Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off ballot

[ozimoron]

39 minutes ago, morrobay said:

Not lost on me is another one these people conflating normal legal proper emigration with illegal gangs from Central America, terrorists from mid east as well as millions more overloading the social/health services. * I sure hope Trump doesn't wimp out this time and call an executive order for the Army Corps of Engineers to build  the WALL from Pacific to Gulf. And spare all this " it won't work" progressive nonsense 

 

What about the 70% who fly in? Especially the gang members. Can you link to any terrorist incidents perped by illegals crossing the border?

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, Caldera said:

 

That would be my concern as well. As long as Trump hasn't been convicted for insurrection, disqualifying him as a candidate looks like a very questionable decision. I'd assume that this decision will be overturned for this reason.

 

I do think he's guilty of that crime, but he has a right to due process just like anyone else. 

Being convicted isn't a requirement according to the article. I do think even his supporters won't deny he has given comfort.

Edited December 20, 2023 by stevenl

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

What evidence? Republicans keep screaming they have the smoking gun, and it always turns out to be big pile of horse sh!t. They’ve been at it for over a year and and still got nothing on Biden, and the only evidence they will ever be able to present will have been fabricated. The Biden crime family? Don’t make me laugh. They’re looking at the wrong (ex)presidential family.

 

Meanwhile, James Comer, the dumbass chairman of the House Oversight Committee, seems to be guilty of exactly the same thing he accuses Biden of having done. Only there’s no evidence Biden ever did that, and plenty of evidence Comer did. So why is Comer not being investigated?

 

Republicans keep screaming that they have continually been obstructed from accessing evidence throughout - that's why it is taking so long - you'll just have to wait like everyone else to see if it turns out to be big pile of horse sh!t or not.  

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing after reading that. Good one!

 

All you guys always say things like ‘I’m no fan of Trump, but…..’ and then comes the Dems-bashing and the Trump praising. If only there was a word for that….

 

Nearly? Try harder.

[rudi49jr]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Nearly? Try harder.

Keep pitching me those doozies and we’ll see what happens.

[Caldera]

43 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Being convicted isn't a requirement according to the article.

 

Not explicitly, but it also doesn't make clear which authority is entitled to make that determination. As so often, the details are open to interpretation.

 

As the Constitution mandates due process, one sensible interpretation would be that a criminal court has made the determination of guilt. I think that's what the SCOTUS will rule in this matter, but we're all just guessing at this point.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Caldera said:

 

Not explicitly, but it also doesn't make clear which authority is entitled to make that determination. As so often, the details are open to interpretation.

 

As the Constitution mandates due process, one sensible interpretation would be that a criminal court has made the determination of guilt. I think that's what the SCOTUS will rule in this matter, but we're all just guessing at this point.

 

Due process does not require conviction in a court, only that laws are followed. Due process can be congressional such as in impeachments.

[nauseus]

41 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

Keep pitching me those doozies and we’ll see what happens.

 

My post was for everyone. You flatter yourself.

[bendejo]

But consider what this means to the GOP hopefuls, removing DT from the ballot will throw the GOP primaries into turmoil, and their convention is going to be a cross between a biker bash and visiting day at the mental hospital.  For the non-MAGA GOP this is a godsend.  Maybe if SCOTUS upholds this he'll go into exile before the ink dries.

I've been saying for a while it will be an open convention and it now looks more inevitable.  If other states give him the boot he's done.  Expect prospective candidates to emerge from the deepest cesspits of the GOP, like Mike Flynn, pushing his God and country claptrap.  My guess is when it's over the GOP candidate will be none of the current contenders. 

If the Smith case in DC convicts that's the end of the Orange Monster show.  The Florida case: if Cannon lives long enough to retire and DT is still alive that case will still be open when she does.  The Georgia case has the GOP in that state hard at work creating a killswitch.

And has anyone inspected his foreign properties yet for things that shouldn't be there, like classified documents?

Looking forward to this post getting "haha" emojis, the GOP laughing like heifers to the slaughter.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by bendejo

[pegman]

20 hours ago, Tug said:

He he he life is good lol 😂 I would bet money old trump is scheming how he can use this to conn his rubes out of more money lol 😂 anyway he did incite an insurrection no doubt about that it most likely will be struck down on appeal but wouldent it be wonderful if it dident!!

 

20 hours ago, Tug said:

 

It will be Biden's worst nightmare if Trump is not on the Nov ballot. That is if Joe does not pull the plug which I find unlikely. Running vs Trump is his only hope. Someone like Haley will destroy him.

[Tug]

9 minutes ago, pegman said:

 

It will be Biden's worst nightmare if Trump is not on the Nov ballot. That is if Joe does not pull the plug which I find unlikely. Running vs Trump is his only hope. Someone like Haley will destroy him.

I donno he’s accomplished to much but as everyone says we would like a younger more dynamic leader or perhaps a more dynamic vp Incase Biden kicks the bucket.

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, Caldera said:

 

Not explicitly, but it also doesn't make clear which authority is entitled to make that determination. As so often, the details are open to interpretation.

 

As the Constitution mandates due process, one sensible interpretation would be that a criminal court has made the determination of guilt. I think that's what the SCOTUS will rule in this matter, but we're all just guessing at this point.

SCOTUS is political. I'd be very surprised if they don't favor trump 5 to 4.

[Danderman123]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

Being convicted isn't a requirement according to the article. I do think even his supporters won't deny he has given comfort.

What's the process for determining if someone is an insurrectionist?

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, bendejo said:

But consider what this means to the GOP hopefuls, removing DT from the ballot will throw the GOP primaries into turmoil, and their convention is going to be a cross between a biker bash and visiting day at the mental hospital.  For the non-MAGA GOP this is a godsend.  Maybe if SCOTUS upholds this he'll go into exile before the ink dries.

I've been saying for a while it will be an open convention and it now looks more inevitable.  If other states give him the boot he's done.  Expect prospective candidates to emerge from the deepest cesspits of the GOP, like Mike Flynn, pushing his God and country claptrap.  My guess is when it's over the GOP candidate will be none of the current contenders. 

If the Smith case in DC convicts that's the end of the Orange Monster show.  The Florida case: if Cannon lives long enough to retire and DT is still alive that case will still be open when she does.  The Georgia case has the GOP in that state hard at work creating a killswitch.

And has anyone inspected his foreign properties yet for things that shouldn't be there, like classified documents?

Looking forward to this post getting "haha" emojis, the GOP laughing like heifers to the slaughter.

 

Almost none of the above will happen.

 

Excep that Trump will be convicted by the convention, and no one will care.

[Purdey]

17 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

The SC can't relitigate the case. It can only find mistakes in law by the lower courts such as misinterpretation of the constitution or lack of standing by plaintiffs, etc. They will need to rule that the CO SC erred in it's judgement that the president was included in the 14th amendment..

Excellent, that is exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks.

[jtrump]

18 hours ago, andersonat said:

 

 

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.

 

***

 

Section 3 does *not* mention "conviction". 

 

 

You only read the parts that you want to read.  The first line states, which you conveniently omit: Congress CAN, not states. Congress. Will be thrown out like all the other bogus cases against Trump.  

[spidermike007]

16 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

have full possession of their faculties

 

Name one person in the GOP today who meets that criteria….

Liz Cheney. At least she used to be in the GOP, before they kicked her out for being moral, truthful, sensible, and defying their master. Anyone else? I sort of doubt it.

[Danderman123]

22 hours ago, ozimoron said:

This is game over for Trump.

 

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Rep. Scott Perry must disclose to federal prosecutors more than 1,600 emails, text messages and other communications related to the investigation into Donald Trump and his allies’ bid to subvert the 2020 election.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/scott-perry-ordered-to-disclose-messages-trump-00132623

Tell me when the emails are handed over.

 

By now, you should know that all important court rulings are appealed.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, jtrump said:

You only read the parts that you want to read.  The first line states, which you conveniently omit: Congress CAN, not states. Congress. Will be thrown out like all the other bogus cases against Trump.  

Nope.

 

The "Congress can" language only relates to removing the disbarment, not enforcing it.

[nauseus]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

SCOTUS is political. I'd be very surprised if they don't favor trump 5 to 4.

 

And these CO "justices" aren't?

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

What's the process for determining if someone is an insurrectionist?

 

1. Choose a color.

2. Pick orange.

3. Has to be.

4. Right?

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Almost none of the above will happen.

 

Excep that Trump will be convicted by the convention, and no one will care.

 

Or a complete backfire SCOTUS overturns CO ruling - Trump wins CO. Justice served.

[rudi49jr]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Liz Cheney. At least she used to be in the GOP, before they kicked her out for being moral, truthful, sensible, and defying their master. Anyone else? I sort of doubt it.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. That she finally grew a conscience and a spine and stood up against Trump does not necessarily mean that she would be a good candidate, president or even a good person.
Let’s not forget that she voted like 99% with Trump when she was still in congress. So if she were to become president, she would probably do what every Republican president in the last five decades has done: slash taxes for the rich, let corporate America rule the country, cut social security and medicare, raise the defense budget, not raise minimum wage, promise a small government and fiscal responsibility (one of the favorite GOP talking points) but instead increase the deficit by at least 50%.
If that’s what you want for America, then she would probably be a good choice. 

[rudi49jr]

43 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

1. Choose a color.

2. Pick orange.

3. Has to be.

4. Right?

Jeez, you’re really gung ho on painting Trump like a victim, aren’t you? Do you really not think he bears any responsibility whatsoever for all the things that are happening to him right now, all the 91 indictments he’s facing? That this is all just a huge political witch-hunt, of which Trump is the victim?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, rudi49jr said:

Jeez, you’re really gung ho on painting Trump like a victim, aren’t you? Do you really not think he bears any responsibility whatsoever for all the things that are happening to him right now, all the 91 indictments he’s facing? That this is all just a huge political witch-hunt, of which Trump is the victim?

 

Yep, that's exactly what they think.

[candide]

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. That she finally grew a conscience and a spine and stood up against Trump does not necessarily mean that she would be a good candidate, president or even a good person.
Let’s not forget that she voted like 99% with Trump when she was still in congress. So if she were to become president, she would probably do what every Republican president in the last five decades has done: slash taxes for the rich, let corporate America rule the country, cut social security and medicare, raise the defense budget, not raise minimum wage, promise a small government and fiscal responsibility (one of the favorite GOP talking points) but instead increase the deficit by at least 50%.
If that’s what you want for America, then she would probably be a good choice. 

The GOP is so rotten that when people like her (or Pence on Jan.6) just behave in a 'normal' way, with a minimal level of ethics, they look like heroes!

[andersonat]

9 hours ago, jtrump said:

You only read the parts that you want to read.  The first line states, which you conveniently omit: Congress CAN, not states. Congress. Will be thrown out like all the other bogus cases against Trump.  

 

I copied+pasted the quote  - *unedited* -  in my post from:-

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/#amendment-14-section-3

 

"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."

 

***

 

If I've made an (unintentional) error, I am always open to being corrected.

 

  --  Please copy+paste the words/sentences/section that I omitted (in error).

 

[RPCVguy]

The full 213 page decision by the Colorado Supreme court can be read at
• https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
The first few pages of the text get right to the heart of the decision, with the balance being to document their reasoning and hem in the options for the true audience, the US Supreme Court.
The Colorado court's decision was explicitly written to force the SCOTUS "originalists" to accept the precise wording and need for applying the 14th Amendment. I think the US Supreme Court would be doing the GOP a favor by agreeing with the Colorado Court's decision. The delay tactics by Trump's team in the DC and Georgia cases sill likely mean that the convictions that look to be assured will not happen until after the COP convention, making it too likely that by the time of the election their nominee will be ineligible for the office his MAGA fans seek to grant him.

[ozimoron]

I'm not sure of read of many accounts of threats like this made by Biden supporters.

 

'Behead judges': Here are Trump supporters' violent threats in wake of Colorado ruling

 

https://www.rawstory.com/hate-trump-chutkan/

[ozimoron]

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/12/20/edc6d/1