Thread: Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the state's 2024 primary ballot

Little more……

• Colorado Supreme Court says Trump is ineligible to run again

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Donald Trump is disqualified by the Constitution from serving as president again because he stoked an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

The 4-3 ruling, which rests on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, will almost certainly force the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, is eligible to hold future public office.

The court, which consists entirely of Democratic appointees, is the first in the nation to side with activists and voters who have filed numerous lawsuits around the country claiming that Trump is barred from office under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause.” That clause states that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath of office to support the Constitution is forbidden from holding any public office.

The divided decision, issued just two weeks after the court heard oral arguments in the case, reverses a Denver judge’s ruling that found that while Trump had engaged in insurrection, the Constitution’s ambiguity on the matter left Trump eligible to remain on the ballot. The four-justice majority of the Colorado high court agreed that Trump engaged in insurrection — and found that he is disqualified from the ballot as a result.

The Democrats are a strange bunch. They don't like guns, but seem to enjoy provoking the people with guns into a civil war. Isn't it easier to just put up a decent candidate that can actually beat Trump?

got one already

Originally Posted by S Landreth

got one already

Got one what? I hate Trump. Just a Canadian giving a neighbor some good advice. Hopefully we'll close our border when the Dems that didn't listen come knocking.

Marc E. Elias - Trump faces similar challenges to his eligibility in 16 active lawsuits across the country. https://twitter.com/marceelias/statu...62094863520081

Originally Posted by pickel

Colorado's Supreme Court justices were all appointed by Democrat governors. The US Supreme Court has a Republican majority, who will surely shoot this down.

Never know.

Originally Posted by pickel

But I suppose when the bullets start flying, you'll probably stick up a Trump flag at the gate to the ranch, and run off to Thailand.

I do miss the ranch and by the way most people [and other ranchers (who have taken down their Trump flags years ago)] know the guys that run the ranch. Wouldn’t dare shoot towards the ranch unless it was at vermin and helping us out.

^
That link is over a year old. In American politics, anything over a month is old news, and it's an election year.

If you think banning him from the ballot in enough states to cost him the election won't result in the MAGA crowd revolting violently, then you're delusional. And you're gonna need a lot more good neighbors.

And doubtless dozens more threads.

Originally Posted by pickel

That link is over a year old.

Same weight of Justices, you goofball.

Originally Posted by cyrille

And doubtless dozens more threads.

oh joy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Can they though?

No one should listen to this idiot

• Congress erupts after court disqualifies Trump from Colorado ballot

The Colorado Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to disqualify former President Trump from the state's 2024 ballot quickly touched off fierce reactions from members of Congress in both parties.

Why it matters: The case has the potential to reignite an explosive national debate about the nature of the Jan. 6 riot and the degree to which the former president should be held accountable for the violence.

Driving the news: Four of the seven judges on the court ruled that the 14th Amendment's prohibition on individuals who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding office applies to Trump, the first such state to do so.

• The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the Trump campaign vowing to appeal and the Colorado judges issuing a stay until Jan. 4 to allow the federal judiciary to adjudicate it.
• Similar cases are making their way through the courts in several dozen other states.

What they're saying: "There is no way this holds," one House Republican told Axios. "There is no way the 14th Amendment was intended to be applied in this way."

• House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a statement the ruling is "nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack," adding that he trusts the Supreme Court "will set aside this reckless decision."
• House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) blasted the Colorado Supreme Court majority as "four partisan Democrat operatives" in a statement, predicting the ruling "will backfire and further strengthen President Trump's winning campaign."

Zoom in: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of Senate GOP leadership, introduced legislation on Tuesday aimed at punishing states that make such rulings.

• The three-page bill would amend the Help America Vote Act to withhold federal election administration funds to states "misusing the Fourteenth Amendment for political purposes."
• It would also clarify that the Supreme Court has "sole jurisdiction" to adjudicate such 14th Amendment cases.

The other side: Several Democrats who have championed the case against Trump being allowed to run in 2024 applauded the ruling.

• House Oversight Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who served as an impeachment manager in Trump's Jan. 6-focused Senate trial, said the ruling is "solidly rooted in law and in fact."
• "If the [Supreme] Court takes remotely seriously its profession of faith in original intent and textualism, then it will have to affirm" the ruling, he added. "The original meaning ... is precisely to forbid people who have betrayed their oath by trying to overthrow the constitutional order."
• Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), another impeachment manager, said "it was very clear to me that the evidence showed Trump called for and incited the mob on January 6."

What we're watching: While applauding the ruling, Raskin acknowledged the potential for political violence in response to it.

• "This is the problem," he said. "Whenever the police and prosecutors go after organized crimes or violent gangs, there is always the fear that enforcing the law against them could lead to further violence."

This is actually fucking hilarious.

"After a weeklong hearing in November, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump indeed had “engaged in insurrection” by inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and her ruling that kept him on the ballot was a fairly technical one.

Trump’s attorneys convinced Wallace that, because the language in Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, it must not apply to the president, who is not included as an “officer of the United States” elsewhere in the document and whose oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

The provision also says offices covered include senator, representative, electors of the president and vice president, and all others “under the United States,” but doesn’t name the presidency."

So we might have a Supreme Court that says you can't ban a president just because he has engaged in insurrection against the United States.

It's like their constitution was written on the back of a fag packet during a particularly heaving drinking session.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Can they though?

no one should listen to this idiot

I see spamdreth is particularly excited about this thread.

I suspect the very prospect might have driven him into a masturbational frenzy.

^no one should listen to this idiot who has me on ignore

I wonder about states being independent of federal decisions in many cases. Can the Supreme Court tell a state what to do and not to do on elections?

Originally Posted by Topper

I wonder about states being independent of federal decisions in many cases. Can the Supreme Court tell a state what to do and not to do on elections?

Well they're there to interpret the constitution which is a vague mess so yes, no, maybe.

Highlights

Trump blocked from Colorado ballot: 5 takeaways

Trump and his allies have broadly attacked the ruling, which marks the first state to kick Trump off the ballot, as unconstitutional and partisan. Trump’s team has vowed to take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s ruling.

- Decision wades into ‘uncharted territory’

- Court says 14th Amendment applies to presidents

To kick Trump off the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court notably reversed a trial judge’s finding that the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to the presidency.

The threshold issue has been at the center of the case and boils down to a thorny debate over two portions of the text.

In the first, the amendment specifies it only applies to people who engaged in insurrection after taking an oath as “an officer of the United States” to “support” the Constitution. Trump argued he was not an officer, and the presidential oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” was different than merely a promise to “support” it.

“The specific language of the presidential oath does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution,” the Colorado Supreme Court ruled.

The second part at issue involves the meaning of the phrase “office … under the United States” in the amendment. Noting that the provision explicitly lists out other positions, the trial court agreed with Trump that the presidency doesn’t qualify, enabling him to remain on the ballot. The state’s top court on Tuesday said it “cannot accept” that finding.

“A conclusion that the Presidency is something other than an office ‘under’ the United States is fundamentally at odds with the idea that all government officials, including the President, serve ‘we the people,’” the majority opinion reads. “… A more plausible reading of the phrase ‘under the United States’ is that the drafters meant simply to distinguish those holding federal office from those held ‘under any State.’”

- Trump’s Jan. 6 speech unprotected by First Amendment

Colorado’s highest court determined that the speech Trump gave to his supporters on the Ellipse ahead of the Capitol riot incited the crowd — and thus that it was not protected by the First Amendment.

- Court finds Trump engaged in insurrection

Like the district court, the Colorado Supreme Court also found that Trump’s actions leading up to the Capitol attack — and the riot itself — were tantamount to engaging in insurrection.

- Sets up U.S. Supreme Court showdown

Although extraordinary, Tuesday’s ruling is unlikely to be the last word on the matter.

Legal observers have long anticipated the 14th Amendment dispute would reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and the ruling in Colorado will now force the justices’ hands, as Trump has vowed to appeal.

_________

Extra

• Biden: Trump's an insurrectionist but courts can decide his ballot fate

“It’s self-evident. You saw it all. Now whether the 14th Amendment applies, I’ll let the court make that decision,” the president said during a trip to Wisconsin. “But he certainly supported an insurrection. No question about it. None. Zero.”

Originally Posted by pickel

In American politics, anything over a month is old news, and it's an election year.

Indeed. Nov 24 is near a year from now. By then, it may not be a Biden/Trump contest. Wouldn't surprise me.