Colorado Supreme Court Boots Trump Off the 2023 Ballot

[Saucy]

The Colorado Supreme Court has disqualified Trump from their ballot in 2024.

The disqualification, which was made under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Tuesday's 4-3 ruling is stayed until January 4 because of likely appeals. Three justices on the Colorado Supreme Court dissented.

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified former President Trump from the 2024 ballot because he incited the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to a Tuesday ruling.

www.foxnews.com

As much as the Democrats like to complain that the Republicans are the "anti-Democratic" party, they appear to be doing whatever they can to keep the leading Republican candidate from even running. This is not likely to be upheld, as the Trump team looks to appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[7thKeeper]

The Colorado Supreme Court has disqualified Trump from their ballot in 2024.

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified former President Trump from the 2024 ballot because he incited the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to a Tuesday ruling.

www.foxnews.com

As much as the Democrats like to complain that the Republicans are the "anti-Democratic" party, they appear to be doing whatever they can to keep the leading Republican candidate from even running. This is not likely to be upheld, as the Trump team looks to appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.

? How would barring Trump from running for office be anti-democratic if he is found to be ineligible to run because of his own actions? That's following law/constitution. It would be akin to saying that barring a nonnative born person from running for office of the president is anti-democratic.
And out of curiosity, since this is a state issue, can it be appealed to the Supreme Court? Wouldn't the State Supreme Court be the ultimate authority on a state decision/issue, since it's a state and not a federal one? Honestly curious about how that works.

 

[SimplyMe]

The Colorado Supreme Court has disqualified Trump from their ballot in 2024.

Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified former President Trump from the 2024 ballot because he incited the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, according to a Tuesday ruling.

www.foxnews.com

As much as the Democrats like to complain that the Republicans are the "anti-Democratic" party, they appear to be doing whatever they can to keep the leading Republican candidate from even running. This is not likely to be upheld, as the Trump team looks to appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit was brought by six Colorado Republicans to keep Trump off of the Republican primary ballot, not by the Democrats.

? How would barring Trump from running for office be anti-democratic if he is found to be ineligible to run because of his own actions? That's following law/constitution. It would be akin to saying that barring a nonnative born person from running for office of the president is anti-democratic.
And out of curiosity, since this is a state issue, can it be appealed to the Supreme Court? Wouldn't the State Supreme Court be the ultimate authority on a state decision/issue, since it's a state and not a federal one? Honestly curious about how that works.

Yes, it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court is often loathe to make rulings overturning state law but I could see where they may disagree with the finding of insurrection, since that is a federal crime and one from the US Constitution. I think it will be interesting to see what the US Supreme Court may rule.

 

[7thKeeper]

The suit was brought by six Colorado Republicans to keep Trump off of the Republican primary ballot, not by the Democrats.

Yes, it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court is often loathe to make rulings overturning state law but I could see where they may disagree with the finding of insurrection, since that is a federal crime and one from the US Constitution. I think it will be interesting to see what the US Supreme Court may rule.

Thanks! I was really unsure how that would work, since the presidential elections are run by the states however they wish and the people aren't voting directly for the president but for the electoral college of the state, who then vote for the president.

 

[Fantine]

It just governs the primary. I imagine Trump could still run in t he general election if he got the nomination of his party.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Voters can still write in his name on the ballot.

 

[JustOneWay]

The Constitution also disqualifies anybody under the age of 35 from running for President. What was done in Colorado is another method from removing a person from running for President. It is only controversial because it has never been done before. I can see the ultra-conservative SC court taking side with the republicans on this.

 

[JustOneWay]

Voters can still write in his name on the ballot.

You can write Donald Duck's name on the ballot. That part was never an issue.

 

[DaisyDay]

I can see the ultra-conservative SC court taking side with the republicans on this.

But which Republicans?

It just governs the primary. I imagine Trump could still run in t he general election if he got the nomination of his party.

Is that true? If he is ineligible to be on the ballot as he is ineligible (per ruling) to be president, wouldn't he be just as ineligible as the RNC candidate?

 

[Fantine]

I think the primary is under state jurisfiction while the nail election is federal.

 

[NxNW]

Voters can still write in his name on the ballot.

No they can't.

 

[Matt5]

Victor Davis Hanson on X: "The Colorado Insurrection" | X

Donald Trump is being erased from the Colorado primary (and general?) ballot, by warping the 14th Amendment, and in a way never envisioned by its creators.

So now can one be guilty by fiat of Confederacy-like “insurrection,” when he has never been charged with, much less convicted of, such a crime?

How can a buffoonish January 6th riot become an “insurrection,” when no one was armed, there was no plan to seize power, and protestors were advised by the purported insurrectionist leader “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”?

As far as election insurrectionary interference, why did liberal journalist Molly Ball label the leftwing effort to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election a “cabal”?

Victor Davis Hanson on X: "The Colorado Insurrection" | X

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737661200866136571

Here's that article from Molly Ball:
The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | TIME

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions

time.com

Democracy is only an illusion anyway. You vote for who you hear about. Who you hear is decided by money - big money. Then there are all kinds of special interests who are playing games.

But there are always exceptions, and Trump is an exception. Some people don't like that.

[12.Dec.2023] Heartland/Rasmussen Poll: One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit to Committing at Least One Kind of Voter Fraud During 2020 Election

Heartland/Rasmussen Poll: One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit to Committing at Least One Kind of Voter Fraud During 2020 Election

The results of these survey questions appear to show that voter fraud was widespread in the 2020 election, especially among those who cast mail-in ballots. Heartland Institute/Rasmussen Reports Poll, December 12, 2023 Shocking results from a new poll on voter fraud in the 2020 presidential...

finance.yahoo.com

They'll do it again, too.

 

[JustOneWay]

You vote for who you hear about. Who you hear is decided by money - big money.

I vote for a person AFTER I hear what they say and look at their records of what they have done. If you are fooled by big money, that is your problem.

But there are always exceptions, and Trump is an exception. Some people don't like that.

Trump is ALL ABOUT BIG MONEY. Don't you see that? He used the White House to enrich his life and wallet, and now he is paying the price.

 

[USincognito]

Victor Davis Hanson on X: "The Colorado Insurrection" | X

Ah yes, another hyper-partisan hack posting histrionics and misusing a word for emotional impact.

Here's that article from Molly Ball:
The Secret Bipartisan Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election | TIME

What, exactly, is in that article that you find nefarious?

[12.Dec.2023] Heartland/Rasmussen Poll: One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit to Committing at Least One Kind of Voter Fraud During 2020 Election.

This one is rapidly reaching mythological status for those on the right. It's reminiscent of Brent Bozell's outfit proclaiming that 93% of Donald's coverage was negative.

 

[Valletta]

The suit was brought by six Colorado Republicans to keep Trump off of the Republican primary ballot, not by the Democrats.

Yes, it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court is often loathe to make rulings overturning state law but I could see where they may disagree with the finding of insurrection, since that is a federal crime and one from the US Constitution. I think it will be interesting to see what the US Supreme Court may rule.

Democrat Colorado judges find Trump guilty of insurrection and remove Trump, Joe's leading opponent, from the ballot. It's not a difficult legal case--can an American citizen be declared guilty of insurrection without a trial?

 

[JustOneWay]

Democrat Colorado judges find Trump guilty of insurrection and remove Trump, Joe's leading opponent, from the ballot. It's not a difficult legal case--can an American citizen be declared guilty of insurrection without a trial?

There was a trial! Why do you not know this?

Another poster who just does not understand that the insurrection clause requires no 'insurrection' conviction.

Please read the Constitution, or at least the part which applies to this discussion.

 

[USincognito]

Democrat Colorado judges find Trump guilty of insurrection and remove Trump, Joe's leading opponent, from the ballot. It's not a difficult legal case--can an American citizen be declared guilty of insurrection without a trial?

Or, you could just read the actual decision instead of doing your best Tucker Carlson imitation.

 

[USincognito]

Ah yes, another hyper-partisan hack posting histrionics and misusing a word for emotional impact.

Aye-yi-yi! Reading the comments in Hanson's Tweet shows just how many of Donald's ardent believers are utterly disconnected from reality.

 

[7thKeeper]

Or, you could just read the actual decision instead of doing your best Tucker Carlson imitation.

But they're not going to bother, because when it comes to lawsuits/accusations, what actually determines guilty is whether there is an R or D attached to that name.

 

[wing2000]

The US Supreme Court is often loathe to make rulings overturning state law but I could see where they may disagree with the finding of insurrection, since that is a federal crime and one from the US Constitution. I think it will be interesting to see what the US Supreme Court may rule.

In my view, the USSC must accept this case as the nation needs a clear decision as to whether Donald J Trump engaged in an insurrection.

Contrary to the ops contention, this is a Constitutional matter that must be resolved by the nation's highest court.