Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot

[BackAgain]

Unfortunately the rest of the article is paywalled:



The Colorado Supreme Court has left the justices of the United States Supreme Court in the very uncomfortable position of having to prove that they have the courage of their stated convictions.

Yesterday, Colorado’s high court ruled in a 4–3 decision that former President Donald Trump, because of his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, is disqualified from appearing on the ballot in Colorado, based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The language of that section, written in the aftermath of the Civil War to disqualify former Confederates who had taken up arms against the United States in defense of the institution of human bondage, is short and simple:


There is no language limiting the power of the section to former Confederates, however, and its scope is sweeping, with no requirement that those engaged in the specified conduct be convicted. Indeed, given the number of people who served in the Confederate army and governments, such a requirement would have been impractical.

The Colorado Ruling Calls the Originalists’ Bluff

The disqualification of Donald Trump challenges the Supreme Court’s conservatives to follow through on their stated beliefs.

www.theatlantic.com

BackAgain

Citing other folks’ nonsense isn’t really support.

They claim “no conviction is required.” Yeah. Really? What is that claim based on? How does it make any sense at all?

It originally applied to and was directed at Confederate soldiers and Confederate “government” officials. Maybe it can be applied to others. Maybe. But it still requires at least some standard.

Let’s be very clear. I deny any claim that it can suffice to merely be accused. I also deny that it requires anything less than an actual conviction. But if you can somehow prove that it can require anything less than a conviction, go to town. Do so.

So far, you haven’t.

Synthaholic The Dainty

 

[BackAgain]

Do you just stick your head in the sand and let right wing media yell into your butt?

Yes all that happened

No. It did not.

If it had, you could cite the name of the case and the legal decision arising from the alleged dispute. But you won’t. And you won’t because you can’t. And you can’t because you’re making shit up with no shred of reality to support it.

 

[Slade3200]

Lie.

There was no trial. There was no evidence. There is no legal determination from any court determining that President Trumo was involved in any alleged insurrection.

Why are you outright lying?

Do you just stick your head in the sand and let right wing media yell into your butt?

Yes all that happened

Citing other folks’ nonsense isn’t really support.

They claim “no conviction is required.” Yeah. Really? What is that claim based on? How does it make any sense at all?

It originally applied to and was directed at Confederate soldiers and Confederate “government” officials. Maybe it can be applied to others. Maybe. But it still requires at least some standard.

Let’s be very clear. I deny any claim that it can suffice to merely be accused. I also deny that it requires anything less than an actual conviction. But if you can somehow prove that it can require anything less than a conviction, go to town. Do so.

So far, you haven’t.

Synthaholic The Dainty

Yoire making the point for your opposition. Confederate officials were not convicted yet the amendment applied to them.

In this case there want just an accusation there was a trial. It ended last month with the judge ruling that Trump took part in an insurrection

 

[Synthaholic]

Not responsive.

But I didn’t expect anything responsive from a weak link like you.

Let’s try again:

Your usual gibberish aside, just make one coherent statement:

What is the test for ascertaining whether a candidate, who is “accused” of having participated in some alleged “insurrection,” actually qualifies as a person who participated in an insurrection?

Who gets to make that call? In what standards? You and some other random liberals at USMB make the claim; but is that’s all that’s required?

Yiur answer ought to be “no.” For otherwise I’ll just make the claim about the candidates like Potato. No further prof required.

And if you try to cite to some judge making the claim in some lower court decision, then what is the standard of review on appeal. Indeed, what was the factual basis for some judge making that claim in his or her decision? Any evidence at all or is it just that it “feels” insurrectiiony to them?

• "Stand back and stand by"
• Come to DC on January 6th - "It's going to be wild"
• Phone records of his yes men
• Lying about the election when it's been proven that he knew he lost.
• Telling his thugs to fight, and if you don't fight hard you won't have a country left - this is on the day that Joseph Biden (God's choice) was officially going to be declared the winner. So in what way were they going to fight figuratively/rhetorically and keep Biden from being president? He clearly was telling them to fight literally.

There's a start.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay my fellow MAGAs and law abiding citizens. Should they be given the treatment like Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett got outside their homes by radical leftists? They've been identified. They've committed treachery!

Election Interference: Here are the Four Colorado Justices Who Voted to Exclude Donald Trump from the 2024 Ballot | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

The unelected justices of the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the people of Colorado cannot vote for former President Donald Trump on the ballot for the 2024 presidential election.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

1) You make out there are two groups, a) MAGA people and b) law abiding people and they're not the same people, and two, you come onto this forum and you literally BREAK THE FUCKING LAW.

Someone should report your ass to the police.

 

[scruffy]

Thank you for admitting that trump is not innocent.

Innocent of WHAT ?

Insurrection is an act of war, ya dumb fuck.

No one was waging war on the government, that absolutely did not happen.

Oh - except for those armed fucktards in Seattle who declared an autonomous zone, THAT was an insurrection.

 

[Synthaholic]

This is what they knew back in June, 2022:

What we know about Trump's actions as insurrection unfolded

Members of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection are holding their first prime-time hearing to share what they have uncovered about then-President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

apnews.com

 

[BackAgain]

Do you just stick your head in the sand and let right wing media yell into your butt?

Is there some reason you repeat your already failed post lingo?

Yes all that happened

No. It did not

Yoire making the point for your opposition. Confederate officials were not convicted yet the amendment applied to them.

You’re obtuse and silly. We knew, then, who the rebels were. In fact, they promptly got the benefit of being pardoned.

But since the 14th is NOW being given a new spin (to try to apply it to other circumstances than the civil war confederate), it requires some method for establishing to whom (f anyone) it now applies.

Your imbecile logic would make it applicable to anyone who happens to be accused by anyone else of having participated in an insurrection.

In this case there want just an accusation there was a trial.

There was no such trial. Really. Stop making shit up.

It ended last month with the judge ruling that Trump took part in an insurrection

Nope. Your making the absurd claim that some random judge claiming that Trump had participated in an insurrection was a verdict in a trial. It was not.
Go ahead. Cite the case.

You won’t. You can’t. That’s not what happened.

The lower court decision in Anderson v. Griswold, case number 23CV32577 was decided by Judge Sarah Wallace.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/norma-anderson-v-donald-trump-jena-griswold-order-district-court-denver.pdf

Her ruling was bizarre. She agreed that the 14th Amendment’s applicability to the President wasn’t properly decided by the Election Committee (but she ruled that it was able to be “adjudicated” by the court) — amd she proceeded to make other determinations. Most pertinently, she concluded that Trump had participated in an insurrection.

Those self contradictory rulings came not after a trial, but after a five day hearing. A hearing is not a trial.

This is, in large part, what the absurd Colorado Supreme Court decision agreed with. However, Wallace did allow Trump to stay on the ballot because it wasn’t clear that the 14th Amendment was applicable to the President. That the Co. Supreme Court didn’t bother to agree with.

see also: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213...gaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

There is no viable way our SCOTUS can accept this abomination of a decision by the Co. Supreme Court.

 

[scruffy]

This is what they knew back in June, 2022:

What we know about Trump's actions as insurrection unfolded

Members of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection are holding their first prime-time hearing to share what they have uncovered about then-President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

apnews.com

You mean what they pulled out of their asses.

Where's the evidence?

DESTROYED. They destroyed it. They were so ashamed of their bullshit they destroyed their own "evidence".

 

[Slade3200]

No. It did not.

If it had, you could cite the name of the case and the legal decision arising from the alleged dispute. But you won’t. And you won’t because you can’t. And you can’t because you’re making shit up with no shred of reality to support it.

Not one shred of reality?! Except for an actual trial in reality that ended in 102 page decision. You really need to pay etyer attention. Here read up

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

 

[WEATHER53]

• "Stand back and stand by"
• Come to DC on January 6th - "It's going to be wild"
• Phone records of his yes men
• Lying about the election when it's been proven that he knew he lost.
• Telling his thugs to fight, and if you don't fight hard you won't have a country left - this is on the day that Joseph Biden (God's choice) was officially going to be declared the winner. So in what way were they going to fight figuratively/rhetorically and keep Biden from being president? He clearly was telling them to fight literally.

There's a start.

Fight hard means to pursue vigorously
Not fist fight

 

[BackAgain]

Not one shred of reality?! Except for an actual trial in reality that ended in 102 page decision. You really need to pay etyer attention. Here read up

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

There was NO trial.

Repeating your ignorant claim doesn’t support it, you moron.

There was no trial. There was a hearing.
Her decision after a hearing is based not on evidence that the 1/6 incident actually qualifies as an insurrection, but on her own impression as to what it takes to qualify as an insurrection.

Further, she basically claimed that Trump’s exhortation that people needed to “fight like hell” amounted to participation in an unproved “insurrection.”

She is wrong. But at least she has some basis (however misguided) for her determination. You have none at all.

Educate yourself.

 

[GLASNOST]

Election Interference​

There are many adjectives to describe what is happening but I think "ILLEGAL" sums it up:

 

[Slade3200]

There was NO trial.

Repeating your ignorant claim doesn’t support it, you moron.

There was no trial. There was a hearing.
Her decision after a hearing is based not on evidence that the 1/6 incident actually qualifies as an insurrection, but on her own impression as to what it takes to qualify as an insurrection.

Further, she basically claimed that Trump’s exhortation that people needed to “fight like hell” amounted to participation in an unproved “insurrection.”

She is wrong. But at least she has some basis (however misguided) for her determination. You have none at all.

Educate yourself.

It was a lawsuit in a court of law where both sides presented evidence and arguments. It wasn’t a criminal proceeding, But the case went to court and a judgment was made. That’s the American way bucko

 

[scruffy]

It was a lawsuit in a court of law where both sides presented evidence and arguments. It wasn’t a criminal proceeding, But the case went to court and a judgment was made. That’s the American way bucko

BULLSHIT

Insurrection is an act of war, it is not for judges.

 

[Slade3200]

BULLSHIT

Insurrection is an act of war, it is not for judges.

It’s written in law so yeah it actually is for judges.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If this is the game we are playing, there is now a VERY big reason to pull Biden off the ballots in all RED STATES.

He is an agent of China, Russia, Ukraine, and Romania. He cannot be on the ballot because he is a corrupt and compromised foreign asset.

Yes. Lawfare can work both ways.

His wife was all in on the insurrection. Besides he's a crook accepting bribes.

You need 30 days observation.

How does the requirement of being a natural born citizen apply without a federal conviction?

You drunk?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Can you link to the section of the constitution that says that he must first be charged and convicted of sedition?

Thanks in advance.

Due process clause.

Did you read the ruling? They're disqualifying Trump based on a crime he was neither charged with nor convicted of.

If that's going to be a new legal precedent, there's nothing stopping any state from removing any candidate they want. Red states (and even blue states with conservative courts, like Louisiana) will be lined up to eliminate DemoKKKrat candidates from their ballots.

This is what you wanted...

Works for me.

Texas is kicking around the idea as to remove Biden from their ballot, probably for treason.

Sounds good to me!

Well, if Ginni Thomas had her way, they wouldn't get to vote for the electors. Ginni wanted a bunch of Republicans in the State Legislature to disregard the voters and choose their own electors for Trump.

Which woukd be 100% legal.

 

[scruffy]

It’s written in law so yeah it actually is for judges.

BULLSHIT.

Read your Constitution. Article 3 Section 2 spells out exactly what judges have jurisdiction over. War is not on the list.

Article 3 states explicitly that all trials shall be by jury, except for impeachments.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's jurisprudence. The judges say Trump's actions qualified as an insurrection.

Of course we are scared to losing to Trump, he's the guy who tried to take away our ability to vote him out of office in 2020. Conservatives should be scared about it too, but they aren't because they place party before the country.

No, that's you. The ONLY thing that matters now is the border, and Trump will close it.

14th Amendment Solutions!!!!

Are you having a stroke?