Colorado kicks Donald Trump off ballot

[sonrisa]

Dec 20, 2023 6:18:27 GMT -5 chchchia said:

Can red states do this as well and ban democrats from the ballot? 

Sure. If they stage an insurrection after swearing an oath to uphold the constitution. I don't have a problem with that.

“No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

[UMaineTeach]

Dec 20, 2023 11:34:08 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Dec 20, 2023 6:18:27 GMT -5 chchchia said:

Can red states do this as well and ban democrats from the ballot? 

Sure. If they stage an insurrection after swearing an oath to uphold the constitution. I don't have a problem with that.

“No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

This is what I keep losing sight of. This guy actually did something wrong. This isn’t normal political tit for tat. We need to do our best to stop these things from any party. Stop this guy and his army, then worry about the future.

The orange guy probably had his fingers crossed behind his back during the oath and thinks that means the 14th amendment doesn’t apply.

[ellipses84]

Dec 20, 2023 10:27:07 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I don't know if I give a shit anymore about the Democrats old standby of justifying doing nothing because it might set a precedent. If we can't hold the line to uphold the law and the constitution, then what exactly are we doing?

One of the courts that decided not to rule on this matter said (paraphrased), "It's not the job of the courts to decide political matters." It struck me as dumb since they rule on matters of the constitution all the time. No one wants to touch this to see where it would go, and CO has decided to test the waters. I'm all in.

Wasn’t the Senate / R response that it wasn’t up to them and the courts would have to decide?!! 🤯

[waverly]

Dec 20, 2023 12:19:24 GMT -5 ellipses84 said:

Dec 20, 2023 10:27:07 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I don't know if I give a shit anymore about the Democrats old standby of justifying doing nothing because it might set a precedent. If we can't hold the line to uphold the law and the constitution, then what exactly are we doing?

One of the courts that decided not to rule on this matter said (paraphrased), "It's not the job of the courts to decide political matters." It struck me as dumb since they rule on matters of the constitution all the time. No one wants to touch this to see where it would go, and CO has decided to test the waters. I'm all in.

Wasn’t the Senate / R response that it wasn’t up to them and the courts would have to decide?!! 🤯

Yes, they did say that!  

[pixy0stix]

I just want him to drop dead.

[TR]

Dec 20, 2023 15:19:34 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I just want him to drop dead.

Ditto. I won't be happy until he's dead. And I don't care that his followers will say the Clintons had him killed or think he's a martyr. Whatever. He'll be dead.

[msmerymac]

Dec 20, 2023 6:27:11 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

Trump has just made such a mess and mockery of our whole democracy- showing how really fragile it is and how close he came to breaking it.

So from Axios-
1- SCOTUS is already hearing a case on "obstruction of an official proceeding" in one of Trump's other criminal cases
2- Justice Thomas SHOULD recuse himself based on his wife's participation in Jan 6 events
3- What happens when we get a 4-4 ruling??
4- 12 other states trying to get Trump off ballot www.axios.com/2023/11/16/trump-efforts-disqualify-2024-ballot-14th-amendment

To answer the part about a 4-4 ruling - it would revert to the lower court’s ruling. But Thomas will never recuse himself.

[msmerymac]

Dec 20, 2023 17:25:25 GMT -5 TR said:

Dec 20, 2023 15:19:34 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I just want him to drop dead.

Ditto. I won't be happy until he's dead. And I don't care that his followers will say the Clintons had him killed or think he's a martyr. Whatever. He'll be dead.

Yeah. We might end up with President Nikki Haley, but at least she wouldn’t try to become dictator for life? :/

[kittywalker]

There's no way this stands. I don't even think it will be a protracted legal battle - I think SCOTUS will rule against Colorado pretty quickly. The problem I see is that he hasn't been convicted of insurrection anywhere. I understand that many people believe he is an insurrectionist, but the consequences for that (removal from the ballot) seem like step two, and Colorado is missing step one (conviction).

[neverfstop]

Technically, the house acquitted him when he was charged with insurrection during the 2nd impeachment but that wasn't a criminal proceeding. I do think he has however been charged in various other places with inciting violence and other attempts to overturn the election. The language in the Constitution says "ENGAGED" in insurrection, so the plain reading would clearly qualify since it does NOT state convicted.

IIRC when this issue originally surfaced, there was commentary that the original application of this (after the civil war) did NOT require that people be convicted.

[pixy0stix]

Most of the pundits (granted they're all liberal) I listened to yesterday said that it doesn't matter if he was charged with insurrection.

[kittywalker]

I guess I'm confused about how, if some states are charging him with insurrection, Colorado can skip that and just decide without the charge.

My interpretation of "engaged in insurrection" is that it would have to be decided by a court that he engaged in insurrection. Which I would welcome a court to decide. But a decision on that issue without the charge seems like a bad workaround that won't stand.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 21, 2023 10:04:58 GMT -5 kittywalker said:

I guess I'm confused about how, if some states are charging him with insurrection, Colorado can skip that and just decide without the charge.

My interpretation of "engaged in insurrection" is that it would have to be decided by a court that he engaged in insurrection. Which I would welcome a court to decide. But a decision on that issue without the charge seems like a bad workaround that won't stand.

Because it says "engage in" not "charged with" or "convicted of."

Also, some states aren't charging him with insurrection. DC Federal Court is. Because it's a federal charge, and DC is where it happened. Colorado can't charge him with insurrection because he didn't do it in Colorado.

[kittywalker]

I disagree on the 'engage' vs 'charged/convicted' language. Insurrection is a defined crime; you're innocent until proven guilty. If DC has charged him, they should prove and win their case, and then this could stand. As it is today, I don't think this is a sound legal decision that will be upheld. We shall see.

[pixy0stix]

Per this, historical interpretation has been that you do not need to be charged with insurrection.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-14-amendment-section-3-explained-colorado-ballot-ruling-rcna130581

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 21, 2023 10:25:00 GMT -5 kittywalker said:

I disagree on the 'engage' vs 'charged/convicted' language. Insurrection is a defined crime; you're innocent until proven guilty. If DC has charged him, they should prove and win their case, and then this could stand. As it is today, I don't think this is a sound legal decision that will be upheld. We shall see.

I agree that we shall see, but statutory interpretation is pretty specific, and if the legislators intended there to be a conviction first they could've specifically written that. But they didn't, and there's some pretty solid scholarly research out there that they specifically did not intend to require a conviction.

[escrow]

Dec 20, 2023 15:19:34 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I just want him to drop dead.

I logged in just so I could like this

[penguingrrl]

Dec 21, 2023 10:25:00 GMT -5 kittywalker said:

I disagree on the 'engage' vs 'charged/convicted' language. Insurrection is a defined crime; you're innocent until proven guilty. If DC has charged him, they should prove and win their case, and then this could stand. As it is today, I don't think this is a sound legal decision that will be upheld. We shall see.

There is already precedent for this being applied without a conviction post civil war. If they had wanted to set conviction as the standard it would say that conviction is required. It doesn’t and has been used without conviction in the past.

[ellipses84]

Dec 21, 2023 15:15:33 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Dec 21, 2023 10:25:00 GMT -5 kittywalker said:

I disagree on the 'engage' vs 'charged/convicted' language. Insurrection is a defined crime; you're innocent until proven guilty. If DC has charged him, they should prove and win their case, and then this could stand. As it is today, I don't think this is a sound legal decision that will be upheld. We shall see.

There is already precedent for this being applied without a conviction post civil war. If they had wanted to set conviction as the standard it would say that conviction is required. It doesn’t and has been used without conviction in the past.

I saw a post on social media explaining that the CO hearings were 5 days and they reviewed the evidence, agreed that showed he participated in the insurrection, which then makes him ineligible to he on the primary ballot as a presidential candidate. Anyone have an article that talks about this more?

I don’t think a criminal conviction has anything to do with it. The standard for a civil conviction is less than criminal and he could be sued for inciting an insurrection and be found guilty but be found innocent in a criminal trial. Our Supreme Court majority claim to be all about the original constitution and states rights which would make you think they’d agree with CO but I think this will further provide they will do whatever they can to support the right wing agenda.

[penguingrrl]

Dec 21, 2023 15:31:05 GMT -5 ellipses84 said:

Dec 21, 2023 15:15:33 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

There is already precedent for this being applied without a conviction post civil war. If they had wanted to set conviction as the standard it would say that conviction is required. It doesn’t and has been used without conviction in the past.

I saw a post on social media explaining that the CO hearings were 5 days and they reviewed the evidence, agreed that showed he participated in the insurrection, which then makes him ineligible to he on the primary ballot as a presidential candidate. Anyone have an article that talks about this more?

I don’t think a criminal conviction has anything to do with it. The standard for a civil conviction is less than criminal and he could be sued for inciting an insurrection and be found guilty but be found innocent in a criminal trial. Our Supreme Court majority claim to be all about the original constitution and states rights which would make you think they’d agree with CO but I think this will further provide they will do whatever they can to support the right wing agenda.

Yes, the burden of proof in a civil trial is a lot lower than criminal (most likely versus beyond reasonable doubt). OJ Simpson was acquitted criminally but found liable civilly. So if was found that he was civilly liable then the state can choose that he remains off the ballot based on their laws. I don’t have any articles, though.

I’ll be really interested to see if the courts agree with states rights as they claim to so strongly in Dobbs and in gutting the voting rights act. I don’t actually expect ideological consistency from certain members of this court (I for sure don’t trust Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh on that). I suspect Roberts may be weighing his legacy as Chief Justice. In which case we just need Barrett or Gorsuch to make the right decision here and I could see one of them seeing the states rights argument here.

[pixy0stix]

SCOTUS has agreed to pick up the case.

[pumpkin]

Jan 5, 2024 20:48:20 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

SCOTUS has agreed to pick up the case.

I just heard this.

I’ll admit that I haven’t read the Colorado ruling, but is this basically a debate about the definition of an insurrection? Or is it more about state’s rights and what they can and cannot determine with regard to their own primary? I know that SCOTUS generally reviews very specific aspects and not what many people think the issue at hand is.

[AAM2012]

Jan 5, 2024 20:48:20 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

SCOTUS has agreed to pick up the case.

Honestly, and this is probably a dumb comment…. But I still don’t fully understand (or my brain refuses to understand the concept) how SCOTUS can weigh in on state decisions when it comes to voting.

Edit - Maybe my confusion is more a long the lines of, when they do weigh in, how can it not agree, in essence that state voting decisions fall on the state outside of certain appeal arguments (ie civil rights)

[pixy0stix]

SCOTUS will hear the case tomorrow.

wapo.st/3upn6Iy

[curbsideprophet]

Oral arguments have started.

www.supremecourt.gov

[eport]

Dec 20, 2023 11:33:18 GMT -5 mpc said:

The news podcast I listen to (The Newsworthy) said this morning that write in votes for Trump would also not count.

So in order for write in votes to count in my state (il), you have to file paperwork with the state and clerk's office as an official write in candidate, including spelling.
If 1 person writes Donald Trump and another Donald J. Trump, they count as different people.
It prevents random people from just winning and people being elected who don't actually want to run.
There is also a minimum threshold that has to be met. This usually comes into play for local office that has more spots than candidates (ie 3 open positions on a board and two qualified candidates).

[Bad Dingo]

Trumps comments right now are just so bad. He is truly an idiot.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M56LTKOHyQ

[Velar Fricative]

Reading through everything, it seems like SCOTUS will rule against Colorado.

[neverfstop]

Feb 8, 2024 12:40:08 GMT -5 Bad Dingo said:

Trumps comments right now are just so bad. He is truly an idiot.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M56LTKOHyQ

That's a live link...so I don't hear anyting.

Was he actually in court & speaking to the justices??  

[Bad Dingo]

neverfstop, he spoke from Mar-a-Lago.