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

[Hutch Starskey]

/——/ Twitter took how. This video. Why?

Holy shit!
That’s the video from when it ended. It was shown on the news when he did it. What do you imagine you’re proving with that?

 

[bripat9643]

They followed the law and the constitution. IS that a crime now?

No they didn't.

 

[Robert W]

Uh… yeah it was held to give SCOTUS time to rule.

Sure.

 

[scruffy]

No insurrection without both the house and Senate making that determination.

I would tend to agree with this.

The entire domain of "war" belongs to the Congress, judges have nothing to do with it.

But, we'll see what the SCOTUS says.

 

[Robert W]

What importance do you place on a stay until Jan 5?

At the moment it is ineffective.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, you dishonest retard. It wasn’t. It was a pre-trial hearing. Hearings aren’t trials, you ignorant moron.

Educate yourself before posting. And then, don’t bother anyway. You just make more of a public joke of yourself.

Derp…

Takeaways from Day 1 of the Trump disqualification trial in Colorado​

Takeaways from Day 1 of the Trump disqualification trial in Colorado | CNN Politics

The 14th Amendment disqualification trial against Donald Trump began Monday in Colorado with a group of voters tying to use the Civil War-era amendment to remove the former president from the 2024 ballot, citing his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Cellblock2429]

I trust that there are a huge number of spoiled brats in America that are trying to install a dictator.

The 14th Amendment was created to override the Democratic process if a large number of Americans were going to vote for a traitorous asshole.

Remember - we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy!

You can deny Trump's intentions on Jan. 6, but I doubt SCOTUS will agree. 'Preponderance of the evidence' is all they need to bar Trump from holding office - and they have plenty of evidence!

/——-/ Yet you can’t provide any of it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

At the moment it is ineffective.

What does that mean?

 

[Robert W]

What does that mean?

no hostile acts in CO are allowed against Trump.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

NUH-UH. NOPE. The CO Chief Justice says otherwise in his dissension.

Read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinions in the Trump disqualification case

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court's 4-3 majority tees up a high-stakes showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutional provision at the center of the case.

www.cbsnews.com

Samour wrote that the decision to bar Trump from the primary ballot "flies in the face of the due process doctrine." The litigation in the case, Samour continued, "fell woefully short of what due process demands."

It’s done.
Only SCOTUS can undo it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

no hostile acts in CO are allowed against Trump.

Huh?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure.

Why else hold its effective date for such a short time? SCOTUS is the only body that can undo it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Derp…

Takeaways from Day 1 of the Trump disqualification trial in Colorado​

Takeaways from Day 1 of the Trump disqualification trial in Colorado | CNN Politics

The 14th Amendment disqualification trial against Donald Trump began Monday in Colorado with a group of voters tying to use the Civil War-era amendment to remove the former president from the 2024 ballot, citing his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

amp.cnn.com

/——-/

 

[Hutch Starskey]

/——-/

Is that you? Are you the “Truth Biznich”?
What’s the point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That’s not how this Board works, the dainty.

I’ll accept your non answer as confirmation that you have no actual answer.

Of course, this was already well known.

Really? You are in charge of defining HOW the board works?



Go change your scream name again, Welcher.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.


The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding
the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be
a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate
on the presidential primary ballot.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude
and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn
duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public
reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this
case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the
Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to
include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.

Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is
sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt
of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

 

[Slade3200]

Based on heir treatment of Supreme Court justices, progs believe they should be.

Words of a person who lacks character and principle. Makes you no better than “them”

 

[Rawley]

The 14th amendment sec. 2 does not refer to the President and vice-President, it refers to 'electors for President and Vice-President of the United States'.

Sec. 3 says: 'hold any office'.

Really? identifying the President and vice-President doesn't refer to the President and vice-President Wow.

 

[konradv]

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

Stochastic terrorism!

 

[Lesh]

None. Thank goodness this is irrelevant. The case isn’t about DC. It’s about Colorado’s ballot. They have jurisdiction over Colorado and its ballot.

And an act of insurrection ANYWHERE is cause to block a person from ANY state ballot