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

I will simplify it for you.
94 of 98 justices who have reviewed it, won't touch it.

 

The argument that the authors were only thinking of the South is LUDICROUS. They wrote an AMENDMENT. Amendments are permanent parts of the constitution lasting forever unless amended. They filled in a gap left by the original authors who probably didn't expect that an insurrectionist would be around to run for office.

Our founders would not have tolerated an insurrection in the way that WE have.

I have no idea what you mean by suggesting that "no judge has the power to convict anyone".

The legal process of applying section 3 is a time at which evidence of insurrection can be presented. Section 3 does NOT suggest that a PRIOR conviction is required.


I don't accept your threat. As we see today, there ARE numerous congressmen, lawyers, and hangers on who are trying DESPERATELY to dig up something to accuse Biden of doing, and they are FAILING.

THAT is the kind of president I want. Don't you??

 

Section 3 doesn't require a prior conviction.

The disqualification can be fully defended in the legal process of applying Section 3.

As we've seen, that application has withstood review up through the state Supreme Court.

 

You will be happen to know that Republicans have begun the process of removing Biden from the ballot in Georgia (a swing state).



You wanted a clownshow and now you have it.

 

I don't want Biden or Trump. But this has much farther applications than that. Or maybe ramifications.
If the SCOTUS upholds Colorado's ruling, watch this go off the rails in EVERY state.

And my claim of no judge has the power to convict anyone is in the 6th amendment.
Without a jury trial, no judge can just claim someone is guilty of anything

 

Yes. House Republicans have voted to pursue impeachment, too. Yet, they don't have even the very basic ideas of where to look for justification.

It's been a constant struggle with Republicans to try to find ways to win that don't actually include sound policy direction that the population wants.

You can count on Republicans for a clown show.

 

I don't want Biden or Trump, either! But, at least Biden isn't a direct threat to our form of government.

Section 3 was written for sound reason. If we don't like that anymore, Congress should amend the 14th amendment. The SC has to live with our constitution as written, as do other courts.

Bench trials are not uncommon. In federal cases the accused can choose a bench trial or trial by jury. In at least one of the important cases against Trump, he CHOSE a bench trial.

 

A, ****ing, men

 

Lot's of issues are of debatable constitutionality. That's why we have the courts. However if you know, and publicly state that you know a specific action is unconstitutional, and then proceed to actually do that specific action, it seems clear you knowingly violated the constitution, and by that Luttig theory you promoted, that would be insurrection.

I'll give you another example: President Bush opined publicly that that the proposed McCain-Feingold bill was unconstitutional, and then proceeded to sign it anyway. Well of course the Supreme Court did find it unconstitutional. So there ya go, another example of insurrection against the constitution, a theory you've endorsed.

 

The poster in question is a frequent commenter on the American scene, so I've been given ample opportunity to get the gist of that poster's knowledge of US law and the Constitution. Your mileage on that may vary of course.

 

It doesn't matter it is TRUMP whom this court declared guilty of a crime and then legally sanctioned him.

 

Those examples are nowhere near being insurrection. They didn't affect our form of government in any way. They didn't even change any process.

We've seen the SC invalidate laws passed by congress many times. THEY are the arbiters of what is constitutional, not the president, not congress.

 

He lower courts ruled IN HIS FAVOR. What's bad news about that? Did you hear the giod he got and the bad news Smith got today?

 

Go back and read the thread on Luttig again.

 

And LOTS disagree with the 4 judges including the Chief Justice who wrote a STINGING rebuttal. I hae presented why you hace not present why and how this will stand.

 

Yet this court injected a FEDERAL crime into it declaring him guilty if it and then sanctioning him for it.

 

This was civil, dude. Read. Learn. You even understood this yourself a few days ago, though you did run away when I called you out on it.

 

It's easy to argue it was not a rebellion and impossible to argue it was. And THAT would be a FEDERAL crime too.

 

The first time the Insurrection Act was used was to put down a non-violent railroad strike . . . by the guy who signed it into law. And no trial or criminal charges were involved.

 

Not over FEDERAL LAW.

Where does the Consitution grant them authority in FEDERAL LAW?

 

Nothing is unconstitutional unless someone is sued and SCOTUS rules it is unconstitutional.

So, your point is speculation.

 

Thats no reason to open this can of worms

It requires a conviction, not a judges opinion to even institute it.
You will see when the SCOTUS rules, they will rule the same way the 3 dissenting judges ruled as well as the other 94 from the other 13 states that wouldn't even consider it

A defendant has to wave their rights for that.
No judge can demand that.

 

You were talking about STATE LEGISLATORS. I'm sorry that you can't remember your own posts and I have to remind you.

What the hell are you even talking about? You were claiming that STATE legislators had virtually unlimited authority to appoint any electors they want no matter how their citizens vote. Still can't remember what you wrote?

 

My point was as direct challenge to what was stated, (paraphrased, I don't have the original text, but the gist of it was) 'and you're going to believe an Aussie'?

Just on that language, alone, aside from who that person was, but based on that sentence, my point was made.

That's it. To add anything else is beside my point.

 

We'll see in THIS case which hinges on a state court convicting him of a FEDERAL crme and disqualifying under never seen interpretation of the 14th.