Effort in Colorado to keep Trump off ballot fails

[x65943]

Wait, you mean Israel isn't going to use that 14.3 billion dollars aid money for humanitarian purposes?

The money hasn't actually been given to them yet or indeed even voted on

But it is a tad ridiculous to pretend the modern state of Israel needs billions of dollars to protect itself against 2 million impoverished Palestinians who have been relentlessly bombed for a month+ with zero capability to defend itself

Israel just needs a better Intel community honestly

 

[Xzi]

I don't think judges make false rulings on purpose - is that a joke? That would be a gross lack of fulfillment of their oath

It's not a "false" ruling, it's a ruling open to interpretation by design. Basically splitting the baby and giving both sides some of what they wanted out of it, while leaving the door open for taking the case to the next level.

 

[lolcatzuru]

it doesnt matter, trump wouldnt win there anyway, too many commies, but good to see justice still done.

 

[x65943]

It's not a "false" ruling, it's a ruling open to interpretation by design. Basically splitting the baby and giving both sides some of what they wanted out of it, while leaving the door open for taking the case to the next level.

The judge said it didn't apply to Trump, if the judge thought it actually did - and wrote that it didn't - that would be a false ruling and gross negligence

Again a judge wouldn't do that

 

[lolcatzuru]

The money hasn't actually been given to them yet or indeed even voted on

But it is a tad ridiculous to pretend the modern state of Israel needs billions of dollars to protect itself against 2 million impoverished Palestinians who have been relentlessly bombed for a month+ with zero capability to defend itself

Israel just needs a better Intel community honestly

untrue, the bought a bunch of the tech joe biden left behind.

 

[Xzi]

The judge said it didn't apply to Trump, if the judge thought it actually did - and wrote that it didn't - that would be a false ruling and gross negligence

Again a judge wouldn't do that

We can't possibly know the judge's inner thoughts, but even if she truly believes the president is not an officer of the United States, it's still just the opinion of one judge. As Taleweaver said earlier, the hardest part was supposed to be proving that Trump engaged in insurrection. If the appeal only has to focus on convincing the court that Trump did serve as an officer, then that narrows the focus of the case substantially and makes the prosecution's job a lot easier.

 

[x65943]

We can't possibly know the judge's inner thoughts, but even if she truly believes the president is not an officer of the United States, it's still just the opinion of one judge. As Taleweaver said earlier, the hardest part was supposed to be proving that Trump engaged in insurrection. If the appeal only has to focus on convincing the court that Trump did serve as an officer, then that narrows the focus of the case substantially and makes the prosecution's job a lot easier.

Each judge going forward of course will review the whole case

And any appeal would be to a higher court so it's not as though they will take this judge's opinion on any particular matter as gospel

But in any case this is obviously a win for Trump at least at this stage because the judge ruled the amendment doesn't even apply to him

And regardless as noted in the article the final court of appeal is the SCOTUS which has a very heavy conservative slant

 

[Xzi]

But in any case this is obviously a win for Trump at least at this stage because the judge ruled the amendment doesn't even apply to him

She ruled on his eligibility for the primary ballot but said nothing about the general election ballot, which is an important distinction. Admittedly though yes, a win for Trump even if only a small and/or temporary one.

And regardless as noted in the article the final court of appeal is the SCOTUS which has a very heavy conservative slant

True. A matter of how much corruption they want to put on public display when the case before them involves the man who appointed three of them. Hard to guarantee they would choose to hear this case given how much scrutiny they're already under for other ethics issues.

 

[lolcatzuru]

She ruled on his eligibility for the primary ballot but said nothing about the general election ballot, which is an important distinction. Admittedly though yes, a win for Trump even if only a small and/or temporary one.


True. A matter of how much corruption they want to put on public display when the case before them involves the man who appointed three of them. Hard to guarantee they would choose to hear this case given how much scrutiny they're already under for other ethics issues.

depends on if the judges want to remain employed.

 

[x65943]

She ruled on his eligibility for the primary ballot but said nothing about the general election ballot, which is an important distinction. Admittedly though yes, a win for Trump even if only a small and/or temporary one.


True. A matter of how much corruption they want to put on public display when the case before them involves the man who appointed three of them. Hard to guarantee they would choose to hear this case given how much scrutiny they're already under for other ethics issues.

Any election (primary or general) would have the exact same considerations - so it doesn't particularly matter

As for whether SCOTUS would hear it, I suspect it will never come to that as lower courts will likely rule in his favor like that have done already

But in the odd chance it came before then they would certainly hear it no question

depends on if the judges want to remain employed.

I suspect you don't know how the supreme Court works

 

[Xzi]

Any election (primary or general) would have the exact same considerations - so it doesn't particularly matter

It absolutely matters, it means she's only ruling on the NOW, not on what might change in the future or even near-future. The vital part is that a man who disrupted the peaceful transfer of power not be allowed to run for president again. Let the Republicans dig themselves deeper with their primary circus in the meantime.

14A Section 3 might as well have Donald Trump's name in it. The confederacy was just a variant of fascism. Anybody stupid enough to believe Trump wouldn't attempt a much more violent January 6th again is not anybody who should be anywhere near a position of power.

 

[x65943]

It absolutely matters, it means she's only ruling on the NOW, not on what might change in the future or even near-future. The vital part is that a man who disrupted the peaceful transfer of power not be allowed to run for president again. Let the Republicans dig themselves deeper with their primary circus in the meantime.

14A Section 3 might as well have Donald Trump's name in it. The confederacy was just a variant of fascism. Anybody stupid enough to believe Trump wouldn't attempt a much more violent January 6th again is not anybody who should be anywhere near a position of power.

The ruling would apply to either election obviously

The amendment doesn't mention the president and as the legal expert (the judge) has ruled officer doesn't encompass the federal executive branch

Neither of us have law degrees so let's leave it to the judge

 

[zamastyle]

Man... I am so done with trump and biden. It genuinely sucks that we are doing to repeat this shit choice election again this cycle.

 

[Xzi]

The ruling would apply to either election obviously

There is no "would." The ruling was on the primary ballot exclusively, with the assumption that the Colorado Supreme Court might rule differently.

Neither of us have law degrees so let's leave it to the judge

Let's be real: this is more akin to deciding what the definition of "is" is. If CIC isn't an "officer," the word officer might as well not exist in the English language. I don't blame the judge for not wanting to be targeted by MAGA death threats, either, though.

 

[x65943]

There is no "would." The ruling was on the primary ballot exclusively, with the assumption that the Colorado Supreme Court might rule differently.


Let's be real: this is more akin to deciding what the definition of "is" is. If CIC isn't an "officer," the word officer might as well not exist in the English language. I don't blame the judge for not wanting to be targeted by MAGA death threats, either, though.

Again the fact you think judges' rulings are based on fear and not facts is very very odd - and in fact backed up by nothing but your own preconceived notions of the truth

Get back to me with a source on that idea and I'll consider it

As for now you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist

 

[Xzi]

Again the fact you think judges' rulings are based on fear and not facts is very very odd - and in fact backed up by nothing but your own preconceived notions of the truth

It is implied that I'm speculating, but it's not based on nothing. Any number of judges, prosecutors, and witnesses have been receiving death threats in Trump's other cases, along with their families. The state Supreme Court would have more guarantee of protection than a "lowly" district judge.

 

[x65943]

It is implied that I'm speculating, but it's not based on nothing. Any number of judges and witnesses have been receiving death threats in Trump's other cases, along with their families. The state Supreme Court would have more guarantee of protection than a "lowly" district judge.

I just think it's clear what the judge said and ruled

Anything beyond that is baseless speculation and akin to conspiracy

"Yes so and so said x, by what they really meant was y"

"Evidence?"

"None"

Thank you

 

[Xzi]

I just think it's clear what the judge said and ruled

Sure, and as written there's very little finality to the wording of that ruling. I'm more interested in what comes next in response to and as a result of it.

 

[x65943]

Sure, and as written there's very little finality to the wording of that ruling. I'm more interested in what comes next in response to and as a result of it.

Right and ultimately SCOTUS would be court of last appeal provided the lower courts didn't handle it (similar to this judge who basically left it doa)

 

[Xzi]

Right and ultimately SCOTUS would be court of last appeal provided the lower courts didn't handle it (similar to this judge who basically left it doa)

I'm sure the Trump team will appeal if the Colorado Supreme Court rules against them, yes, and the same may be true for the prosecution. If it does ultimately stand as-is, the ruling that Trump did engage in insurrection will give Jack Smith more ammunition, not that he needs it.