Colorado SC just disqualified Trump from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the Constitution

[IronWing]

Bogus felonies, huh. Well then surely you can explain this:


View attachment 90752

YG, see if your boss will let you post the Russian translations of the above documents. Your street cred would go way up.

 

[JTsyo]

This is not required by the 14th, nor is it required for individuals to have seen it and know it.

The vast majority of people this was very specifically written to stop from being eligible were also never charged with or convicted of insurrection. Just because our justice system is slow as fuck doesn't mean we should let someone that is obviously hell bent on ending American Democracy have a second chance at it.

This is what I'm thinking too. How many people were charged with insurrection after the Civil War?

 

[Greenman]

The SC needs a rubber stamp that says "OVERTURNED". Then a case like this could be mailed in, stamped, and returned in just a few short days.

 

[fskimospy]

The SC needs a rubber stamp that says "OVERTURNED". Then a case like this could be mailed in, stamped, and returned in just a few short days.

Why would you want SCOTUS to act in such a lawless way? Trump attempted a coup - if that isn’t disqualifying under the 14th amendment then nothing is.

Knowing that this is the Calvinball Supreme Court they very well may overturn it but that will be due to partisanship, not the law.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This case will be appealed to the USSC at warp. Question: Republicans on this court claim to be originalists. I'm included that section below. The framers created this to stop the very thing Trump did. Is there any way originalists could overrule Colorado's SC and still claim originalism? COSC rules Trump is an officer and incited an insurrection. Text below seems pretty clear to me.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I'll try:
The president isn't an officer, by it's nature the head of the executive branch is a servant of the people.

 

[dank69]

Bogus felonies, huh. Well then surely you can explain this:


View attachment 90752

If stealing classified documents and refusing to return them doesn't disqualify someone from being President then nothing does.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think the worst part of all this is that had the electoral college done what the founding fathers intended them to do, Trump would have never been elected in the first place. If the electoral college could be counted on to do what the founding fathers intended them to do, no one would even have to worry about Trump being elected again.

Yep, this was exactly the scenario that faithless electors were designed for. Our founders would have overthrown this government and replaced it with something better.

 

[fskimospy]

If stealing classified documents and refusing to return them doesn't disqualify someone from being President then nothing does.

Didn’t you hear? Stealing highly classified documents, refusing to return them, and then lying to the government about your actions is a ‘bogus felony’.

 

[pete6032]

This case will be appealed to the USSC at warp. Question: Republicans on this court claim to be originalists. I'm included that section below. The framers created this to stop the very thing Trump did. Is there any way originalists could overrule Colorado's SC and still claim originalism? COSC rules Trump is an officer and incited an insurrection. Text below seems pretty clear to me.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

NY Times has some content addressing arguments for and against.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/colorado-trump-legal-questions-supreme-court.html

Also believe you can read the 3 dissenting opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court.

I am no legal expert but this looks like shaky ground to me unfortunately. Would love to see him off the ballot but this looks like a challenging route.

 

[brycejones]

The SC needs a rubber stamp that says "OVERTURNED". Then a case like this could be mailed in, stamped, and returned in just a few short days.

You need to stop being an ignorant fuck.

I'm sorry that's unfair this time. You know enough to know exactly what Trump attempted to do and why he should be barred from seeking office. You just don't care about the future of the country and democracy.

So yeah, go fuck yourself.

 

[Greenman]

Why would you want SCOTUS to act in such a lawless way? Trump attempted a coup - if that isn’t disqualifying under the 14th amendment then nothing is.

Knowing that this is the Calvinball Supreme Court they very well may overturn it but that will be due to partisanship, not the law.

Let's be honest here and admit that the law has become a political tool, well used and predictable. Right now the republican's own the sharpest tool, so they win. It really is that simple.

 

[fskimospy]

NY Times has some content addressing arguments for and against.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/colorado-trump-legal-questions-supreme-court.html

Also believe you can read the 3 dissenting opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court.

I am no legal expert but this looks like shaky ground to me unfortunately. Would love to see him off the ballot but this looks like a challenging route.

Seems pretty rock solid to me. What about it do you think is shaky?

 

[brycejones]

Let's be honest here and admit that the law has become a political tool, well used and predictable. Right now the republican's own the sharpest tool, so they win. It really is that simple.

wow

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Let's be honest here and admit that the law has become a political tool, well used and predictable. Right now the republican's own the sharpest tool, so they win. It really is that simple.

Those who claim a falsehood as obvious truth usually have the most to gain from pretending it's true.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's be honest here and admit that the law has become a political tool, well used and predictable. Right now the republican's own the sharpest tool, so they win. It really is that simple.

So to be clear you think Trump should be disqualified but you think SCOTUS is so corrupt that they will rule otherwise?

 

[Pens1566]

A couple of things about this ruling ...

First, the lower Colorado court established the fact that he participated in the insurrection.

Second, two of the 3 dissents were based on items specific to Colorado law which SCOTUS should not even think of touching on. They did not at all question the lower court finding of fact.

Third, the only remaining argument (that was made by defense) is that the president is not included in 14.3. This is patently absurd.

Fourth, the need for a conviction would appear to be bogus when reading 14.3 in the context in which it was created/added.

All of the above leads to what should be an easy SCOTUS decision. Having said that, I'm assuming we'll see a 5-4 overruling it because calvinball.

 

[HomerJS]

We all saw what happened on 1/6 but I have yet to see a conviction or even a charge of insurrection. This is a federal crime, isn't it? But a state supreme court gets to make that call?

You see the problem with this, don't you?

What if a red state throws Biden or a future Democrat off the ballot because of whatever they twist as insurrection (the border situation or the Hunter Biden dealings, for example).

What if a purple state with a Republican leaning state supreme court does it?

Here is the conviction of insurrection by a lower court last month.

MSN

 

[HomerJS]

Then we will hear for years that the Democrats where so afraid of Trump they removed him "illegally" from the ballot. I want Trump's so soundly beat at the ballot box that the bronzer gets knocked off his pompous ass face. I don't want some court making that decision.

The plaintiffs in the Colorado case are Republican. Not that facts matter to those dirtbags.

 

[Brainonska511]

Then we will hear for years that the Democrats where so afraid of Trump they removed him "illegally" from the ballot. I want Trump's so soundly beat at the ballot box that the bronzer gets knocked off his pompous ass face. I don't want some court making that decision.

Republicans have no problems lying, so stop worrying over what they might do. They also have no problems breaking norms.

Let's be honest here and admit that the law has become a political tool, well used and predictable. Right now the republican's own the sharpest tool, so they win. It really is that simple.

Imagine being for the rule of law, and constantly making excuses for people that want to ignore the rule of law and politicize it. Couldn't think of anyone like that here!

 

[Indus]

Facts are a bitch..

 

[Moonbeam]

Thomas will, of course recuse himself because of his wife being a part of the coup attempt and the lower court decision will be upheld 8,0.

 

[JTsyo]

I'll try:
The president isn't an officer, by it's nature the head of the executive branch is a servant of the people.

This was discussed in the trial in the lower court. They had Gerard Magliocca, an Indiana University law professor refute the arguement:

One pair of experts cited by Trump’s attorneys, Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman, argued in a 2021 paper that Section 3’s reference to “officers of the United States” does not include the president. Magliocca rejected that argument, pointing to contemporary statements from Reconstruction-era politicians — including Ohio Sen. John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment’s better-known Equal Protection Clause — referring to the president as the “executive officer of the United States” or an “official of the United States.”

 

[HomerJS]

If SCOTUS overturns the COSC they are essentially invalidating Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

I thought SCOTUS was supposed to uphold not tear apart the Constitution?

 

[Indus]

Thomas will, of course recuse himself because of his wife being a part of the coup attempt and the lower court decision will be upheld 8,0.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

And I'll get my wife a pony!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This was discussed in the trial in the lower court. They had Gerard Magliocca, an Indiana University law professor refute the arguement:

One pair of experts cited by Trump’s attorneys, Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman, argued in a 2021 paper that Section 3’s reference to “officers of the United States” does not include the president. Magliocca rejected that argument, pointing to contemporary statements from Reconstruction-era politicians — including Ohio Sen. John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment’s better-known Equal Protection Clause — referring to the president as the “executive officer of the United States” or an “official of the United States.”

Haha, I'm somehow comforted by the fact that a) I came up with an idea those shitheel lawyers did, and b) it was already refuted. Thanks!