Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

Or a citizen who wasn't in The United States for 14 years.

 

Due process requires constitutionality. Kangaroo courts don't count. Boom.

 

No on was convicted of insurrection. That makes it legally impossible to declare Trump guilty of insurrection...lol

 

That's a good book.

 

It's the fact that he lied constantly.
It's the fact that his campaign met with representatives of a hostile foreign government and accepted their help
It's the fact that he attempted to illegally withhold aid to another foreign country to try to blackmail them into announcing investigations into his political opponent
It's the fact that he threw our intelligence agencies under the bus in favor of an autocratic ruler of a hostile foreign power.
It's the fact that he actively undermined our work in fighting a pandemic that was killing our own people.
It's the fact that he illegally attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power when he lost an election.

And that's just the very tip of the iceberg. I could go on for a page and a half on stuff Trump did that should disqualify him from ever holding any public office (including dog catcher) ever again.

 

Yes. Written by a very informed progressive Tony Horwitz reporting a very inconvenient truth.

 

You still think Russia collusion is real?...lol

 

I'm always amazed at MAGA's ignorance of the Constitution.

You claim to want to defend it, that it's almost your reason for living, but when judges apply it against your political beliefs - or the guru you worship - you want to tear it up.

In the Colorado case, all three legal bodies determined that Trump had lent comfort to seditionists.

Because MAGA rioters were indeed condemned by multiple courts for sedition and conspiracy to overthrow the government.

And that Trump, during the riot, didn't act to stop them and, what's more, wished to offer them a pardon if elected.

So, Trump lent comfort to seditionists.

How does it feel to defend a traitor?

The only point in dispute is whether the President is a government officer.

SCOTUS will be looking into this.

 

I KNOW that Russia actively interfered with the 2016 election.
I KNOW that members of the Trump campaign met with agents of the Russian government thinking that they were going to get help.

If you want to call that "collusion" then that's on you.

 

Wow, it's sad that it took 19 whole posts for someone to FINALLY make note of the problem at hand here..........

.... as well as the complete stomping on the 1st and 5th and 6th amendments.........

The CO ruling has only further dug my heels into a "Trump or bust" vote.

 

Ergo, why you should consider supporting his renomination. If Trump loses, then YOU lose. As you correctly noted, TPTB have very clearly weaponized the judicial system against Trump (and you and me). Same goes for OSHA (remember the COVID tyranny?), the IRS (remember their targeting of Tea Party & now MAGA people?), and any other government agency.....

 

We abandoned that tradition centuries ago.

 

Centuries? Lol uh not so much.

 

Be careful of your choice of words. You might be inciting .. a massacre.

 

It's not Democrats. Here is who the plaintiffs are in this case:

https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/2023...ado-lawsuit-seeking-to-bar-trump-from-ballot/

"The suit was filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of six Colorado voters, who argue Trump is disqualified under a provision of the 14th Amendment that bars certain office-seekers who have engaged in insurrection. One of the plaintiffs is former Republican U.S. representative from Rhode Island Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider, who now lives in Boulder, Colorado."

"Other plaintiffs include former Colorado House and Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, an unaffiliated voter who recently left the Republican party; Denver Post columnist and Republican activist Krista Kafer; Michelle Priola, Kathi Wright, and Christopher Castilian."

Of course, this won't prevent Trump supporters from repeating one million times (to paraphrase) "Dems did this", so eventually it becomes truth in MAGA world.

Now, with that said, I think a 4:3 decision doesn't paint a good picture, most likely it was along partisan lines. We need to get away from justices legislating from the bench, the US SC has to start.

Of course, it would be no surprise if the US SC throws this out also in a partisan 6:3 decision.

 

There is no requirement in section 3 for a conviction, though it would certainly help.

SCOTUS might rule that there is, then we'd have their ruling.

 

I don't worry about what the right thinks they can do, because all they can do is waste time, as they did with Benghazi.

 

Then they'd be making **** up..... again...

 

The suit was brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.
This is the same group that filed lawsuits against Trump his first day in office for their claimed violations of the Emoluments clause and you think they are not Democrats?
But you think hiding behind someone who used to be a Republican shows this is brought on by Republicans?
I don't think you can sell that idea.

 

One has to be constitutionally eligible. Or should we ignore the constitution?

 

Suuuuure they did...lol

 

Speaking of somebody who has been banned from holding office without an insurrection conviction, let us take a second to remember the original (in recent times) clown disqualified under section 3

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-republican-removed-office-just-154655326.html

LOL @ Cowboys for Trump.... I suspect Trump would run quickly (so to speak) if ever coming within 10 feet of a live horse...

 

The sudden interest in the constitution is refreshing. While Trumps actions were objectionable, he was not found guilty of insurrection. I would hope that the bar for circumventing the will of voters would be a bit higher.

 

Yes, because I'd like to vote for a 30 year old naturalized citizen!

 

I LOL'd at this earlier but the Colorado court USED the exact line you highlight above in their ruling...

SNIP
The Colorado Supreme Court cited Gorsuch's ruling as cover for its unprecedented decision to kick Trump off a primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office,'" the state opinion reads.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/colorado-court-used-supreme-court-153608370.html

Did you know they had done that, or just making a fantastic point out of the blue??

Of course, Gorsuch will just say Trump didn't insurrect so he doesn't fall into this category, but maybe he'll lose 60 seconds of his life thinking it over...