SCOTUS seems ready to strike down Colorado ballot ruling

[A2SG]

And therefore the Colorado court used facts from the very same "nothing". And there was no "trial".

Why would there be a trial? No criminal charges were filed.

Again, someone can be disqualified from a ballot for different reasons, some of which aren't crimes.

For the moment, at least, states retain the right to determine the rules for their own primaries. The SCOTUS may change that, but for now, that's how it works.

-- A2SG, realize states rights may be a problem for you, but others like 'em....

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

That is interesting. Can you offer a citation?



Counterintuitive as it seems, there actually is a surprisingly plausible case to be made that the President isn't an officer of the United States.



I believe some states do only allow people to be on ballots if they are judged to meet the criteria for the position, but could be wrong.



One doesn't need to be convicted of insurrection to be disqualified; not many people were formally tried over the Civil War, but were declared ineligible for office.

Also, the claim of that judges in other states will do this to Democratic politicians as payback doesn't make much sense. Even if someone thinks Trump didn't engage in insurrection (I am presently inclined to believe he did), it's undeniable there's at least an actual case to be made; what case is there for other politicians, particularly any Democratic ones? I've seen a few people try to draw parallels with Black Lives Matters riots, but however much property damage might have been caused or general disruption, none of it was at the federal government that I am aware of, save for perhaps the courthouse siege in Portland and the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (at least any that continued to resist after law enforcement moved in for the latter). I am not aware of any nationally elected Democratic politicians who could be construed to have engaged in those things in the way Trump can be associated with January 6.

I suppose there's nothing technically stopping any judge from giving any ruling they want no matter how random (aside from being overturned in appeals), but even the most partisan of judges needs at least some level of plausibility, and when people bring up this objection I don't see them ever give examples of any Democratic politicians that could be plausibly argued to have run afoul of the Disqualification Clause in the way one can make an argument for Trump.


Probably.

The reason those who swore allegiance to the Confederacy were disqualified was precisely that: they took an oath to support a different government.

The equivalent to the same today is in this Code section: . 18 U.S. Code § 2383. If someone is convicted of insurrection under the statute, they are barred from federal office.

No one has been charged or convicted of insurrection here. No one took an oath to support a different government.
A riot occurred for a few hours on a single afternoon. That is not at all the same.

Otherwise all those who rioted, looted, burned down buildings, set fire to cars, and killed people during the 2020 8 month long riots are insurrectionists and should be hunted down and charged with the same vehemence and millions of dollars expended on this group of 1000 or so, who were mostly charged with "being in an unauthorized area" and "parading" - with a handful of exceptions, charged with property crimes or the 4 oath keepers/proud boys charged with conspiracy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado ballot​

The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under a provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

SCOTUS

Appears to be 9-0 on the essential ruling, with some tiny asterisks in the concurrences.

 

[wing2000]

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

Primary voting already started via mail ballot presumbaly? I heard Trump was on the ballot.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be kicked off Colorado ballot​

The court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under a provision of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.

SCOTUS

Appears to be 9-0 on the essential ruling, with some tiny asterisks in the concurrences.

Well, at least it was 9-0 and not 6-3

 

[essentialsaltes]

I heard Trump was on the ballot.

As I understand it, Colorado stayed its own decision, expecting input from SCOTUS. So correct, no changes to the ballot were put in place.

 

[Yttrium]

Very interesting decision. So, we need some new federal legislation. Not sure there will be any motivation for congress to address that in the future. I do like the fact that we managed to get a unanimous decision out of the SC on this, even if there's still some division on the arguments.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That settles that question.

 

[wing2000]

Very interesting decision. So, we need some new federal legislation. Not sure there will be any motivation for congress to address that in the future. I do like the fact that we managed to get a unanimous decision out of the SC on this, even if there's still some division on the arguments.

Today's congress can't even pass a budget, much less pass legislation that impacts every single voter in our country.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Very interesting decision. So, we need some new federal legislation.

Jamie Raskin to the rescue!

• "Congress will have to try and act," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, told Axios.
• Raskin pointed to legislation he introduced with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2022 creating a pathway for the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.
• "We are going to revise it in light of the Supreme Court's decision," Raskin said.
• Raskin suggested the bill would be paired with a resolution declaring Jan. 6 an "insurrection" and that those involved "engaged in insurrection."

 

[rjs330]

In this case, participate in an insurrection. You know, the thing that he was disqualified for.

He did? When was he charged and found to have done that? He didn't plan it, didn't order people to have an insurrection, in fact he told people to have their voices heard and be peaceful about it.

Was anyone actually charged with insurrection?

 

[wing2000]

He did? When was he charged and found to have done that? He didn't plan it, didn't order people to have an insurrection, in fact he told people to have their voices heard and be peaceful about it.

Was anyone actually charged with insurrection?

You do understand that being disqualified under the 14th Amendment is not the same as being charged?

In this case, participate in an insurrection. You know, the thing that he was disqualified for.

 

[rjs330]

You do understand that being disqualified under the 14th Amendment is not the same as being charged?

Apparently he wasn't.

 

[ralliann]

You do understand that being disqualified under the 14th Amendment is not the same as being charged?

exactly. Innocent until proven guilty no longer matters? Is this what we are coming to? NO

 

[wing2000]

exactly. Innocent until proven guilty no longer matters? Is this what we are coming to? NO

Ah....no. As has been explained frequenty here, disqualification of a candidate for office does not require a conviction in court. In any case, this is a mute point as the SCOTUS did not rule on whether Trump participated in an insurrection.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No one has to be charged with or convicted of being 34 years old to be ineligible to be president.

 

[ralliann]

Ah....no. As has been explained frequenty here, disqualification of a candidate for office does not require a conviction in court.

You are just rephrasing what I just said, as though it is different. It is not. And therefore the following

In any case, this is a mute point as the SCOTUS did not rule on whether Trump participated in an insurrection.

And it appears they simply had differences in who should "legally" determine that. A prerequisite for removal. Which has not been done.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Jamie Raskin to the rescue!

• "Congress will have to try and act," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, told Axios.
• Raskin pointed to legislation he introduced with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2022 creating a pathway for the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.
• "We are going to revise it in light of the Supreme Court's decision," Raskin said.
• Raskin suggested the bill would be paired with a resolution declaring Jan. 6 an "insurrection" and that those involved "engaged in insurrection."

View attachment 343639

Of course he is going to trot this nonsense out.

It exposes the lie to the "Biden is the best and can beat Trump" narrative. Every method possible has been used to remove Biden's opponent. Several talking head actually admitted yesterday during the mass freakouts all over the left wing media shows that "Well, we are going to have to beat him at the POLLS now." Imagine. They have to win, instead of interfere in the election by removing conveniently removing an opponent".

All that is left is the "well, maybe we can get him convicted prior to the election" gambit, as polls have shown this may chip away a bit at that base.

It's all so scummy. Just run Biden and win. Everyone is well aware that he has issues though and is likely not running the show at all, so that is not a good option for that base.

 

[rjs330]

Ah....no. As has been explained frequenty here, disqualification of a candidate for office does not require a conviction in court. In any case, this is a mute point as the SCOTUS did not rule on whether Trump participated in an insurrection.

Yet he hasn't been disqualified. And yes you have to prove your age or be found to not be old enough to be president. No one has shown Trump committed an insurrection. Just saying the word and making a claim isn't good enough.

 

[wing2000]

Yet he hasn't been disqualified. And yes you have to prove your age or be found to not be old enough to be president. No one has shown Trump committed an insurrection. Just saying the word and making a claim isn't good enough.

Yes, I am aware that he hasn't been disqualifed. But good to see you moved on from charged with insurrection to disqiualification.