Effort in Colorado to keep Trump off ballot fails

[x65943]

Seems Colorado supreme court just voted 4-3 to bar Trump from being on the presidential ballot in the state. Didn't expect that!

Decision is stayed until January 4th, and it will be appealed to the Supreme Court

 

[Xzi]

The Colorado court was stacked 7/0

And they had no conflict of interest with the prosecution or defense. They ruled based entirely on the text of the constitution. If we can't trust SCOTUS to do the same, it sets up a much larger conflict between states' rights to oversee their own elections and the federal judiciary branch's desire to unconstitutionally limit that power.

 

[x65943]

And they had no conflict of interest with the prosecution or defense. They ruled based entirely on the text of the constitution. If we can't trust SCOTUS to do the same, it sets up a much larger conflict between states' rights to oversee their own elections and the federal judiciary branch's desire to unconstitutionally limit that power.

It's hard to truly imagine 7 judges appointed exclusively by Democrat governors really have no conflicts of interest

It's no secret that judges too have political beliefs

 

[Xzi]

It's hard to truly imagine 7 judges appointed exclusively by Democrat governors really have no conflicts of interest

It's no secret that judges too have political beliefs

There was zero connection between any of them and the participants in this case. The 14th amendment does not mention party affiliation. You demonstrate a willingness to use violence to retain power, you cannot be permitted to run for political office again, that's all there is to it. If Trump is on the 2024 ballot, there will be another January 6th at some point, win or lose.

 

[KingVamp]

Would be interesting if they decide to just not take up the case.

 

[titan_tim]

It's hard to truly imagine 7 judges appointed exclusively by Democrat governors really have no conflicts of interest

It's no secret that judges too have political beliefs

If your argument is that a judge can't have political leanings in order to be a judge, then you'll have to remake the judicial system from the ground up where judges are raised on islands outside of any influence for their entire lives.

 

[Xzi]

Would be interesting if they decide to just not take up the case.

Would be the smart move to keep their own feet out of the fire, certainly. Leave it up to individual states.

 

[x65943]

Would be the smart move to keep their own feet out of the fire, certainly.

You must live in an entirely different reality if you think that's even marginally possible

The supreme Court will hear the case and throw it out, and then no other states will even be able to try this again and it will be over with

 

[Xzi]

You must live in an entirely different reality if you think that's even marginally possible

The supreme Court will hear the case and throw it out, and then no other states will even be able to try this again and it will be over with

You're talking about throwing out the entire constitution while they're at it. Republicans' self-serving tendencies are a double-edged sword here: you'd assume they hold some loyalty to Trump, but you also have to remember that they don't need him any more; their lifetime appointments are already locked in. A lot of Republican leadership is also sick of the windbag, and this would be an opportunity for them to cut ties without turning Trump's base against them.

 

[titan_tim]

You must live in an entirely different reality if you think that's even marginally possible

The supreme Court will hear the case and throw it out, and then no other states will even be able to try this again and it will be over with

Yeah, they're definitely going to make a ruling on it. This kind of case is so huge that it would be a dereliction of duty for them to pass on it.

That being said, their names will go down in infamy if they judge Trump to be allowed to be on the ballot. The whole thing is quite blatantly the perfect example of why the 14th amendment was made.

It will be interesting to see if they're more in the pocket of the GOP or Trump though. Them ruling that he can't be on the ballot would allow for the GOP to somewhat reclaim their party from the radical sect.

 

[x65943]

You're talking about throwing out the entire constitution while they're at it. Republicans' self-serving tendencies are a double-edged sword here: you'd assume they hold some loyalty to Trump, but you also have to remember that they don't need him any more; their lifetime appointments are already locked in. A lot of Republican leadership is also sick of the windbag, and this would be an opportunity for them to cut ties without turning Trump's base against them.

another Colorado judge said the amendment didn't apply to Trump, it's open for interpretation

It's not throwing out the Constitution, it's interpreting it - which is the entire reason the SCOTUS exists

 

[titan_tim]

another Colorado judge said the amendment didn't apply to Trump, it's open for interpretation

It's not throwing out the Constitution, it's interpreting it - which is the entire reason the SCOTUS exists

There's a fun game I like to play when these things come up: What would happen if Obama did it?

Those right leaning judges would absolutely say the amendment would relate to the president. They would say it would be ridiculous not to think that it doesn't mean that.

 

[x65943]

There's a fun game I like to play when these things come up: What would happen if Obama did it?

Those right leaning judges would absolutely say the amendment would relate to the president. They would say it would be ridiculous not to think that it doesn't mean that.

Yes that's certainly possible

But with the court stacked I think we all know the eventual outcome

 

[Xzi]

another Colorado judge said the amendment didn't apply to Trump, it's open for interpretation

It's not throwing out the Constitution, it's interpreting it - which is the entire reason the SCOTUS exists

Interpret, not rewrite. Any laymen with 3rd grade reading comprehension can understand 14A Section 3. Did Trump hold office and/or swear an oath to the constitution? Yes. Did Trump engage in insurrectionist activity on January 6th? Yes. It's not rocket surgery, and anybody trying to muddy the waters has an ulterior motive for doing so. We fought a Civil War in part to keep corrupt SOBs like Trump out of office, we shouldn't have to fight another one.

 

[x65943]

Interpret, not rewrite. Any laymen with 3rd grade reading comprehension can understand 14A Section 3. Did Trump hold office and/or swear an oath to the constitution? Yes. Did Trump engage in insurrectionist activity on January 6th? Yes. It's not rocket surgery, and anybody trying to muddy the waters has an ulterior motive for doing so. We fought a Civil War in part to keep corrupt SOBs like Trump out of office, we shouldn't have to fight another one.

In your opinion then were the other 3 Colorado supreme Court justices that dissented incapable of 3rd grade reading???

You are literally saying 3 of the most capable scholars in the country are unable to make an informed and proper opinion

Don't forget this was a 4/3 ruling...

So please tell me the ulterior motives of the other 3 judges

 

[Xzi]

So please tell me the ulterior motives of the other 3 judges

Fear of retaliation and/or financial connections to Republicans more likely than not. You've essentially admitted yourself that if Trump's three SCOTUS appointees rule in his favor, it won't be because the constitution is on his side.

 

[x65943]

Fear of retaliation and/or financial connections to Republicans more likely than not. You've essentially admitted yourself that if Trump's three SCOTUS appointees rule in his favor, it won't be because the constitution is on his side.

So you literally think 3 of the 7 Colorado Supreme Court justices all appointed by Democrats are compromised???

I am starting to think you have paranoia

I mean this is next level conspiracy theory

 

[Citizen_404]

Well, it looks like it ain't over until the fat lady (or fat ex-president) sings...

 

[Xzi]

So you literally think 3 of the 7 Colorado Supreme Court justices all appointed by Democrats are compromised???

I am starting to think you have paranoia

I mean this is next level conspiracy theory

Not sure I'd go so far as to call them "compromised," but perhaps not trustworthy when it comes to high-profile cases. It takes an extraordinary amount of courage to publicly stand up to the MAGA mobsters.

 

[titan_tim]

So you literally think 3 of the 7 Colorado Supreme Court justices all appointed by Democrats are compromised???

I am starting to think you have paranoia

I mean this is next level conspiracy theory

It's not really Xzi's paranoa. Any judges on these cases really need courage to make fair rulings. All the Democrat judges that are on Trump's cases have had their lives and the lives of their family threatened on a daily basis. THOUSANDS of documented threats. I can understand why some people don't want to touch that with ten foot pole.