Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from ballot

[AU9377 4,979]

This is the first state to make the decision based on the insurrection clause.

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2

Edited December 20, 2023 by AU9377

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Dems getting nervous?  Didn’t somebody on here just yesterday complain about Republicans legislating abortion off of public voting referenda because it might pass if allowed to proceed to a vote?

[AU9377 4,979]

7 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Dems getting nervous?  Didn’t somebody on here just yesterday complain about Republicans legislating abortion off of public voting referenda because it might pass if allowed to proceed to a vote?

To be fair, this has been working its way thru the courts for a very long time.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Seems like a big deal.

[homersapien 11,393]

States rights!

After all, we're a republic, right?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Colorado, single handedly saving democracy by not letting people vote for someone.

[AU9377 4,979]

4 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Colorado, single handedly saving democracy by not letting people vote for someone.

What if he is convicted for election interference in state and federal court?  Does that make a difference?  Is there anything that should disqualify someone from seeking the office?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, AU9377 said:

What if he is convicted for election interference in state and federal court?  Does that make a difference?  Is there anything that should disqualify someone from seeking the office?

Nope, especially in a state like Colorado, that's proven over and over they are partisan and have been overruled by higher courts in high profile partisan cases.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

21 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Nope, especially in a state like Colorado, that's proven over and over they are partisan and have been overruled by higher courts in high profile partisan cases.

How would you apply this amendment?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How would you apply this amendment?

I'd let the people vote.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

12 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I'd let the people vote.

So ignore the constitution?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So ignore the constitution?

You approach this like its an established fact and we just have to decide to apply some obscure amendment or not. He didn't incite insurrection. Let the people vote.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

19 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

You approach this like its an established fact and we just have to decide to apply some obscure amendment or not. He didn't incite insurrection. Let the people vote.

It’s an established fact that the amendment exists and has meaning. My question to you is how does one apply it? How does one determine to give it effect? 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s an established fact that the amendment exists and has meaning. My question to you is how does one apply it? How does one determine to give it effect? 

It's not an established fact Trump incited an insurrection. So you don't apply it.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

15 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

It's not an established fact Trump incited an insurrection. So you don't apply it.

So how does was determine if he did? What’s the process for determining if anyone did? 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

So how does was determine if he did? What’s the process for determining if anyone did? 

So you agree that Colorado did this backwards and shouldn't have made this ruling? Or is this just a way to change the argument to a different focus?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

So you agree that Colorado did this backwards and shouldn't have made this ruling? Or is this just a way to change the argument to a different focus?

I think it’s an open question. I haven’t studied the arguments. My understanding is they overruled a district court that determined Trump engaged in insurrection, but somehow determined that amendment applies to everyone but the President. I understand how a decision maker can look at the facts and determine Trump engaged in insurrection— the question I wonder about is how the SC will decide that determination must be made to apply this amendment— conviction in court? Federal court? Also, will they even decide at the primary level since that’s a state function? Is the case ripe? Tricky case.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I think it’s an open question. I haven’t studied the arguments. My understanding is they overruled a district court that determined Trump engaged in insurrection, but somehow determined that amendment applies to everyone but the President. I understand how a decision maker can look at the facts and determine Trump engaged in insurrection— the question I wonder about is how the SC will decide that determination must be made to apply this amendment— conviction in court? Federal court? Also, will they even decide at the primary level since that’s a state function? Is the case ripe? Tricky case.

I dont understand why this alleged crime can be determined by a court where the defendent can't present a defense in front of a group of peers. Unless I missed it, he hasn't even been charged with insurrection. How do federal courts get to unilaterally decide he is guilty?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

2 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I dont understand why this alleged crime can be determined by a court where the defendent can't present a defense in front of a group of peers. Unless I missed it, he hasn't even been charged with insurrection. How do federal courts get to unilaterally decide he is guilty?

Thus far unanswered as to how the SC will view a state court applying this amendment to determine how to conduct a state election. Federalism is tricky.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Thus far unanswered as to how the SC will view a state court applying this statute to determine how to conduct a state election. Federalism is tricky.

I won't pretend to understand the ins and outs of law and its application like you. But what I can comment on is how this looks. It looks like a liberal court finding obscure and weak arguments to strip a presidential candidate from being on the ballot because of their fear and hatred for him. This forum and you likely won't agree, but half thr country and many undecided voters will. It's not a great look, imo. Believe in your policies and arguments, not the rule of law to stop your opponent.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

56 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I won't pretend to understand the ins and outs of law and its application like you. But what I can comment on is how this looks. It looks like a liberal court finding obscure and weak arguments to strip a presidential candidate from being on the ballot because of their fear and hatred for him. This forum and you likely won't agree, but half thr country and many undecided voters will. It's not a great look, imo. Believe in your policies and arguments, not the rule of law to stop your opponent.

What if, as unlikely as I suspect it is, the SC leaves it in place?

[KansasTiger 3,248]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

What if, as unlikely as I suspect it is, the SC leaves it in place?

I agree that is unlikely. And while I have some qualms with the highest court believe it or not, no one can claim they are a liberal biased court. They may however, be a pro establishment court. Guess we will just have to see.

But I think it's better for this country if this is struck down, whether Trump wins or not.

[RunInRed 16,438]

[RunInRed 16,438]

Made me laugh … the irony is Trump or whoever on the GOP ticket was never going to win Colorado anyways 

[PUB78 1,361]

Yawn.   A soon-to -be reversal coming from the US Supreme Court.