Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from ballot

[AU9377 4,979]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

How would you apply this amendment?

They will fully endorse the Cafeteria Constitutionalist approach.  Take what you want and enjoy, while leaving the rest for someone else to consume.  Works the same as Cafeteria Christians and their approach to the New Testament. LOL

[KansasTiger 3,248]

15 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

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

That was never really my main concern. Other, not as securely blue states with liberal courts may attempt to follow this highly questionable precedent. If red states wanted to start disqualifying Biden due to his corruption and bribe taking without that having been proven conclusively, the other side would be just as concerned.

[AU9377 4,979]

11 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

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

While that may occur, the 100 plus page opinion does, in great detail, remind everyone the lengths the man went to in his attempt to overturn an election that he clearly lost.  To this day he lacks the personal character and integrity to admit that he lost.  That is pathetic.

[I_M4_AU 7,875]

Democrats doing what Democrats have always done:

This was about the 1860 election of Lincoln even though he was kept off the ballot in the south.

Lincoln and the Republicans were not even on the ballot in the states of the Deep South. Although Lincoln only won 40% of the popular vote, the split in the Democratic Party enabled him to secure a comfortable majority in the Electoral College.

https://www.lincolnshrine.org/exhibits/election-of-1860/

Long live the Electoral College.

[AU9377 4,979]

28 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Democrats doing what Democrats have always done:

This was about the 1860 election of Lincoln even though he was kept off the ballot in the south.

Lincoln and the Republicans were not even on the ballot in the states of the Deep South. Although Lincoln only won 40% of the popular vote, the split in the Democratic Party enabled him to secure a comfortable majority in the Electoral College.

https://www.lincolnshrine.org/exhibits/election-of-1860/

Long live the Electoral College.

Colorado wasn't even a state until 1876.  I ask, in jest, could that be the reason they didn't consider the example?  LOL

[I_M4_AU 7,875]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

Colorado wasn't even a state until 1876.  I ask, in jest, could that be the reason they didn't consider the example?  LOL

Colorado isn’t the point.  The Democrats kept Lincoln off the ballot because they didn’t like his position on slavery just like the Democrats in Colorado don’t want Trump on the ballot because he is a *threat to democracy* which is as ironic as you can get.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

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

Due process be damned!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

While that may occur, the 100 plus page opinion does, in great detail, remind everyone the lengths the man went to in his attempt to overturn an election that he clearly lost.  To this day he lacks the personal character and integrity to admit that he lost.  That is pathetic.

Even you know, there is something called the Fourteenth Amendment. 

I will bet you $5k this gets overturned on that ground. You down?

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]

If you're going to nominate a criminal to lead your party then don't be surprised when he gets treated like a criminal.

[AU9377 4,979]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Even you know, there is something called the Fourteenth Amendment. 

I will bet you $5k this gets overturned on that ground. You down?

It is very likely going to be overturned.  That doesn't mean that the decision is flawed.  There is no case law to look to in making a determination.  After the Supremes take up the issue, there will be.   There needs to be a determination made as to the applicability of that clause of the 14th amendment.  Thankfully, the men occupying the office of the President, prior to Donald Trump, were men that had some degree of honor and respect for the constitution and never attempted to place self before country. 

Even candidates like Al Gore, who had a legitimate case to be made, presented their argument and thereafter accepted the decision of the court without embarking on a self serving campaign of lies meant to cause harm to our system of elections.  Imagine if Gore, as VP, had refused to accept the electoral votes from Florida and had enlisted fake electors to take their place in order to secure his win over George W. Bush.

[AU9377 4,979]

11 hours 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 wonder how the Gore decision will impact this decision?  In that case, the court didn't want to look into the throwing out of thousands of votes from Miami Dade because the State of Florida had certified the results. (I am summarizing based on memory alone)  Once that had taken place, from what I recall, the court decided that the federal courts were not authorized to overturn that certification.

 

**I always found it interesting that the then Florida Sec of State received a cabinet position in the Bush administration.

Edited December 20, 2023 by AU9377

[TexasTiger 12,965]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I wonder how the Gore decision will impact this decision?  In that case, the court didn't want to look into the throwing out of thousands of votes from Miami Dade because the State of Florida had certified the results. (I am summarizing based on memory alone)  Once that had taken place, from what I recall, the court decided that the federal courts were not authorized to overturn that certification.

 

**I always found it interesting that the then Florida Sec of State received a cabinet position in the Bush administration.

The court apparently relied on a Gorsuch ruling from when he sat on that court.

[Didba 5,256]

I mean it seems fairly cut and dry to me. The district court made a determination, then carved out an exception for office of the president.

the Colorado Supreme Court then determined that the applicable constitutional section applied to the office of the president and reversed the district court. 

Because the standards of review for matters of law is much lower than for matters of fact, the CSC hands were tied to the district court’s finding of trump participating in an insurrection unless there was clear error or abuse of discretion as it is a fact issue.

Since it is a fact issue, the CSC had to give deference to District Court’s factual findings re: insurrection.

Whereas the issue of the exception for the president is a matter of law and the CSC did not have to give any deference to the district court’s finding. 

When you are aware of these caveats, the CSC holding makes a lot more sense. 
 

excerpt for standards of review: 

 

 

@I_M4_AU

Edited December 21, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

opinion if anyone would enjoy some light reading:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[Didba 5,256]

For one; I think SCOTUS overturns the district court on the issue of insurrection but upholds the CSC application of the section to the president. This allows Trump to still be on the ballot but wouldn’t carve out an exception for the president. 

[Didba 5,256]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Even you know, there is something called the Fourteenth Amendment. 

I will bet you $5k this gets overturned on that ground. You down?

It’s gonna get overturned on the DC’s finding of insurrection. 

[I_M4_AU 7,875]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

If you're going to nominate a criminal to lead your party then don't be surprised when he gets treated like a criminal.

Trump has not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law.  This Democrat ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court is what the Democrat mindset is at this moment.  If the narrative states one thing, proof be damned, it must be true.  This is what will destroy democracy, not Trump.

[I_M4_AU 7,875]

42 minutes ago, Didba said:

I mean it seems fairly cut and dry to me.

Of course you do.  Do you believe it will be upheld by the SCOTUS?

Does the ability of a state Supreme Court to determine if people are guilty without trail scare you at all?

[Didba 5,256]

55 minutes ago, Didba said:

For one; I think SCOTUS overturns the district court on the issue of insurrection but upholds the CSC application of the section to the president. This allows Trump to still be on the ballot but wouldn’t carve out an exception for the president. 

@I_M4_AU already answered your question. 

[Didba 5,256]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you believe it will be upheld by the SCOTUS? Already answered that.

Does the ability of a state Supreme Court to determine if people are guilty without trail scare you at all? Sure, but that’s not what happened here.

The State SC didn’t do that and my post explains why they had to find the way they did on the insurrection fact issue.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It is very likely going to be overturned.  That doesn't mean that the decision is flawed.  There is no case law to look to in making a determination.  After the Supremes take up the issue, there will be.   There needs to be a determination made as to the applicability of that clause of the 14th amendment.  Thankfully, the men occupying the office of the President, prior to Donald Trump, were men that had some degree of honor and respect for the constitution and never attempted to place self before country. 

Even candidates like Al Gore, who had a legitimate case to be made, presented their argument and thereafter accepted the decision of the court without embarking on a self serving campaign of lies meant to cause harm to our system of elections.  Imagine if Gore, as VP, had refused to accept the electoral votes from Florida and had enlisted fake electors to take their place in order to secure his win over George W. Bush.

I’ll DM you my Venmo 😎

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, Didba said:

It’s gonna get overturned on the DC’s finding of insurrection. 

Let’s parlay.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

[I_M4_AU 7,875]

4 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Pure coincidence, nothing more. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,135]