Elections Will Trump be on the primary and/or general ballot? (SCOTUS says Trump will remain 9-0)

[Whippy McGee]

You say every other fucking thing is a "no go", but when we have something that might work with that line you don't use it. You never fail to disappoint me.

Yeah... I don't care much what a low topic content, mostly troll thinks of me. If you want me to engage your comments, think of something on topic, otherwise I ignore 90% of what you share.

 

[HOLA]

(From the majority opinion)

“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection...Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection...

We conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection...President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary...

President Trump’s speech on January 6 was not protected by the First Amendment.”

 

[BFoe]

I actually agree with Boatright’s dissent here:

“In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code”.

If he’s convicted of some J6 related felonies then fair game.

Pretty much this. There has to be some objective standard. A felony conviction in a case related to J6 seems like it would be pretty solid.

I actually disagree. The 14th Amendment was of course passed post-Civil War, to deal with the idea of Confederates not holding office. Those people weren’t all charged and tried and convicted; simply having been involved in the Civil War was enough.

I totally understand why other state courts have been hesitant to make a decision like this, it’s a really big step to take. But I don’t think they’re actually wrong; I think people like Trump is exactly who was intended to be prevented from holding public office by that clause.

 

[AWilder]

We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that the Presidency is not specifically mentioned in Section Three [of the Fourteenth Amendment]. It seems most likely that the Presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an “office.” In fact, no specific office is listed in Section Three; instead, the Section refers to “any office, civil or military.”

lol

I'm looking forward to the "originalism" interpretation of that.

 

[Poon Goon]

Yeah... I don't care much what a low topic content, mostly troll thinks of me. If you want me to engage your comments, think of something on topic, otherwise I ignore 90% of what you share.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Needs to be pinned. Lot of dummies thinking this is some Dem scheme.

He can still be on the primary ballot if he appeals even before SC ruling.

I think he should let it happen. He won't need Colorado and this is a perfect example of totalitarians pushing the Democratic Party agenda. He and other Republicans can take down Democrats indefinitely with this new ammo. It won't sit well with Americans and could haunt the party for a long time to come, much like most of these lawsuits.

 

[MMAisGod]

I actually agree with Boatright’s dissent here:

“In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code”.

If he’s convicted of some J6 related felonies then fair game.

I'll throw my support behind this assessment as well

Pretty much this. There has to be some objective standard. A felony conviction in a case related to J6 seems like it would be pretty solid.

Yeah without an actual conviction this seems a bit premature and likely to get overruled.

Look at all these threats to democracy.

The folks who brought the lawsuit were 4 republicans and 2 independents. Including former Republican majority leader of the Colorado House and Senate Norma Anderson.

Looking at those model republicans showing their outstanding objectivity.

I actually disagree. The 14th Amendment was of course passed post-Civil War, to deal with the idea of Confederates not holding office. Those people weren’t all charged and tried and convicted; simply having been involved in the Civil War was enough.

I totally understand why other state courts have been hesitant to make a decision like this, it’s a really big step to take. But I don’t think they’re actually wrong; I think people like Trump is exactly who was intended to be prevented from holding public office by that clause.

An actual threat to democracy.

 

[Siver!]

I mean, Trump should be entirely unelectable anyway, no?

The guy's an utter buffoon whose self-interest is matched only by actual autocrats.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yes.... and they will.

What’s interesting in their decision is that Trump's lawyers argued that until a person is convicted of insurrection this claus cannot be applied. The court ruled that just the accusation qualifies as insurrection. Think about the ramifications of that decision.

This is what happens when you get a bunch of Leftist Judges. The Constitution, Will of the People, Rule of Law don't mean shit if power and control are at stake.

Constitution is pretty explicit that the individual states have unlimited authority when conducting elections within their state. If it does get overturned it would be a pure partisan hitjob from paid GOP shills like Thomas.

 

[HOLA]

I mean, Trump should be entirely unelectable anyway, no?

The guy's an utter buffoon whose self-interest is matched only by actual autocrats.

I can't wait to see which Hitler quotes he uses tonight when he has all-caps temper-tantrum on his failing social media site.

 

[Siver!]

I can't wait to see which Hitler quotes he uses tonight when he has all-caps temper-tantrum on his failing social media site.

I just cannot see the attraction, but he's like some big personality black hole that sucks people in and they can't seem to escape.

There is nothing appealing about a weird orange guy whose political opinion is only as strong as his sense of personal offence/smug self-satisfaction.

 

[Rational Poster]

I think he should let it happen. He won't need Colorado and this is a perfect example of totalitarians pushing the Democratic Party agenda. He and other Republicans can take down Democrats indefinitely with this new ammo. It won't sit well with Americans and could haunt the party for a long time to come, much like most of these lawsuits.

He says while Republicans lose almost every noteworthy election since Trump has been elected...

 

[sickc0d3r]

I actually disagree. The 14th Amendment was of course passed post-Civil War, to deal with the idea of Confederates not holding office. Those people weren’t all charged and tried and convicted; simply having been involved in the Civil War was enough.

I totally understand why other state courts have been hesitant to make a decision like this, it’s a really big step to take. But I don’t think they’re actually wrong; I think people like Trump is exactly who was intended to be prevented from holding public office by that clause.

Fair point, but J6 wasn’t a declared war against our government, with soldiers who fought for the cause that can be identified. There’s room for disagreement on how to classify Trump’s role, and I don’t think it is the SC’s place to figure that out. Especially since there are criminal cases pending against him right now. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like jumping the gun to me.

 

[BFoe]

Can the US Supreme Court strike this down?

I believe they could, but it would be pretty insane imho. The Amendment is clear that Congress could pass a law overruling that, but it takes a 2/3 majority, which they don’t have.

 

[Morning Star]

Can appeal it to the Supreme Court on 1/4, can’t see them NOT taking it up and over turning it. Pretty dumb move from the democrats, as this is one of the more blatant “lawfare” cases to just get the trump team to burn legal money.

Will end up only rallying more independents to his cause, especially as the world gets closer to ww3 and the border is overran, and they realize more and more the weaponization of government and the judicial system

They saw Trump taking over the swing states (Colorado is a potential swing state), had to do everything they can, since the indictments and civil cases aren’t working

Colorado is absolutely not a potential swing State. Biden won by 13.5%. It's full of liberals fleeing other States. Not that I agree with the ruling but Trump has a zero percent chance of taking Colorado in a general election.

 

[CatchnShoot]

Can the US Supreme Court strike this down?

The district court should have ruled the same way tbh.

A 4-3 vote @ the CO Supreme court.... smdh, should have been 7-0, it's such a crystal clear case IMO.

But, Yes, and it will be appealed with the quickness.

This order is stayed until Jan 4th.... so team Trump can appeal to SCOTUS which they either will or will not hear. (Almost certainly this will be expedited, as the "Absolute Immunity" bullshit wasy, and they WILL hear the case ASAP--that's my guess).

No victory laps for anybody just yet.

 

[BFoe]

Fair point, but J6 wasn’t a declared war against our government, with soldiers who fought for the cause that can be identified. There’s room for disagreement on how to classify Trump’s role, and I don’t think it is the SC’s place to figure that out. Especially since there are criminal cases pending against him right now. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like jumping the gun to me.

I’ll admit I’m very surprised that they actually did it. It’s a huge step, and I really didn’t think any court would do it.

But the Constitution certainly knows the phrase ”declare war,” as it mentions Congress having that authority. But that’s not the phrase used in Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment. It doesn’t say anything about having to have declared war, or be tried and convicted of anything. It simply says, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against (the United States), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

I totally agree that it’d be an open and shut case if Trump had been convicted, or even convicted on impeachment articles for it. But no language in the amendment indicates to me that is required.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Colorado is absolutely not a potential swing State. Biden won by 13.5%. It's full of liberals fleeing other States. Not that I agree with the ruling but Trump has a zero percent chance of taking Colorado in a general election.

Yeah, a republican might win here again, but it ain’t gonna be Trump.

 

[Crawler89]

Totalitarians are going to do oppressive shit like this.

What's really weird is the Left Cult celebrating it, as if taking away the will of the people is a good thing. Power and Control... it's what the Left covets.

Just like the power and control ol trump daddy wanted when he was trying to find extra ballots and wouldnt peacfully conceed or handle the peaceful transition of power

But its okay!
lets not hold him accountable for his own actions!
its not his fault he put his hand on the fire, its the fires fault for being hot!

dude fucked around and found out
cope and seeth

 

[Whippy McGee]

Just like the power and control ol trump daddy wanted when he was trying to find extra ballots and wouldnt peacfully conceed or handle the peaceful transition of power

But its okay!
lets not hold him accountable for his own actions!
its not his fault he put his hand on the fire, its the fires fault for being hot!

dude fucked around and found out
cope and seeth

^^^ Like I said... the Left Cult will cheer this on. How depraved.

We don't want a wannabe dictator as president. He might ignore SCOTUS rulings, bypass Congress, try to control what people say on social media, use the Justice Department to protect his family and prosecute his political opponents, and declare political opposition to be enemies of democracy.