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

[DaisyDay]

Yep, like the col court justices.

Col court justices?

Setting up all your points. Keep it stirred up.

Stating facts is stirring to you?

I don’t know why you think that pointing out the composition of the Supreme Court is the issue. You seem to have missed the part where I said that the vote could be unanimous, in which case the decision would not be partisan.

 

[ralliann]

Col court justices?


Stating facts is stirring to you?

I don’t know why you think that pointing out the composition of the Supreme Court is the issue. You seem to have missed the part where I said that the vote could be unanimous, in which case the decision would not be partisan.

The Colorado court was not unanimous. Hypocrisy, and false equivalency is all this talk is. To set a headline narrative, as usual.

 

[JustOneWay]

The Colorado court was not unanimous.

Few Supreme Court rulings are unanimous. The point of 'not unanimous' is irrelevant.

Hypocrisy, and false equivalency is all this talk is. To set a headline narrative, as usual.

Can this be any more vague? Please be more specific.

 

[DaisyDay]

The Colorado court was not unanimous.

Oh, that's what you meant by "Yep, like the col court justices"! Okay, but since nobody said they were, who cares? The US Supreme court may rule unanimously - in which case, it really can't be attributed to conservative bias, right?

Hypocrisy, and false equivalency is all this talk is. To set a headline narrative, as usual.

I don't see how it is hypocritical to mention that the SCOTUS today has more conservatives than liberals. That's a fact. Whether, in this particular case, this will be relevant, remains to be seen. That is hardly the stuff of headlines:

Maybe Maybe Not, Time Will Tell​

- is that really compelling or hypocritical?

 

[ralliann]

Few Supreme Court rulings are unanimous. The point of 'not unanimous' is irrelevant.


Can this be any more vague? Please be more specific.

Exactly! but the double standard AGAIN rears it's head here. It is to keep up the division. Marxists do not care about our institutions. They are merely a strategy to an end, fascism....

 

[Laodicean60]

Is this ironic?

Why? Hate is everywhere including both sides of the aisle and country.

 

[ralliann]

Oh, that's what you meant by "Yep, like the col court justices"! Okay, but since nobody said they were, who cares?

Who cares? You do. Since you are putting a standard on the supreme court that does not apply to the Colorado court. Giving it a validity based upon "you like it". ends justifies the means with liberals. You want what you want.

 

[DaisyDay]

Who cares? You do

I don't think you understood any of what I wrote if that's what you believe. I can honestly say that I don't care whether they were unanimous or not. I don't know or care what their conservative/liberal composition is. The majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is off the Colorado ballot in accordance with the 14th Amendment. I don't think you are disputing this part, but you believe they ruled incorrectly, right?

Since you are putting a standard on the supreme court that does not apply to the Colorado court.

I think you're mistaken here - what standard are you talking about? I don't recall making any comment whatsoever concerning the Colorado Supreme Court. The SCOTUS does have a majority conservative make-up now - are you claiming that they don't?

Giving it a validity based upon "you like it". ends justifies the means with liberals. You want what you want.

What on the good green earth are you talking about? What "validity"? And what are you supposing that I "like" since it is all undecided?

I'll restate to see if I can make myself better understood: if the Supreme Court of the United States rules in favor of Trump unanimously then the decision is more likely to be accepted by citizens at large. Do you think that a split ruling would be as accepted as a unanimous one? This is without guessing which way they will rule, since we really don't know.

 

[DaisyDay]

Why? Hate is everywhere including both sides of the aisle and country.

Do you know what irony means? The "why" is because a certain man is claiming that "they are poisoning our blood" when his own bloodline he has deliberately mixed with immigrant stock.

Irony doesn't disappear in the face of hate.

 

[Laodicean60]

Do you know what irony means? The "why" is because a certain man is claiming that "they are poisoning our blood" when his own bloodline he has deliberately mixed with immigrant stock.

Irony doesn't disappear in the face of hate.

Ok. Peace

 

[ralliann]

I don't think you understood any of what I wrote if that's what you believe. I can honestly say that I don't care whether they were unanimous or not. I don't know or care what their conservative/liberal composition is.

The finding of insurrection is error. That is the first problem. Not court has found Trump legally guilty of insurrection. Therefore the 14th can not apply. The composition of the court here does not matter to that FACT.

The majority of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is off the Colorado ballot in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

No, they gave an opinion he committed insurrection.

I don't think you are disputing this part, but you believe they ruled incorrectly, right?

I don't think you are disputing this part, but you believe they ruled incorrectly, right?

They did not have a legal ruling. There was not "finding" legally by trial. It was an opinion. This is ridiculous. It's the headline for people to use. It is fake, for a false idea.
There was no charges of insurrection, nor trial for insurrection, to uphold an application of an amendment. This is a major problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The finding of insurrection is error. That is the first problem. Not court has found Trump legally guilty of insurrection. Therefore the 14th can not apply. The composition of the court here does not matter to that FACT.

The lower Colorado court *did* find that Trump engaged in insurrection as contemplated by the 14th amendment. They had witnesses, arguments, and evidence and everything.

 

[ralliann]

The lower Colorado court *did* find that Trump engaged in insurrection as contemplated by the 14th amendment. They had witnesses, arguments, and evidence and everything.

When was he charged?

 

[Hans Blaster]

When was he charged?

The plaintiffs in the Colorado case made the accusation and provided the evidence. It's all part of that case.

 

[DaisyDay]

The finding of insurrection is error. That is the first problem. Not court has found Trump legally guilty of insurrection. Therefore the 14th can not apply. The composition of the court here does not matter to that FACT.

The original Colorado judge made a "finding of fact (linkie)" that Trump did engage in insurrection but ruled that the 14th Amendment did not apply to presidents as they are not "officers of the United States".

The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the original finding (or conclusion) that Mr. Trump did engage in insurrection but overruled her saying that the presidency is an office of the US and therefore is covered and therefore is not allowed to be on the Colorado ballot per Colorado law.

No, they gave an opinion he committed insurrection.

I don't think you are disputing this part, but you believe they ruled incorrectly, right?

Judgements are legally binding opinions. They accepted the original trial finding as a matter of fact that Trump committed insurrection which formed the basis for the ruling that he is barred.

They did not have a legal ruling. There was not "finding" legally by trial. It was an opinion. This is ridiculous. It's the headline for people to use. It is fake, for a false idea.

I don't think you are correct here. You know that the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't conduct trials - they hear appeals and make legal rulings on the evidence and the law.

There was no charges of insurrection, nor trial for insurrection, to uphold an application of an amendment. This is a major problem.

You are right that Trump has not been tried for insurrection (yet). The civil matter of whether his conduct precludes his being on the ballot was heard by a trial judge in civil court.

From Cornell Law:

Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Findings of fact may be made by either a jury or a judge depending on whether the case is criminal or civil and/or if there is an agreement between the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgment until the factual dispute is resolved.​

​

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny. ​

Now we just don't know how the US Supreme Court will rule yet. They may agree with you and overrule the SCOC by finding that the Colorado court jumped the gun on the insurrection thing if they think it is clearly in error. Or they may not.

Whatever they decide, I think it will be more readily accepted by various factions if the verdict is unanimous.

 

[ralliann]

The original Colorado judge made a "finding of fact (linkie)" that Trump did engage in insurrection but ruled that the 14th Amendment did not apply to presidents as they are not "officers of the United States".

The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the original finding (or conclusion) that Mr. Trump did engage in insurrection but overruled her saying that the presidency is an office of the US and therefore is covered and therefore is not allowed to be on the Colorado ballot per Colorado law.


Judgements are legally binding opinions. They accepted the original trial finding as a matter of fact that Trump committed insurrection which formed the basis for the ruling that he is barred.

I don't think you are correct here. You know that the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't conduct trials - they hear appeals and make legal rulings on the evidence and the law.

You are right that Trump has not been tried for insurrection (yet). The civil matter of whether his conduct precludes his being on the ballot was heard by a trial judge in civil court.

From Cornell Law:

Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Findings of fact may be made by either a jury or a judge depending on whether the case is criminal or civil and/or if there is an agreement between the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgment until the factual dispute is resolved.​

​

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny. ​

Now we just don't know how the US Supreme Court will rule yet. They may agree with you and overrule the SCOC by finding that the Colorado court jumped the gun on the insurrection thing if they think it is clearly in error. Or they may not.

Whatever they decide, I think it will be more readily accepted by various factions if the verdict is unanimous.

So, as I said he was in the courts opinion, guilty but not charged with a crime and removed from the ballot. Without being found guilty of a crime. That is not how we do elections in this country. Geesh

 

[ralliann]

The plaintiffs in the Colorado case made the accusation and provided the evidence. It's all part of that case.

where are the criminal charges?

 

[Hans Blaster]

where are the criminal charges?

Why should there be any?

 

[ralliann]

Why should there be any?

To have a tial, and allow for all his rights to a full defence. Especially when it comes to intereferring with the peoples right to vote, and election interference. The Supreme court will take care of this and soon hopefully.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To have a tial, and allow for all his rights to a full defence. Especially when it comes to intereferring with the peoples right to vote, and election interference. The Supreme court will take care of this and soon hopefully.

Just read the other posts in this (and maybe the other) thread. The other posters have provided many details about the trial and Trump's defense at that trial. No ones right to vote has been taken away or interfered with. The only question is whether all of the candidates are properly qualified to appear on the ballot. The trial (plus the subsequent appeals rulings) have found that one of the candidates fails to meat the prohibition in section 3 of the 14th amendment.