Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado case over Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility

The chaos by the leading Republican anarchist continues!

The Republican Party endorses a man who wants to be immune from our country's laws. While President, the man they want led an attempt to overthrow our elected government on Jan. 6, 2021. The man is an anarchist who has thrown our electoral process into turmoil. The man Republicans want is facing 91 felony charges in four criminal indictments. The anarchist wants to be our President.

The Supreme Court has decided take up at least one issue -- one issue among many -- in hopes of clarifying matters before the primaries are complete. However, no one should get their hopes up. In a bit of catastrophic timing in history, Trump was allowed to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court.

CBS reports, "The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review a politically explosive decision from Colorado's top court that found former President Donald Trump ineligible for the presidency and would leave him off the state's primary ballot, stepping into a high-stakes legal showdown that could have major ramifications for the 2024 presidential election.

"The court set a swift schedule for filings from the parties in the appeal brought by Trump and said in a brief order that arguments will be held Feb. 8. A decision could come quickly after arguments, since Super Tuesday, when Colorado and more than a dozen states will hold their primaries or caucuses, is scheduled for March 5.

"The Colorado Supreme Court concluded in a divided, 4-3 decision on Dec. 19 that Trump is disqualified from serving as president because of his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and barred him from being listed on the state's primary ballot. But the state's high court paused its decision to allow the former president and the Colorado GOP time to appeal.

"The court fight over Trump's eligibility for the White House sends the Supreme Court into new territory, as it has never before ruled directly on the 155-year-old provision at the center of the case, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It also puts the nation's highest court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, in a position to potentially play a pivotal role in the 2024 election — the outcome of the case could decide whether Trump is eligible for ballot, not only in Colorado, but in the 49 other states."

Here is what the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution says. It is pretty straightforward.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.

Trump's lawyers are using the absurd argument that the man who commands the entire American armed forces is not an officer.

 

As usual, Trump Republicans wish to avoid Trump. Trump could be barred from running for President because he led an insurrection, and Republicans have no comment.

Trump's followers are strange.

 

There are plenty of threads already talking about this. That they didn't respond in this thread has nothing to do with what your contrivance stated here.

 

You know someone is desperate for thread activity when they try to bait people into participating. Lol

So Sandy, if the supreme Court rules against you liberals are you going to accept the ruling or are you going to say that the bad orange man stacked the court? Consider it a rhetorical question I guess.... Because we know the answer

 

Here is my view, FWIW.

.....Judges figure out what ruling they want and then go find the legal reasoning to justify it.

Constitutional interpretation being more art than science, the document's sometimes vague language and failure to foresee all contingencies (who could have predicted a human wrecking ball like Trump) gives the Justices quite a bit of latitude in making their rulings.

IOW, despite the historical record showing it was the intent of the 14th's authors that the VP and prez be included among "officer(s) of the United States,"
“While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed,” the court ruled, “his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mail&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202
despite,
Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

despite due process arguments being manifestly made moot by virtue of the SCOTUS being the third court that will consider the evidence of the case beginning in one of CO's lower courts,
Before a lower court last month, lawyers made wide-ranging arguments during closing arguments (after 5 days of testimony and the introduction of evidence), grappling over the ins and outs of specific language in the 14th Amendment and the extent to which Trump’s actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to insurrection.
GOP in uproar after Colorado court bars Trump from state ballot - Roll Call

despite the mountain of documentary and testimonial evidence of Trump's participation in an insurrection

GovInfo
Official Publications from the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
www.govinfo.gov

there should be no question in anyone's mind the the conservative Justices and their clerks are busily researching a legal rationale to justify the ruling they want.

So, perhaps more important, is the next ruling they will make on Trump's bizarre claim of presidential immunity. Then Jack Smith can go about the business of proving the grounds on which Don's disqualification from the ballot should have been upheld.

 

The whole "insurrection" thing is just a matter of opinion and a tactic of narratives.

 

Let's say that's right. Let's say the plot to keep Trump in power, to reject the will of the voters, wasn't an insurrection. Isn't the fact that he and his co-defendants hatched and tried to carry out the plot enough to be politically disqualifying for any person?

 

I view it as a riot and a rather short one at that. I absolutely don't think Trump should be disqualified.

 

Do you understand the riot was only one aspect of the plot to reject the will of the voters? Did you miss the findings of the 1/6 committee? The fake electors scheme, the outreach to election officials, the attempt to appoint Jeff Clark acting AG so he could use the weight of the DoJ to pressure GA election officials, the theft of voting machines, etc.?

 

I thought the 1/6 committee and their stage show was ridiculous. It was entirely partisan and, as a result, ineffective.

 

If by "partisan" you mean mostly Republicans, you would be correct.

Two R's on the committee and 98% of the witness testimony was from R's.

Entirely R heavy.

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm our country was founded on presumption of innocence and democrats want to unilatterally find someone guilty without a trial.

 

Great… show us these videos of all or any of the testimonies and the representation of those accused and the cross examination to those testimonies.
The J6 was illegit and unconstitutional.

 

The committee was bi-partisan and the testimony was from Republicans. Sorry if that bothers you. You're wrong. Admit it and move on.

 

I am not bothered at all… please provide us with these video recordings…. They boasted they had 1000ish videos, please provide a link to them…

 

There is one other thread on this matter, but it simply asks readers if they would accept the Supreme Court's decision ... a foolish question.

There are no threads started by a Republican concerning Trump, the leading Republican candidate for President and the party's leader.

 

That statement is false. Presumption of innocence pertains to a criminal trial. Similar to age and citizenship, there are qualifications to run for office. The office seeker cannot be a part of an insurrection.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."
“We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
"Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We are going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”
*******************************************************************************************************************************************Donald J. Trump, Jan. 6, 2021

At one point on the call [to the secretary of state for Georgia], Trump told Raffensperger, "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than [the 11,779-vote margin of defeat] we have, because we won the state."[7] During the call, Trump falsely suggested that Raffensperger could have committed a criminal offense by refusing to overturn the state's election results.[6] Legal experts have suggested that Trump's behavior and demands could have violated state and federal laws.[8][9][10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_call

Thee is a lot more that is generally known. All one has to do is believe what the eyes see.

 

Only to the ignorant.

 

Look again. Lots of threads on this subject.

 

"no threads started by a Republican concerning Trump"

Your statement is false.

 

I don't understand why they aren't simply saying he hasn't been convicted of of having engaged in rebellion or insurrection. How can they remove him without that conviction?

 

Well the answer is clearly both. You have to accept it, they're the final word. But do they make mistakes and rule wrongly sometimes? Everybody knows they do because nobody agrees with everything they've ever decided, even subsequent justices. Are they more likely to rule wrongly with 3 Trump appointed justices and a conservative supermajority? Yes. May we be surprised by a well-reasoned and desired opinion? Also yes.

 

While Trump is not my choice to be the Republican nominee, I see this Colorado ruling to be based on ridiculously dubious reasoning.

If this gets rejected by the court 8-1, or even 9-0 ( which would be my prediction), will you acknowledge that this move was a RIDICULOUS legal overreach?

To me, this is absolutely preposterous and a true attempt at thwarting Democracy. I suspect this will be overturned 9-0, but I leave room for one nonsensical dissenter from the left. I believe that all of you people from the left running around trying to convince yourself that this is legit have been led astray from reality which is putting it nicely. The Colorado and Maine moves are so friggen silly that it is hardly worth debating. It will be shot down easily, and it will not require the Trump appointees to achieve.

 

The Colorado Supreme Court simply went by what our Constitution said on the matter. A person who participated in an insurrection can't run for President.

That makes sense, and it is pretty straightforward. It certainly is not "dubious reasoning."

 

So basically you're already setting yourself up to say that they have "ruled wrongly" if they don't go along with you Democrats.

It sounds like you're expecting rational and cooler heads to prevail.