Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state’s 2024 ballot

[Ban Hammer 13,327]

it sure is amusing to watch the same people who screamed about "our democracy" are showing through their actions they are fascists.

[Crazy Cat 41,810]

The Colorado decision is just so ludicrous from multiple angles.  

[TBoneTX 45,251]

Rocky Mountain High:  Why Trump Should Love the Colorado Ruling

 

The Colorado Supreme Court, acting as supplicants for the enemies of Donald Trump seeking the most extreme remedy for driving the former president into the ditch, may have just unwittingly gifted the former president a Rocky Mountain high – in the polls.  [...]

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/12/22/rocky_mountain_high_why_trump_should_love_the_colorado_ruling__150237.html

[Crazy Cat 41,810]

Michigan SC just now rejected the "Insurrection ban".  The Colorado justices are certainly going to look foolish. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[ThailandR 54]

On 12/22/2023 at 10:37 AM, Crazy Cat said:

The Colorado decision is just so ludicrous from multiple angles.  

You might want to look at this with an open mind and from middle ground.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-ironclad-argument-trump-colorado-case-sidney-blumenthal-1855528

 

175

The Supreme Court will likely face difficult legal maneuvering if its justices wish to return Donald Trump to the ballot in Colorado, a legal analyst argued, given the "ironclad" originalist argument at the heart of the ruling.

[Crazy Cat 41,810]

13 minutes ago, ThailandR said:

You might want to look at this with an open mind and from middle ground.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-ironclad-argument-trump-colorado-case-sidney-blumenthal-1855528

 

175

The Supreme Court will likely face difficult legal maneuvering if its justices wish to return Donald Trump to the ballot in Colorado, a legal analyst argued, given the "ironclad" originalist argument at the heart of the ruling.

Only Congress can disqualify Trump from the ballot through the 14th Amendment.  Do some research.  The Michigan SC got it right. 

[ThailandR 54]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Only Congress can disqualify Trump from the ballot through the 14th Amendment.  Do some research.  The Michigan SC got it right. 

Not true.  You might want to look at this: 

 

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html

 

Someone who is impeached could be disqualified from holding public office in the future if they are convicted, and Congress applies such a punishment. But this is separate from disqualification under the 14th Amendment.

[TBoneTX 45,251]

Refer to Jonathan Turley's analysis, this thread, page 1 near bottom.

[TBoneTX 45,251]

From an ultra-liberal Harvard Law professor, published in Slate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Supreme Court Must Unanimously Strike Down Trump's Ballot Removal

 

[...] the Colorado Supreme Court gave these lawyers new hope by declaring that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot.  That decision will certainly reach the United States Supreme Court as quickly as any.  And if that court is to preserve its integrity, it must, unanimously, reject the Colorado Supreme Court's judgment.  Because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.  [...]

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/supreme-court-trump-ballot-removal-colorado-wrong.html

 

[Dashinka 24,479]

18 hours ago, ThailandR said:

Not true.  You might want to look at this: 

 

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html

 

Someone who is impeached could be disqualified from holding public office in the future if they are convicted, and Congress applies such a punishment. But this is separate from disqualification under the 14th Amendment.

You are ignoring section 5 of the 14th Amendment, the Democrat political operative Sidney B. (Who quite possibly lied under oath) glosses over it, but it deserves more analysis.  What law has Congress passed with respect to Section 3 that would disqualify Trump?   18 US Code Section 2383 is the only one I know of, but the CO SC relied almost solely on the partisan output from Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th Committee (not a court of law, and no due process was followed) in their findings.  Donald Trump has never been charged with insurrection under the law above even with the partisan prosecutor Jack Smith throwing everything against the wall.  Additionally, the fact that other state SCs are seeing it differently that’s CO makes their case weak.  We shall see what happens of course, but quite honestly I would put more faith in the analysis of a legal scholar like Turley (also a Democrat btw.), than a Democrat political operative, with very close ties to the Clinton family (we know what they are capable of manufacturing politically), like Blementhal.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_5:_Power_of_enforcement

[Dashinka 24,479]

19 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

Michigan SC just now rejected the "Insurrection ban".  The Colorado justices are certainly going to look foolish. 

Heard a top of the hour news report on the radio (CBS I think) where they described the MI SC of punting this case.  They did no such thing, they simply found that the lower court came to a correct decision, and there was no need for further litigation.  Also keep in mind that the MI SC is now a majority Democrat.

 

I agree, this really makes the CO SC look like a bunch of partisan hacks.

[TBoneTX 45,251]

18 hours ago, Dashinka said:

this really makes the CO SC look like a bunch of partisan hacks.

Those four, if they had any shame, should resign consequent to it.

[Boiler 45,445]

All the Judges involved are Dems. so 3 Dems voted against.

 

It does intrigue me if there will be ####### for tat, absolutely crazy situation.

 

Now if the Dems just put forward a decent Candidate there would be no need for this.

[Boiler 45,445]

Ohh come on how can that be a breach of the VJ Rules, bad enough a normal word for ciggies is banned.

[TBoneTX 45,251]

23 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Ohh come on how can that be a breach of the VJ Rules, bad enough a normal word for ciggies is banned.

You could have said "teat for tat" and gotten away with it.