Findings of fact: Insurrection?

[Rawley]

The District and Supreme courts in Colorado were asked by Trump himself to resolve a state matter.

No they weren't

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Go play.

Did Colorado have an insurrection?

 

[BackAgain]

read the links above in POST #1

then

Zzzzz

Write clearly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The District and Supreme courts in Colorado were asked by Trump himself to resolve a state matter. And they both did. You just dislike the outcomes.

Please try and keep up

Irrelevant

 

[BackAgain]

No they weren't

Right.

The plaintiffs were upset that the judge declined to grant their request to have Trump banned from the ballot.

Once they chose to appeal, it only made sense for the Trump legal team to go ahead and challenge the ridiculous ruling after the hearing “finding” that Trump had engaged in the (so-called) “insurrection.”

 

[Donald H]

Findings of fact also come after a pre-trial hearing.

Depends if you get the right court. Maybe the Scotus isn't this time.

In any case, he'll be stopped by some method.

And no profanity in the week before Xmas.

Pray me out of your life.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's the argument you expect?

Here?

Donald H: The Scotus can refuse the Colorado case cleanly.

Dante: It's too important an issue, and I doubt there exists an argument for ignoring the appeal based on a later appeal addressing concerns in a more constitutional manner.

Often times the Court will refuse to hear an appeal, waiting for other appeal(s) to make a cleaner case for ruling on constitutional questions.
Here, I believe no one questions the appeal going to be made by Team-Trump cannot wait. It's unlikely another appeal of any kind will be made in the future, that would help settle the constitutional questions being raised now.

Trump's arguments in the case are a first of it's kind. They are affecting issues at the heart of governing the republic. While it's a state issue that was argued and ruled on in Colorado, it affects the national democratic system we use in elections.

 

[IM2]

Colorado has no juridiction in a federal matter

Elections are a state matter.

 

[IM2]

Because a trial judge decided to play politics.

No, trump violated the 14th Amendment.

 

[Donald H]

Elections are a state matter.

16 other states are thinking of trying the same stunt.

 

[Rawley]

Here?

Donald H: The Scotus can refuse the Colorado case cleanly.

Dante: It's too important an issue, and I doubt there exists an argument for ignoring the appeal based on a later appeal addressing concerns in a more constitutional manner.

Often times the Court will refuse to hear an appeal, waiting for other appeal(s) to make a cleaner case for ruling on constitutional questions.
Here, I believe no one questions the appeal going to be made by Team-Trump cannot wait. It's unlikely another appeal of any kind will be made in the future, that would help settle the constitutional questions being raised now.

Trump's arguments in the case are a first of it's kind. They are affecting issues at the heart of governing the republic. While it's a state issue that was argued and ruled on in Colorado, it affects the national democratic system we use in elections.

Thought your OP was about "findings of fact?"

 

[IM2]

16 other states are thinking of trying the same stunt.

It's not a stunt.

 

[BackAgain]

Depends if you get the right court. Maybe the Scotus isn't this time.

In any case, he'll be stopped by some method.

And no profanity in the week before Xmas.

Pray me out of your life.

Nonsense answer nothing I wrote “depends” on getting the right court.

Pretrial hearings yield decisions. Those stem fro rulings after the hearing evidence is heard. End of story.

I’ll use profanity as and when I choose. Your permission isn’t required nor even considered. You’re a nothing.

I would only pray (if I were inclined to bother) that God sends you at least a tiny shred of intelligence. Long overdue.

 

[BackAgain]

It's not a stunt.

Yes. Of course it’s a stunt.

 

[martybegan]

I know you hate fact checking and facts.

It's okay.

I know your ilk pretend your opinions are facts.

 

[martybegan]

again,
Trump himself to resolve a state matter. And they both did. You just dislike the outcomes.

Please try and keep up

Trump sued himself to keep himself off the ballot in Colorado?

 

[martybegan]

No, trump violated the 14th Amendment.

No, he didn't.

And how do reparations NOT violate the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?

 

[meaner gene]

Right.

The plaintiffs were upset that the judge declined to grant their request to have Trump banned from the ballot.

Once they chose to appeal, it only made sense for the Trump legal team to go ahead and challenge the ridiculous ruling after the hearing “finding that Trump had engaged in the (so-called) “insurrection.”

The plaintiffs had already appeled the district court ruling, which concluded an insurrection, but that it didn't cover the presidency. So they appealed it to Colorado Supreme Court that overturned the legal conclusion it didn't apply to the presidency.
Thus they had no need to appeal it any further. The Colorado court stayed it, in expectation that Trumps lawyers would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which they did.

 

[BackAgain]

Elections are a state matter.

Not when they involve Federal offices.

You dopey, ignorant, smooth-brain libturds so quickly forget cases like Bush v. Gore.

Jeez. Get a life.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right.

The plaintiffs were upset that the judge declined to grant their request to have Trump banned from the ballot.

Once they chose to appeal, it only made sense for the Trump legal team to go ahead and challenge the ridiculous ruling after the hearing “finding” that Trump had engaged in the (so-called) “insurrection.”

@Dante The District and Supreme courts in Colorado were asked by Trump himself to resolve a state matter.

@Rawley No they weren't

Trump cleared for 2024 Colorado ballot, Denver judge rules after eligibility challenge

A Denver judge declined on Friday to find that Donald Trump is ineligible for the state's 2024 presidential ballot because he allegedly engaged in an insurrection, following a similar path as courts elsewhere that have rejected attempts to disqualify the leading Republican candidate.

www.coloradopolitics.com

From the District Court:

On September 6, 2023, Petitioners filed their Verified Petition under_________Petitioners alleged two claims for relief. First, they asserted a claim against the Secretary pursuant to__________Second, they requested declaratory relief against both the Secretary and Trump. The declaratory relief requested included a declaration that Trump was not constitutionally eligible for the office of the presidency.


2. On September 7, 2023, Trump filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 12, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado remanded the case, finding that the Secretary was not a nominal party whose consent to remove was permissive.

3. CRSCC filed a motion to intervene on September 14, 2023. This Court granted that motion on September 18, 2023.

4. On September 22, 2023, Trump filed a Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to_______(“Trump Anti-SLAPP Motion”). In that motion, Trump argued that this case is subject to Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute because Petitioners’ claims all stem from protected speech or the refusal to speak and because the speech concerned election fraud and a hard-fought election, they are the epitome of public issues. Trump further argued Petitioners were unable to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on their claims. As a result, Trump argued, the Court must dismiss the claims.

5. Also on September 22, 2023, Trump separately moved to dismiss Petitioners’ claims (“Trump Procedural Motion to Dismiss”). Specifically, Trump argued: (1) Petitioners may not litigate constitutional claims in a______proceeding; (2) the C.R.S. § 1-4-1204 claim was not ripe; (3) C.R.S. § 1-4-1204 does not provide grounds to use the Fourteenth Amendment to bar candidates; and (4) there is no standing on the declaratory judgment claim because there is no particularized or concrete injury. On September 29, 2023, the Petitioners responded to the Trump Procedural Motion to Dismiss. In that Response, the Petitioners agreed to dismiss their declaratory judgment claim. This Court has since dismissed Petitioners’ claim for declaratory judgment....

then...

Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court.