A Colorado judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,' but keeps him on the ballot

[wing2000]

While the ruling is in Trump's favor, the first 95 pages of the judge's decision she lay's out the evidence establishing that Donald Trump did "engage in insurrection" on Jan 6th.

Whether or now the President is an officer holder under the 14th Ammendment language will be appealed.

A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency.

In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact "engage in insurrection" on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys' arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. Normally, that would be enough to disqualify him under Section 3, but she said she couldn't do so for a presidential candidate.

Section 3 does not specifically refer to the presidency, as it does members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Instead, the clause refers to "elector of President and Vice President," along with civil and military offices.

"Part of the Court's decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three," the judge wrote in the 102-page ruling.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot#:~:text=DENVER%20%E2%80%94%20A%20Colorado%20judge%20on,Constitutional%20amendment%20barring%20insurrectionists%20from

 

[NxNW]

See also
Colorado Judge Rules that Trump Engaged in Insurrection, but can still run

 

[wing2000]

See also
Colorado Judge Rules that Trump Engaged in Insurrection, but can still run

Thank you.

 

[DaisyDay]

Well, he’s off the ballot now in Colorado.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Well, he’s off the ballot now in Colorado.

Must have been another Liberal, Soros picked, hate America, legislate from the bench, ACLU supporting Communist Court.

 

[ralliann]

Must have been another Liberal, Soros picked, hate America, legislate from the bench, ACLU supporting Communist Court.

This is what is becoming of the election process. Unelected judges disenfranchising voters.
We will see if the Supreme court upholds the constitution here.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

This is what is becoming of the election process. Unelected judges disenfranchising voters.
We will see if the Supreme court upholds the constitution here.

I'm Sure that the Supreme Court will follow the Law and Side with the Republican Position as they do when deciding who should be President.

 

[ralliann]

I'm Sure that the Supreme Court will follow the Law

I certainly hope so.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is what is becoming of the election process. Unelected judges disenfranchising voters.

The Colorado Supreme Court is nominated by the governor and later face a 'retention election'. 6 of the 7 members of the court have faced those elections, so they are in factd elected judges.

We will see if the Supreme court upholds the constitution here.

Now, that's an unelected group of judges.

 

[DaisyDay]

Must have been another Liberal, Soros picked, hate America, legislate from the bench, ACLU supporting Communist Court.

Obviously!

 

[DaisyDay]

Unelected judges disenfranchising voters.

If that is the law, then they need to follow it, don't they, whether elected or not.

Can't the voters so inclined simply write in their ineligible choice?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Can't the voters so inclined simply write in their ineligible choice?

The ruling actually says that write-in votes for Trump will not be counted either, as he is disqualified from holding office. It would be like writing in Arnold Schwarzenegger (who cannot be president because he was born an Austrian citizen).

 

[ralliann]

If that is the law, then they need to follow it, don't they, whether elected or not.

Can't the voters so inclined simply write in their ineligible choice?

Perhaps write ins can be done. There is a problem with our courts. It is important they not step outside of their role in governing authority. We are supposed to have a balance of power. Overstepping that usurps that. It is important. Ignoring it is the bigger problem.

 

[DaisyDay]

Perhaps write ins can be done. There is a problem with our courts. It is important they not step outside of their role in governing authority. We are supposed to have a balance of power. Overstepping that usurps that. It is important. Ignoring it is the bigger problem.

You haven't shown that these judges have overstepped their authority by ruling on this matter of law.

 

[DaisyDay]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736160181417820570

Is this ironic?

 

[ralliann]

You haven't shown that these judges have overstepped their authority by ruling on this matter of law.

I don't need to show anything. Let it go to the supreme court and let the Judges determine the validity of what was done there. Nothing you say, nor what I say matters right now. It only serves the purpose to set up falsehoods, and errors, before the facts even begin to be addressed.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't need to show anything. Let it go to the supreme court and let the Judges determine the validity of what was done there. Nothing you say, nor what I say matters right now. It only serves the purpose to set up falsehoods, and errors, before the facts even begin to be addressed.

Okay, but you made the claim that they overstepped. Since that is nothing but a bald assertion that you refuse to support, I have no problem ignoring whatever point you were hoping to make.

 

[ralliann]

Okay, but you made the claim that they overstepped. Since that is nothing but a bald assertion that you refuse to support, I have no problem ignoring whatever point you were hoping to make.

Yep, my opinion, nothing more listening to the news. We will see how it goes. Already there has been an issue with what's true or not with regards to Donald Trump legally being called an insurrectionist. My opinion is that is the goal being set here. trying to set people on one side in a pretense he was found guilty of insurrection in a court of law. Therefore When or i9f i9t is overturned by the supreme court people can still be divided, and pretend the court was conservative. It is all a ruse these threads to keep the people divided and bickering. We will see.

 

[DaisyDay]

pretend the court was conservative.

No pretense needed - it is conservative 6 to 3. However, if the ruling is unanimous as some predict, then it being conservative doesn't really matter.

 

[ralliann]

No pretense needed - it is conservative 6 to 3.

Yep, like the col court justices. Setting up all your points. Keep it stirred up.