Colorado Supreme Court Boots Trump Off the 2023 Ballot

[Larniavc]

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.

So can he still run but just not be able to rely this state for votes?

 

[JustOneWay]

What I see as truly baffling is how this topic is being framed as liberals or democrats going after Trump in order to 'erase' him.

This case was based upon conservative members of the Federalist Society!

A conservative case emerges to disqualify Trump for his role on Jan. 6​

A conservative case emerges to disqualify Trump for his role on Jan. 6

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.

www.seattletimes.com

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.


LOL

 

[Brihaha]

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

Probably because many trumpers read tweets as news instead of actually reading the several pages of the court's decision. Americans are far too self-absorbed and tribal to spend time reasoning. This is the era of instant gratification in America. Not an epoch of deep thought. Thanks internet.

 

[USincognito]

Probably because many trumpers read tweets as news instead of actually reading the several pages of the court's decision. Americans are far too self-absorbed and tribal to spend time reasoning. This is the era of instant gratification in America. Not an epoch of deep thought. Thanks internet.

It's worse than that. The depths into the madness of conspiracy so many of the commenters have descended wasn't really surprising, it eventually became depressing.

So many of my fellow Americans are living in an alternate reality and don't know how they break out of their delusion. If any of you, especially our friends on the right think I'm overstating this, please check it for yourself and tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Brihaha]

It's worse than that. The depths into the madness of conspiracy so many of the commenters have descended wasn't really surprising, it eventually became depressing.

So many of my fellow Americans are living in an alternate reality and don't know how they break out of their delusion. If any of you, especially our friends on the right think I'm overstating this, please check it for yourself and tell me I'm wrong.

You are probably right. The difference is my own reaction to the maddening deniers of reality. I don't need to worry about trying to lead them towards truth. I do try to bring awareness to misguided folks, but I don't have to fret when they refuse to open their minds and listen. Faith has grown in my heart so I can set down the load I carried throughout the Trump presidency. The serenity prayer has always been a favorite tool for me.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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.

Yep. This is why I, a lifelong republican, left the party early in the second dubya term. I realized we were dealing with a uniparty playing "good cop, bad cop" with the voters. It's also why I learned to love Trump after I was against him. We had constant blather from republican presidents and elected officials regarding their intent to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but they never did. Trump becomes president and without so much as a whimper, he simply did it.

It's why I ignore what politicians say (including Trump) and just watch what they do.

And yeah, this decision is so ridiculous that it is laughable, on several levels. This state supreme court has really embarrassed themselves on an even worse level than the 9th district court ever did, IMO. Ever since he was elected, Trump has been batting about 800 regarding the courts. That is, he loses a LOT in the lower court and almost always wins in the higher courts. He's a bit like Zimmerman and Rittenhouse. That is, his enemies only have power in the courtroom of public opinion, but when a "real" court gets involved, he usually wins.

What's perplexing is how many of Trump's enemies in the media have destroyed their credibility on this thing as well. They are all starting to look like "The View".

This is a good rundown, beginning with the first comical ten seconds or so:

 

[Reasonably Sane]

? 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?

You are partially right and lets's assume you are fully right. Looks like step one is to, in a court of law, where he is allowed the constitutional right to defend himself, it is determined that he performed actions that make him ineligible.

That has not happened yet. that's what makes this thing comical.

I love what one talking head said, (from the transcript of the video above):
i LOVE THE MEDIA GLEE OVER THIS. IT'S HYSTERICAL. IT JUST BETRAYS THEIR STUPIDITY.
I MEAN, IF YOU THINK THIS IS VALID OR A WIN, IT'S SO UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THIS IS LIKE CHEERING BECAUSE YOU GOT A GIRL'S PHONE NUMBER AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE FOR THE SUICIDE HOTLINE.

THAT'S HOW BAD THIS IS.

 

[SimplyMe]

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?

Except there was a trial. More to the point, the suit was brought by six Republicans who believed Trump was disqualified by the 14th Amendment.

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.

No, there is no reason SCOTUS "must" accept the case. It is being appealed and it will be looked at, if the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case that only means they don't have an objection to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. I suspect they likely will but there is no reason that they have to, if they find the ruling was made on valid legal grounds.

 

[wing2000]

No, there is no reason SCOTUS "must" accept the case. It is being appealed and it will be looked at, if the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case that only means they don't have an objection to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. I suspect they likely will but there is no reason that they have to, if they find the ruling was made on valid legal grounds.

To clarify, I think they should for the good of the country (poor choice of words). But yea, legally, they are not obligated to take up the case.

 

[Valletta]

Except there was a trial. More to the point, the suit was brought by six Republicans who believed Trump was disqualified by the 14th Amendment.



No, there is no reason SCOTUS "must" accept the case. It is being appealed and it will be looked at, if the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case that only means they don't have an objection to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling. I suspect they likely will but there is no reason that they have to, if they find the ruling was made on valid legal grounds.

Who cares if they were "Republicans" or not? It makes no difference, the Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court voted to take him off of the ballot. Other Democrat states want him off of the ballot too. This is presidential election interference, and those judges need to be sanctioned and/or jailed. Remember this happened once before, Democrats in the slave states kept Abraham Lincoln off of the ballot.. I recommend people go to the Lincoln museum, there are newspaper articles blasting Lincoln just as the articles today bash Trump. The Civil War was what "insurrection" referred to in the law, and this same attitude is leading this country toward a similar situation. When Democrats break the law or violate ethical standards they need to be held accountable just like everyone else. Whether it be Trump or the Harvard president, there should not be two systems of justice. Expect California to keep Trump off of the ballot if the judges in Colorado are not at least sanctioned.

 

[SimplyMe]

Who cares if they were "Republicans" or not?

Because it isn't only Democrats that believe that Trump was part of an insurrection. The fact remains that Trump tried to change the results of the 2020 election to have himself declared the winner -- largely stopped because VP Pence refused to go along with the scheme.

It makes no difference, the Democrats on the Colorado Supreme Court voted to take him off of the ballot.

Yes, that was their legal interpretation of Colorado State law. You are free to disagree but they gave a well reasoned judgement as to why they felt Trump was in violation of the 14th Amendment and Colorado law.

Other Democrat states want him off of the ballot too.

Which has zero to do with Colorado.

This is presidential election interference, and those judges need to be sanctioned and/or jailed.

For understanding the law better than you do, particularly Colorado law (this is based on a longstanding law in Colorado), and not judging the way you believe they should have? By that logic, perhaps the Conservatives on the Supreme Court should be sanctioned or jailed, since a majority of Americans appear to disagree with some of their rulings.

Remember this happened once before, Democrats in the slave states kept Abraham Lincoln off of the ballot. I recommend people go to the Lincoln museum, there are newspaper articles blasting Lincoln just as the articles today bash Trump.

Which has zero to do with the Colorado ruling.

The Civil War was what "insurrection" referred to in the law, and this same attitude is leading this country toward a similar situation.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment had only meant to punish Confederate veterans of the Civil War then they would have worded the 14th Amendment that way. Instead, they wanted to keep any person who is part of any insurrection, not just the Civil War.

When Democrats break the law or violate ethical standards they need to be held accountable just like everyone else.

I have no issue with that. I believe that is currently happening to a Democratic Senator from New Jersey.

Whether it be Trump or the Harvard president, there should not be two systems of justice. Expect California to keep Trump off of the ballot if the judges in Colorado are not at least sanctioned.

I'm sure California will follow their laws, and if they don't then I'm guessing the Supreme Court (since it likely will be appealed) will correct them -- just like we will see what the US Supreme Court does with the Colorado decision.

 

[Valletta]

I'm sure California will follow their laws, and if they don't then I'm guessing the Supreme Court (since it likely will be appealed) will correct them -- just like we will see what the US Supreme Court does with the Colorado decision.

Sadly I doubt that California will follow the law. I think those who are politically on the left should be appalled at their hard left leaders. Don't forget the words of Martin Luther King Jr. on justice in his letter from a Birmingham jail:

"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."

 

[SimplyMe]

Sadly I doubt that California will follow the law. I think those who are politically on the left should be appalled at their hard left leaders. Don't forget the words of Martin Luther King Jr. on justice in his letter from a Birmingham jail:

"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."

What hard left leaders and for what? Again, many on the right (actual conservatives) believe Trump should not be allowed to run, that he is disqualified by the 14th Amendment, such as the ones that brought the suit in Colorado. That you disagree means little, unless you suddenly have a seat on SCOTUS.

 

[Lady Bug]

In order to be disqualified from running, shouldn't Trump actually be convicted of the insurrection, first?

 

[A2SG]

In order to be disqualified from running, shouldn't Trump actually be convicted of the insurrection, first?

Nope. The issue was whether or not Colorado should include him on that particular state's ballot, and the Colorado Supreme Court decided that a conviction isn't required for him to be disqualified. He isn't disqualified from running, he just won't be on the Colorado ballot.

Unless that decision is reversed upon appeal.

-- A2SG, he didn't win Colorado before, either time he ran, so it likely won't make any difference anyway....

 

[Lady Bug]

Nope. The issue was whether or not Colorado should include him on that particular state's ballot, and the Colorado Supreme Court decided that a conviction isn't required for him to be disqualified. He isn't disqualified from running, he just won't be on the Colorado ballot.

Unless that decision is reversed upon appeal.

-- A2SG, he didn't win Colorado before, either time he ran, so it likely won't make any difference anyway....

Oh I see. I had conflated being on the ballot with qualification for running. But can't people simply write in his name when they vote?

 

[7thKeeper]

You are partially right and lets's assume you are fully right. Looks like step one is to, in a court of law, where he is allowed the constitutional right to defend himself, it is determined that he performed actions that make him ineligible.

That has not happened yet. that's what makes this thing comical.

And this part here is a blatant lie. He was allowed to defend himself in Colorado and he did, he had his lawyers there making his case against the, I believe six, Republicans who bought this case.
English might not be my first language, nor am I an American, but I do not appreciate that this is taken as a grant to gaslight me like I was a moron.

 

[A2SG]

Oh I see. I had conflated being on the ballot with qualification for running. But can't people simply write in his name when they vote?

I guess they can. It may not be counted, though, but they're free to write whatever they want to.

-- A2SG, just like the ones who write in Mickey Mouse.....

 

[JustOneWay]

I guess they can. It may not be counted, though, but they're free to write whatever they want to.

-- A2SG, just like the ones who write in Mickey Mouse.....

It varies from state to state. Colorado allows write-in votes, but the applicant must sign an affidavit of intent claiming to be qualified to run. Obviously this leaves Trump out due to the courts finding him not qualified to run. Other states have no requirements for write-in while others do not allow it.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Nope. The issue was whether or not Colorado should include him on that particular state's ballot, and the Colorado Supreme Court decided that a conviction isn't required for him to be disqualified. He isn't disqualified from running, he just won't be on the Colorado ballot.

Unless that decision is reversed upon appeal.

-- A2SG, he didn't win Colorado before, either time he ran, so it likely won't make any difference anyway....

I completely agree with your last sentence. the main problem I have with the decision overall, however, is that it could open the floodgates to states in this election and upcoming ones, to bar candidates from the polls in federal elections. The court doing such a thing without an actual conviction, is repugnant. Forget that it's trump. It's raw banana republic stuff.