Effort in Colorado to keep Trump off ballot fails

[x65943]

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.

The ruling won't affect anything if it gets appealed higher since they won't take a lower court's ruling as fact

Each higher court must make its own determination. It doesn't make sense for the highest court to take judgement from the lowest court.

After all if that was the case they would simply agree Trump doesn't fit the definition as an officer of the US and the whole thing would be over.

 

[Xzi]

The ruling won't affect anything if it gets appealed higher since they won't take a lower court's ruling as fact

Each higher court must make its own determination. It doesn't make sense for the highest court to take judgement from the lowest court.

After all if that was the case they would simply agree Trump doesn't fit the definition as an officer of the US and the whole thing would be over.

Right. If we're working under the presumption every higher court would agree with that definition of "officer," I'm also presuming they'd agree with the ruling as a whole.

 

[x65943]

Right. If we're working under the presumption every higher court would agree with that definition of "officer," I'm also presuming they'd agree with the ruling as a whole.

Remains to be seen but I am gonna defer to the legal expert (the judge in this case) that the federal executive was not intended to be beholden to the amendment

We will see what the scotus thinks I guess

 

[Taleweaver]

That's not how being a judge works

If the judge felt Trump was acting as an officer of the US government under the definition in the 14th amendment then Trump would have been barred

I had to read this three times, and I'm still not sure if i read this correctly...

Did that judge called Trump too incompetent to be part of the us government... Despite being president for four years?

*looks at own past posts on the guy*
Hard to argue that position,really. But c'mon... This is that same defence bullshit fox pulls out of their ass whenever they're criticized ('no... Just because a news anchor voices his opinion as fact on his show called the news doesn't mean that it's anything but his opinion... Right? ').

 

[x65943]

I had to read this three times, and I'm still not sure if i read this correctly...

Did that judge called Trump too incompetent to be part of the us government... Despite being president for four years?

*looks at own past posts on the guy*
Hard to argue that position,really. But c'mon... This is that same defence bullshit fox pulls out of their ass whenever they're criticized ('no... Just because a news anchor voices his opinion as fact on his show called the news doesn't mean that it's anything but his opinion... Right? ').

No, the judge is making a point that the amendment was not written to include the president (as at the time the rebellion didn't include the president, and the amendment was meant to keep confederates out of government. AND it specifically lists the other offices it encompasses but doesn't mention the federal executive)

Nothing about competence or incompetence

 

[Xzi]

the amendment was meant to keep confederates out of government

Correct, meant to keep confederates out of government ALTOGETHER. It makes no sense that the intent would be barring insurrectionists from holding lower offices but not from the highest office. No shortage of legal analysts and constitutional scholars currently predicting the Colorado Supreme Court will overturn that part of the ruling for that reason.

 

[x65943]

Correct, meant to keep confederates out of government ALTOGETHER. It makes no sense that the intent would be barring insurrectionists from holding lower offices but not from the highest office. No shortage of legal analysts and constitutional scholars currently predicting the Colorado Supreme Court will overturn that part of the ruling for that reason.

We will see what the judges say

 

[Dark_Ansem]

91 indictments, one would think disqualification would be automatic but no

 

[x65943]

91 indictments, one would think disqualification would be automatic but no

Crime does not bar one from the presidency

To be barred from the highest office is actually pretty difficult and people have run from prison before

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Crime does not bar one from the presidency

maybe it should?

 

[x65943]

maybe it should?

I agree, but that would likely require a constitutional amendment

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I agree, but that would likely require a constitutional amendment

It would also require parties to not endorse nor accept one.

 

[Xzi]

On 14th amendment grounds, the Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed the ruling and barred Trump from appearing on the ballot. They're presuming this will be appealed to SCOTUS anyway, but a big win for election security/integrity as it stands now.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-in...024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2

 

[x65943]

On 14th amendment grounds, the Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed the ruling and barred Trump from appearing on the ballot. They're presuming this will be appealed to SCOTUS anyway, but a big win for election security/integrity as it stands now.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-in...024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2

4/3 decision on a court in which all 7 justices were appointed by Democrats

"The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case."

My guess is the supreme Court will also suspend that ruling past January 4th while they decide

Seems open and shut considering Trump stacked the SCOTUS

 

[Xzi]

Seems open and shut considering Trump stacked the SCOTUS

Big conflict of interest for three justices at least, it'll be very controversial if they don't recuse and rule based entirely on party affiliation. This is a matter of states' rights after all, they aren't ruling on his national ballot status.

 

[x65943]

Big conflict of interest for three justices at least, it'll be very controversial if they don't recuse and rule based entirely on party affiliation. This is a matter of states' rights after all, they aren't ruling on his national ballot status.

The 7 Democrat judges on the Colorado court didn't recuse themselves

And you're fooling yourself if you think it would happen in the scotus

 

[Xzi]

The 7 Democrat judges on the Colorado court didn't recuse themselves

And you're fooling yourself if you think it would happen in the scotus

Trump didn't appoint any of them. The case isn't Democrats vs. Republicans, it's an insurrectionist vs. the constitution.

 

[supermist]

Well this aged poorly

 

[x65943]

Trump didn't appoint any of them. The case isn't Democrats vs. Republicans, it's an insurrectionist vs. the constitution.

The Colorado court was stacked 7/0

Supreme Court is stacked too, but admittedly less so

In any case the scotus will throw this out and Trump will appear on the ballot in Colorado - it's plainly obvious and if you don't believe me we can just wait til it happens

 

[titan_tim]

Seems Colorado supreme court just voted 4-3 to bar Trump from being on the presidential ballot in the state. Didn't expect that!

Edit: Seems I was about 30 minutes too late to mention that