Trump disqualified from Colorado ballot

[Cornflake]

"Former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, accepting the argument that the 14th Amendment disqualifies him in an explosive decision that could upend the 2024 election.

"In a lengthy ruling ordering the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot, the justices reversed a Denver district judge’s finding last month that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which disqualifies people who have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it from holding office — did not apply to the presidency.

"They affirmed the district judge’s other key conclusions: that Mr. Trump’s actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted engaging in insurrection, and that courts had the authority to enforce Section 3 against a person whom Congress had not specifically designated."

New York Times.

[Cornflake]

It's been a while since I had to analyze such issues but I think the way the court decided this, the U.S. Supreme Court can take the case. They won't want to but I think they'll do it anyway. If they do, the Colorado court's ruling won't mean anything except as a way of forcing the U.S. Supremes to rule on the issue.

[Dub]

I thought the conservative position was that states were the ultimate authority on voting questions.

[billhammond]

Dec 19, 2023 19:21:59 GMT -5 Dub said:

I thought the conservative position was that states were the ultimate authority on voting questions.

Unless you have coupons.

[howard lee]

Dec 19, 2023 19:21:59 GMT -5 Dub said:

I thought the conservative position was that states were the ultimate authority on voting questions. *

* Terms and conditions apply.

[Cornflake]

"I thought the conservative position was that states were the ultimate authority on voting questions."

I suspect you were joking but in this case, the central issue is the meaning of a federal law. The U.S. Supremes have the final say on that.

[kbcolorado]

I believe the US Supreme Court will agree with Colorado Supreme Court justice Samour's dissenting opinion, that a candidate can not be disqualified under the 14th amendment without due process.

[majorminor]

I'm assuming the appeal issue before the Supreme Court is going to be the Colorado court independently determining his guilt without due process?

[Marshall]

Dec 19, 2023 19:17:26 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

forcing the U.S. Supremes to rule

"Set me free why don't you babe."

[Marshall]

Dec 20, 2023 8:45:42 GMT -5 majorminor said:

I'm assuming the appeal issue before the Supreme Court is going to be the Colorado court independently determining his guilt without due process?

No. I guess the issue is if the Colorado State court has jurisdiction over Federal Laws. The suit was filed in other states too, but they differed to the Feds.

[Cornflake]

"I'm assuming the appeal issue before the Supreme Court is going to be the Colorado court independently determining his guilt without due process?"

I don't think so. Here is the decision by the lower court. www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

Trump was a party to the case. There was a five-day trial. He could have presented whatever evidence he had. He made himself heard on disputes over legal issues. He called seven witnesses, by my count. The question wasn't his "guilt" because this was a civil proceeding, but he was entitled to challenge the allegation that he engaged in insurrection. So he had his day in court and I don't see any basis for an argument that he was denied due process.

The question before the Supremes will be whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to a president. The lower court in Colorado held that it didn't. The Colorado Supremes held that it did. I could see the US Supremes going either way on the issue.

[Cornflake]

As I understand it, two of the other states that ruled on this issue disposed of the claims on procedural grounds. One reached the merits and ruled for Trump. It would be crazy to have Trump disqualified in some states while he's allowed on the ballot in others. I think that's why the Supremes will feel compelled to take the case so as to produce a uniform answer one way or the other.

I'm responding in a wonky lawyerly way to all this. It's fascinating from a legal standpoint.

[RickW]

This all seems like such new ground. It’s interesting the decision of the lower court judge that said the constitution was not clear enough on whether Trump was an officer of the government, (I may be paraphrasing,) so while he was guilty of starting an insurrection, the law didn’t apply to him. Which seems to have a bunch of people shaking their heads, as that surely wasn’t the intent of the founding fathers, to leave the guy at the top capable of doing whatever he wanted. (Again, not judging anyone on this.) So, things are being tested that were never tested before.

What I haven’t seen, or I’ve only seen confused thoughts, is how, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court, that affects the primaries and the election. Does Trump get banned everywhere? Just in Colorado? If just in Colorado, can every other jurisdiction then start proceedings? What happens if the primaries are over, Trump is selected, and then is told he couldn’t be on the primary ballot in those states? And does this apply to the general election as well.

All that can safely be said is — what a frigging mess.

[Cornflake]

Rick, I think it's an all or nothing thing. If the Supremes rule for Trump, he'll be on the ballot everywhere. If they rule against him, he'll be off the ballot everywhere.

Democrat though I am, this court proceeding makes me uncomfortable. When the Supreme Court decided the election of 2000, I wasn't happy about it. The voters ought to decide who will be president. But as long as the law is there, the courts have no choice but to interpret it and apply it, and the rationale for intervention by the courts is stronger in this instance than it was in 2000. IMO.

[Marshall]

Dec 20, 2023 12:39:32 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

Rick, I think it's an all or nothing thing. If the Supremes rule for Trump, he'll be on the ballot everywhere. If they rule against him, he'll be off the ballot everywhere.

Interesting hypothetical very unlikely scenario, is Trump loses and is excluded, Biden decides not to run, and we have a brand new wide open changing of the generational guard. - I'd like that a LOT !



But very very unlikely.

[dradtke]

A couple interesting points I came across. All seven of the Colorado justices were appointed by Democratic governors. So even though it's a 4-3 split decision, it's not R & D.

Also, none of the dissenting justices claimed that Trump was not guilty of insurrection. The dissenters believe it's a federal issue for a federal court, not a state issue.

[Dub]

I was under the impression that candidates wishing to be on the ballot in any state must gather a certain number of signatures on a petition in order to be on the ballot. I think their people have to do that in every state.

I understand that if sufficient signature are collected, the high Court might enforce putting the name on the ballot, But I was unaware that the Supreme Court could simply require a name to be on a State ballot if the requirements for inclusion have not been met.

[epaul]

This Court is widely regarded as a conservative one (with even three of the justices appointed by Trump himself). If, by some chance, this Court rules in favor of Colorado and lays the groundwork for keeping Trump off the ballot, it won't be regarded as a political partisan hatchet job, at least outside Trump's very hardest of hard core (15%?). This Court has the most Republican cred of any Court within my short memory. And as such, a decision to dump Trump might well come to be greeted by most in this country with relief (not anger).

The Republican party has several viable candidates that reflect the core beliefs and values most in the party can happily live with, with at least a couple of them having a pretty darn good chance of beating Biden (a primary Republican value). And all of these alternatives would be more interested in governing a nation rather than wasting everyone's time by pursuing a personal vendetta; an idiot tour of revenge led by a walking, talking poisonous spleen.

I'm hoping the Court comes to feel the same. Sure, the law is the law and Constitution is the Constitution, but emotion and personal belief can, and does, do a little coloring on the side when the issue is gray. Legal support can be, and is, found for contending positions, even widely contrary ones.

I hope a majority of the Justices look deep inside their robes and decide to do this suffering nation a really big favor.

With Trump gone, I would vote for Nikki Haley right now just out of gratitude. (an easy enough thing to say here in North Dakota, as even a gerbil would beat Biden here by twenty points. So if my vote makes the margin 20.0000000001% instead of 20%, no harm, no foul.) At least Haley is smart and capable. Given the chance, I believe she will take the job seriously and be a responsible president.

[theevan]

So the grounds is insurrection?

I don't understand. Though much discussed, I don't think he's been convicted of it nor formally charged. Doesn't that run at cross purposes to due process?

Smacks of Fear of the Orange.

[brucemacneill]

Dec 20, 2023 17:40:40 GMT -5 theevan said:

So the grounds is insurrection?

I don't understand. Though much discussed, I don't think he's been convicted of it nor formally charged. Doesn't that run at cross purposes to due process?

Smacks of Fear of the Orange.

Trump is the most qualified having been President and attacked with lies by the Democrats but they never won anything from him because it was all obvious Democrat lies. He still is the most American supporting candidate and if Democrats want any kind of support from Americans they should support Trump. They owe him. Of course they don't deserve support after all the lies.