all exhibiting his utter lack of knowledge about the 14th Amendment, Section 3. Not very bright.
Probably an escapee from WYD.
Trump is a criminal through and through, and now courts are finally calling him out for what he is.
"Trump on Tuesday night derided the ruling as “eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice.”
But not only did Trump try to overturn the will of voters after the 2020 election, he has on myriad occasions pushed the idea that candidates should be disqualified irrespective of the voters’ will.
That was basically the thrust of Trump’s rise to political prominence. He built a base in the early 2010s with the ugly and false “birther” campaign, whose entire premise was that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible to be president. A sampling:
TRUMP: “The birther issue is an issue that’s very important, because if you’re not born in the United States, you can’t be president,” Trump said in March 2011.
“You are not allowed to be a president if you’re not born in this country,” he said on NBC’s “Today” a week later.
“I think it’s an important fight because, you know, essentially you’re right down to the basics,” he said on Fox News in 2012. “The answer is if you’re not born here, you can’t be president. So it’s not like, ‘Oh, gee, let’s not discuss it.’ ” --WaPo
How quickly MAGAs forget how Trump himself tried to subvert the will of the voters!
" didn’t stop there. During the 2016 GOP primary campaign, he repeatedly pushed the idea that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) might — and even should — be disqualified, both because he was born in Canada and because he purportedly cheated in the Iowa caucuses, which Cruz won.
And Trump explicitly called for two others to be prohibited from running, including Hillary Clinton — a lot:
Trump repeatedly pointed to the possibility that lawsuits could disqualify Cruz over his birthplace, adding, “I don’t want to win it on technicalities, but that’s more than a technicality. That is a big, big factor.”
He added that a constitutional lawyer who questioned Cruz’s eligibility “should go into court and seek a declaratory judgment because the people voting for Ted, for Ted Cruz, those people — I think there’s a real chance that he’s not allowed to run for president.”
Shortly after Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, Trump tweeted, “The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated — a total fraud!” (The thrust was that Cruz allies had promoted the false claim that Ben Carson had suspended his campaign, affecting the results.)
Trump also said in 2011 that then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) “should never ever be allowed to run for office” because of his sexting scandal.
And during the 2016 campaign, on dozens of occasions he said that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t “be allowed to run” because of her private email server. “She shouldn’t be allowed to run for president. She shouldn’t be allowed,” Trump said shortly before Election Day 2016. “I’m telling you, she should not be allowed to run for president based on her crimes. She should not be allowed to run for president.”
Needless to say, there is more than a vein of irony in Trump’s having said that promoting false information about an election should lead the authorities to disqualify someone. And Trump has repeatedly pushed the idea that a candidate’s eligibility for president shouldn’t be left up to voters.
The candidate who a court now says is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president once showed great interest in having people he disagreed with disqualified under the Constitution’s standards. --WaPo
Skud, once again, you're wrong. But at least this time, you are not alone.
Here's an article with the relevant facts.
Trump engaged in insurrection.
A court in Colorado, after a trial at which Trump's lawyers participated on his behalf, found that the former president "engaged in insurrection."
The judge though, declined to rule Trump ineligible for the coming election. After that, Trump's lawyers had this to say...
“We applaud today’s ruling in Colorado, which is another nail in the coffin of the un-American ballot challenges. These cases represent the most cynical and blatant political attempts to interfere with the upcoming presidential election by desperate Democrats who know Crooked Joe Biden is a failed president on the fast track to defeat.”
So to say he did not have his day in court, was not convicted or somehow did not receive due process, is wrong on the facts.
You, and everyone else should note, that after the judge found Trump guilty of "engaging in resurrection" against the United States, Trump's lawyers did not argue against that point, choosing to focus on her ruling that he could stand for election.
However, the Colorado Supreme Court took the case up after an appeal by 6, count them, 6 conservative voters, Republicans all, appealed.
This is how the system works.
You get charged, you go to court, you defend yourself, you win or lose. If you lose, you can appeal.
Now it is up to the US SCOTUS.
Shaw has cited the noted conservative former Judge Luttig. He believes that the US Constitution, which Trump has said needs to "be terminated", lays out a simple clause that all candidates must meet.
To Luttig, it's a simple yes, or no clause. Like the minimum age clause. You either are of age, or not. Period. If you are not, you are not, according to the Constitution, allowed to be president.
If you have "engaged in insurrection" argues Luttig, it is black and white. You are not allowed to be president. Trump has been found, in a court of law, to, as a matter of fact, "engaged in insurrection" against the United States.
Therefore Luttig argues, Trump cannot be president.
Others argue differently. The SCOTUS will now decide.
This reminds me of the battle for Civil Rights, another example where conservatives believed then, as many do now, that the law is/was working against them. Conservatives felt states had a right to continue to exclude blacks from voting, going to the same schools as white people and even eating at the same lunch counter as white people.
The SCOTUS said otherwise and the feds sent soldiers to enforce the law.
I bet that's where we are again headed.
Dave M.
You and Grey One talks sass have both pointed out a crucial fact: A lower court judge already ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection.
You've given a clear and accurate explanation of how this played out and by whom.
Any other commenter who disagrees should please bring receipts, as you and Grey One talks sass has.
Really? Wish I could be as confident. As Yogi said, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. The "fat lady" hasn't sang yet and Trump has allies on the "fat lady".
Trump's had an entire lifetime to perfect his technique of dodging the consequences of his own behavior. AND he's rich, AND he has lawyers. He's a fire-breathing porcupine who knows just when to set the prairie alight and when to curl up into a ball with spikes pointed outward to protect himself.
Plato warned us about his kind, as did a host of political philosophers and psychologists. He's the enemy of democracy and common decency. Narcissist. Psychopath. Would-be dictator
For another view, there's this from liberal commentator Ruth Marcos in the Washington Post.
Obviously, this issue has many levels and things to consider. Exactly the type of issue that belongs at the SCOTUS.
Again, either way, let's hope the American people accept their decision, regardless of their preferences. We don't have to like or love, just be peaceful and respectful.
Dave M.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Again, I present former Conservative Appeals Court Judge, Michael Luttig:
"Conservative former Judge Luttig, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 15 years, on the ruling in Colorado:
"The individual justices of the Colorado supreme court brought honor to their court and as well to the state and federal judiciaries with their opinion tonight in this historic case...Their opinion is unassailable under the objective law of the federal Constitution and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States ought to affirm this decision today."
Shaw... here's what I am trying to understand...
How can anyone say there's been no trial? Here's how one person put it...
"I don’t see how it didn’t violate his [Trump's] civil rights…..there’s been no trial, even that jerk Jack Smith couldn’t prove Trump was behind Jan 6..."
Stop and think about the idiocy on display in that conglomeration of words. No trial? What was Trump's lawyer responding to on November 17 if not Trump's trial? And the reference to Jack Smith? He couldn't prove Trump wasn't behind Jan 6 because, wait for it, the trial has not yet begun!
The MAGAverse has become unhinged from objective reality. How on earth can your favorite candidate for the presidency have their case heard in court, lose that case, and those facts lead you to think their civil rights have been denied?
That's the real WOW!
Peaceful in any event. The SCOTUS makes the wrong decision respect goes out the window.
What needs to happen now is a court, maybe in California, needs to say that republicans cannot be on the ballot because there is a rumor they backed a person not convicted of an insurrection. While thy are at it lets ban RFK,Jr and cornel west.
Grey, You mean illegals could not cash the checks the taxpayers paid for, that would truly be a sham. Next your going to deny them free healthcare and cell phones. That is just inhuman.
Luttig said tonight, Wednesday, that a Constitution barring Trump is not democratic at all. What is undemocratic he says is the "behavior" of someone "engaged in insurrection" against the US.
As such he says, anyone who takes part on that type of behavior must, by constitutional law, be barred from office.
As the Constitution says.
skud said "Grey, You mean illegals could not cash the checks the taxpayers paid for, that would truly be a sham. Next your going to deny them free healthcare and cell phones. That is just inhuman."
So.... We The People are paying the wages of undocumented workers, not the companies where they are employed? Really? Here's a fact - undocumented immigrants do not qualify for public assistance. No SNAP, no Medicaid... There are programs specifically created to help them get on their feet but once their time runs out there is no renewing.
I'll say this one more time politely. Please don't put your words into my mouth. I said what I said and your bigotry is showing.
As for healthcare for all - damn straight skippy I want Medicare for all. It would be cheaper for one, and for two it would eliminate the profiteering taking place by insurance companies all over the country. So, bleeding heart and fiscally responsible. How ever will you handle someone who doesn't fit into your preconceived boxes?
It's telling skud that out of my whole comment you picked up on what could be morphed into your favorite topic and scary story - people are coming to the country to take your job!, entering the country without limit (they aren't - a few get through because no border is ever 100% and by the way where is your condemnation for the GOP who wouldn't even vote for their own border bill because it would be perceived as a Biden bipartisanship win?)
By the way - quick question and I'll get back to the topic at hand: Have you tried to do the work undocumented immigrants do? I have skud, back when I wasn't so grey and I lasted a week. My undocumented coworkers were dedicated and fast at their job. I couldn't keep up.
The undocumented immigrant community has my respect. They do the jobs us soft Americans can't and won't do. They are in the sandwich shops, in fast food, picking crops, making sure our businesses and homes are clean. Southern states under the former guy banned all undocumented workers and their fruit and vegetable crops rotted in the fields. Coincidence? I. think. not.
So - skud, the topic is the former guy being guilty of inciting and encouraging an insurrection. For those who say he didn't have a chance to defend himself, he did. There was a trial in Colorado. He could have presented his evidence. He did not. And this is the most important part - when the former guy appealed the lower courts ruling he didn't dispute the fact he instigated the insurrection but that he would be removed from the ballot. That's all he cared about.
He's guilty. He knows it. Most of the commentators here know it. But you skud, your head appears to be firmly stuck in the sand with your fingers in your ears as you scream I can't hear you... careful skud, you'll get sand in your mouth.
Grey, Did you really mean a few get through. 2.5 million last year is not a few it is larger than most cities. They do not go to work nor do they try to get work permits. We need immigrants not as slaves as you suggest (Have you tried to do the work undocumented immigrants do?) but to be productive citizens which they generally are. It is the illegal border crosser's who are the issue and that falls straight to biden. Yes we need immigration reform but our elected elite is not interested in doing "the work of the people".
Back on topic. Now the crowd who has campaigned on free and fair elections for all is showing their true colors. What they mean to say is free and fair elections for the candidates we approve of and block those that we don't. This is not a good decision because it takes elections from the people and moves it to the courts. If we use the same guidelines as they are for trump then biden should be disallowed because he sold his influence for his victim child's benefit. Not convicted shouldn't matter and yes I do not believe trump should be running but the courts should not decide this.
Hey folks... typo.
Where is reads... "a Constitution barring Trump is not democratic at all..."
It should read, "a Constitution barring Trump is not undemocratic at all..."
Skud, nothing in your comments on elections makes sense...
Now we can argue about interpretations of the Constitution, but are you saying we should not follow the Constitution?
This is literally the mess we find ourselves.
By a clear reading of the document, we the people, have a standard. This isn't some arcane law we just passed. It is literally an amendment passed by We the people.
Are you saying we should not follow it?
You let us know whether you believe we should follow the Constitution or not.
President Biden has not been convicted of anything. Former President Trump has. Can you see a distinction there? I get that you believe that Joe Biden, when he was not president, sold his influence for Hunter's benefit.
And maybe he did.
But to date, we have no evidence of that. None. No receipts, no supported testimony, nothing. He's not been charged, he's not been indicted, he's not even yet been impeached.
Because a GOP that desperately wants to impeach him must not have the evidence.
Should Trump be barred from the ballot?
I'm not sure, but to me, the Constitution seems clear. Thankfully I don't have to make that decision. But I can see the pros and cons of both sides, unlike many.
skud: "If we use the same guidelines as they are for trump then biden should be disallowed..."
President Biden did NOT try to steal the 2020 election and negate the votes of millions of Americans. Trump did that, and he incited an insurrection against his own government and tried to get his own vice president to stop the electoral count and install HIM as POTUS.
It seems that people like you don't feel that is a rather enormous crime against the Constitution of the US to which DJT swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.
BTW: A Colorado judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,' but keeps him on the ballot
"The lawsuit, brought by a left-leaning group on behalf of a group of Republican and independent Colorado voters, contended that Trump's actions related to the attack ran afoul of a clause in the 14th Amendment that prevents anyone from holding office who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution."
These are FACTS that you and other choose to ignore.
I'd also make an observation that you and many others have no problem with keeping Trump, who engaged in insurrection against the United States, eligible to be POTUS again. I find that strange.
The question of whether or not Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the insurrectionist, rapist, and tax fraudist will now be decided by the SCOTUS.
The American people DID make a decision on Trump in 2020: They kicked his arse out of the WH! Only Trump and his deluded followers want him back.
skud: "...because he sold his influence for his victim child's benefit
Now you're making stuff up. That's what your echo chamber reports. No court of law has made that finding. So you're back to spreading Republican propaganda.
I believe that it is fitting for courts to decide whether or not someone is qualified UNDER THE LAW, to be on the ballot. Let us see if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to Donald Trump.
You don't believe the courts should decide? Where were you in 2000 when THE SCOTUS did EXACTLY THAT?!
Oh. They installed a Republican, GWBush.
Never mind.
Shaw et al...
Hyperbole is everywhere on this issue. But it seems, for once that this hyperbole is not misplaced. I believe SCOTUS must take this case and that they will. As such, it will be a monumental decision, one of the most consequential in our nation's history.
That said, hear me out on a parallel example from our neighbors to the south.
In 2006 the teachers union of Oaxaca, at the time, the largest union in the Americas with over 100,000 members, protested horrible actions and beatings by the government of Oaxaca. Those protests started in June of that year.
Soon, the official government of Oaxaca abandoned the capitol, the police left and effectively, the protestors in their own way, became the government.
in short order, a plea was made to the Supreme Court of Mexico. Their case was this...
First, the government of the state had fallen.
Second, if the state government is ruled to have fallen, the Constitution of Mexico, having contemplated that possibility, has proscribed a remedy.
Third, the remedy, proscribed by the Constitution, was for the Supreme Court to oust the fallen government and set new elections.
In the case, the Mexico Supreme Court agreed that the government of Oaxaca had "ceased to function", but, and here's our potential parallel, they refused to apply the Constitutional remedy.
For fear, some said, of widespread chaos in the country.
Channeling RN, I'd say this...
Me thinks we may see something similar here.
Because while the Constitution may seem to have a clear remedy, like the Mexican Constitution did for their situation, I bet our founding fathers never envisioned it being used for something for this.
Because who would have ever thought a US President would engage in insurrection against the US and the Constitution.
Dave M. "But I can see the pros and cons of both sides, unlike many."
As you can see from my comments, I'm having a difficult time seeing the cons on this issue.
I still cannot understand how Trump can be found guilty of insurrection against the United States, as the first Colorado court found him, and have Americans still find that it's okay for him to be on the ballot for POTUS -- the guy who tried to steal an election, through illegal means, from the verified and legal winner!
I can't see that as anything but a federal crime. We know he did it. We've heard HIS OWN PEOPLE who were there tell us that he knew he lost but that he would not concede and would try to remain in office by any means, even by insurrection.
We also know he STOLE top secret government documents, lied about that, and tried to hide them from the FBI!
Maybe I am too black and white and don't see the nuance here, but how in the name of the Founding Fathers can the courts allow Trump to be on the ballot after all he's said and done?
As Americans do we really want a guy who calls his opposition "VERMIN?" And do we want a guy who says immigrants "poison the blood of our country?"
Has America lost its mind and fallen in love with a rewind of 1930s Germany? It seems so to me.
I don't know about anyone else here, but my hair is on fire!
Dave M. "Because who would have ever thought a US President would engage in insurrection against the US and the Constitution."
Who would have ever thought?
Well, anyone who knows anything about human nature.
Sure, we have the US Constitution as guard rails against a bad actor -- WE THOUGHT.
We never dreamed a bad actor like Trump could ascend to the highest level of US government, but he did. And he did for a number of complicated reasons that even the Founding Fathers could not foresee, and for reasons we still argue about.
In the end, the problems is that "The fault...is not in the stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."
What does that mean?
"Cassius is trying to remind Brutus that both of them are subservient to Caesar*, but if they were not, if they were to take action in their own right, they could possibly improve things."
Who is the "Caesar" in our time? The Constitution that was written by 18th century men, who were smart and enlightened, but were not crystal ball readers and did not foresee wily men and bad actors reaching the presidency? Maybe. That's why the Constitution had to be amended.
The only good I see in having had a Trump in our time is that he opened our eyes to the weaknesses in the Constitution, like the electoral college, that allowed a bad actor like him to attain power.
Let's not forget that a majority of the American people in 2016 and 2020 DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP. And we are the only modern democracy that allows a politician to become the POTUS through minority votes.
And here we are.
We are battling on two fronts - the white supremacy side and the Christian nationalist side. Shaw, it's no wonder your hair is on fire. Personally I've been keeping it a braid otherwise I'd be bald as bald can be.
skud is so cute. If you can count the number of immigrants who crossed the border then they didn't 'sneak' in (and stay with me on this skud) because they were counted. Rational thought is not skuds' strength, but we all know that, amirite? Immigrants are allowed to enter the country pending their paperwork getting processed. Guess you don't want even that step which brings me back to why you aren't harassing your GOP reps for dropping the immigration ball.
Our founding fathers didn't think of the constitutional remedy of Amendment 14, section 3. That was passed after the Civil War so none of the humans who sided with the losers couldn't get back into office to try it again.
I understand the principle of Dave M's example but the seated government won the election. It is possible the SCOTUS decides against Colorado but therein lies it's own issues. If they say Donald has to be on the ballot, if he wins (and all indications say he will do whatever it takes to regain the presidency) then that is the end of the Supreme Court, the end of our democracy, the end of the USA.
I'm not a betting person but if I were I'd bet on the self preservation instincts of the court. They enjoy their power and if all that goes away... yeah, they will be regular citizens again. Not sure some of the justices could handle being a regular person after their time with the billionaires.
Just like skud bleating his conspiracy theories there will be more calls from GOP pundits to remove President Biden from the general election ballot. Their claim that the Democratic party is pursuing this avenue because they don't like the candidate is laughable.
Lots of people running for president I don't like but only one not only instigated an insurrection but also gave comfort and aid to the insurrectionists. Guess which one I want removed because the action follows the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the USA?
I've been balding, slowly, for years. But it seems now the balding has stopped. Probably because, and it pains me to say so, frankly, i've actually started to just not care any more. If Americans wish to be as stupid as they seem to have become, OH WELL. They get what they deserve.
Grey says... "...why you aren't harassing your GOP reps for dropping the immigration ball."
YES YES YES!
Here's how this is done for the Skuds and the rest of our conservative readers and sometime commenters.
Pass a bill so everyone knows what exactly your position is. Then the Senate passes their bill. After that, both sides, the GOP led House and the Dem led Senate, sit down and hammer out the compromise.
Then the White House signs, or maybe vetos the bill.
Don't you remember School House Rock and "How a Bill Becomes a Law".
Rather than bitch and moan about the border, the GOP can just tell us specifically what they want and how the propose to pay for it.
But we all know they won't.
Shaw... here's the difficulty for SCOTUS, as I see it.
The conservatives will be making the decision. So that means 6 people, who for years have preached a simple reading of the Constitution, dubbing that "originalism". Additionally, the Colorado decision cites then Appellate Judge Gorsuch in a similar case. Here's what he has written...
"...it is a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that permits it [the state] to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office..." [Emphasis mine]
So here we are.
Either those six conservative justices must repudiate their previous spoken and written ideology, or look like hypocrites.
Or, and hold on to your hats...
Trump does not appeal the case, the Colorado GOP drops the primary and goes to a caucus and he, if the state bars him from the CO ballot, says "so what, I wasn't going to win that state anyways!"
And we're back to square one.
Because unless we get a decision like this in a battleground or Trump state, what difference will it make?
But here's the deal, I think.
If Trump goes to SCOTUS and wins, libs, progressives and people interested in preserving democracy will be mad and disheartened. And our country will be worse off.
But if he goes and loses, the radicals on the right will kill people, including judges.
Because that's what the right does when they don't get their way.
And we probably need not worry about a thing. scotus kisss the insurrectionists ass, Trump becomes America's Furher, the gop becomes America's gestapo, and the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys become America's police force.
Kiss the ring of the Furher and all will be well. As America succumbs to authoritarianism and slides into a 3'rd world shit hole under Trump and the American Gestapo.
The future unfolding.
Rev, The problem with the colorado decision is they are taking him off the ballot for a reason he has not been charged with or convicted of. You have four judges from way left schools making a decision based on their personal opinion. Next think you know is we will have a college president plagiarizing her doctoral thesis and a mayor admitting she is a racist, oh wait that did happen.
CNN: Harvard president’s corrections do not address her clearest instances of plagiarism
Boston mayor’s anti-white X-Mas:
A twice impeached, quadruply indicted, business fraud rapist who stole our nuclear secrets, plotted a coup, incited an insurrection & is promising to be a dictator “on day one” who will remove the “vermin” who are “poisoning the blood” of our country if returned to the office he tried to steal, got to appoint three judges to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and not only were they crucial in stripping us of our right to bodily autonomy, reversing protections for the LGBTQ+ community, and taking away affirmative action, they have now put their thumbs on the scale of the question as to whether or not a FORMER president has immunity from prosecution.
And skud keeps trying to change the subject and bring in people who have nothing to do with running the federal government. Change the subject and deflect so no one notices how rotten to the core the Republicans are.
Well, there are those of us with steel cajones that will NEVER allow the sick jackasses of the American Facist Party (the gop) to live down Trump's and their attempted insurrection to overturn the legally and fairly elected government of the USA on J6 2021. M
They are the evil that Trump personifies, and he has muscled them into compliance. Just like the wannabe dictator that he is, shepherding his sheeple to do his filthy will.
As if on cue, Skud tries to deflect with the issue at Harvard. But... nope. Not gonna go there, wouldn't be prudent.
Skud, are aware the situation in Colorado is the result of a court case in October where Trump's lawyers argued their case and a group of six Republicans made their argument that he should not be on the ballot. That case was argued October 30 - Nov 3 and a decision from Denver District Court was handed down by Judge Sarah Wallace.
Then, after Trump was cited in that case and found to have "engaged in insurrection" but the court did not bar him from the ballot, the six Republicans appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
That was the case, the appeal that was decided earlier this week, barring Trump from the Colorado ballot. But the decision was stayed til Jan 4 to give Trump time to appeal to the SCOTUS.
So your statement that "The problem with the colorado [sic] decision is they are taking him off the ballot for a reason he has not been charged with or convicted of" is incorrect.
Trump had a five day trial in October and lost. He was found guilty of engaging in a supporting an insurrection.
As for the political leanings of the officially non partisan offices of the court, all the justices have been appointed by Dem governors. The four who voted to bar Trump studied at Yale, Harvard and Virginia. The three who did not vote to bar him all studied at Denver Law School. Denver is rated as number 80 and the others are all in the Top 10 of US Law Schools, according to US News and World Report. FWIW.
Now ask yourself this. Both Grey and I have shown multiple time here where Trump had a trial and was found guilty. Why do you and other conservatives keep saying incorrectly that he was not accorded a trial or was not found guilty and/or convicted?
If you or I had been in the defendant's chair in that Denver District Court and had been found guilty, we could complain about the verdict, but we could not honestly say we did not have a trial.
This is a continuing problem in America,
People like you and Trump supporters have decided that if a legal decision goes against your perceived correct and right decision, it isn't just wrongly decided, rather it never happened. Or the court is so biased that it cannot be trusted.
Just because you may not like a decision does not make it a bad decision, or wrong.
Have a great Christmas weekend Skud. Enjoy some gumbo or jambalaya for me.
Rev, I brought up the pres of haavad because of the colo supreme's being from there and they are not a infallible as rumored. As far as I am concerned trump should be taken off the ballot in every state because he will not do it himself. My issue is that just because he is the evil one the courts should not determine who can run for any office including for president.
Just because it may be legal does not make it right. Poor grey feels that because 2.5 million are counted at the border there are no unidentified crossers and all should be allowed in. That is the same as the coast guard seized a million pounds of cocaine therefore they got it all.
I wish I could find some good gumbo but will have to settle for something less. Have a Happy and safe Christmas.
For skud the 14th apparently means nothing. Hint skud, look and read it in the Constitution.
Skud said... "Just because it may be legal does not make it right.'
That has been the complaint of everyday conservatives for years here in America. Because, I will admit, the left has used the law to force our governments to do the right thing, especially as t relates to race and civil rights.
Your question drives to the political question present in this instance.
Essentially, should we?
As I've said here and elsewhere, I don't know.
But we do have a law, so what do we do?
ah skud and their moving goal posts. It's not a family holiday until the crazy relatives start assuming things not said and moving those goal posts.
skud said 25 million humans snuck across the border. When I challenge they slink away saying well, just because the 25 million were counted doesn't mean some were missed. Of course skud but that wasn't the metric you yourself created. 25 million you said, now you say something else. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Have a cookie. Your blood sugar might be low.
Dave Miller - what do we do? We apply the law just as those who wrote the amendment intended. There was a trial, there was a grand jury - actually several of them all stating Trump was responsible for the insurrection on Jan6.
The fact most missed the latest trial is because Colorado knows how to keep things under their hats. A bipartisanship coalition challenged Trumps presence on the ballot due to A14s3. The trial was a week, hardly any press at all, resulting in the judge determining they couldn't make the decision to remove the defendant from the ballot but the fact remained Trump instigated an insurrection. When the Trump defense team appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court the only thing they were concerned about was appearing on the ballot. They did not challenge the insurrection facts. Oops.
What to do next then? We The People who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights must take action as per the instructions held within. Either we do, meaning we fight for our country, or we don't, meaning authoritarians win and the US democracy dies an ignoble death, killed because no one wanted to defend it.
I'm not a binary person. I believe in the power of grey - that which exists between white and black. That said, this is one of those defining black/white moments in history. How each of us responds will be remembered if not by us then others for a very long time. I'm rooting for the USA. I love this country, warts and all, and want it to be better, to do better. I'm also worried theocracy is a seductive voice in citizens ears. I hope We The People can resist its' siren call before the USA is dashed to pieces on the rocks.
It's the day before Christmas. There are more important things for those who celebrate to be doing. Me? I'm taking a break. Too much death in my life lately. I'll be back after the new year but for now - sending loves and good foods to my friends here. You each (and you too skud) make my life better. thanks.
Happy Holidays to all PE.
May 2024 bring a bit of sanity to a rather insane and unbalanced planet.
May Trump and his sheeple find reality and the accountability that he richly deserves.
And may Netanyahu find a cliff from which he can jump and find realize justice for his and the Zionist genocide of innocent Palestinians. 20,000 and still counting.
Grey, I guess you didn't notice the decimal so I will just assume you made mistake. For your benefit it is 2 1/2 million.
Have a safe and happy holidays
Post a Comment