Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

Ask the demons, when SCOTUS overturned Roe, their shrieking shook the bowels of Hades.

California's Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis has written to the Secretary of State to "explore every legal option" to remove Trump from California's 2024 ballot.

The Democrats are PANICKING.

Yeah! Kick the Supreme Court off the Colorado ballot too!

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

This has nothing to do with state rights. It has to do with qualification to hold office after the civil war under the constitution.

No way in hell that the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling. However, since this is the first time an insurrectionist has run for president, it is a legal question that needs to be decided. However, this, like most things, will help Trump against Biden, and it will work only because both parties are currently thinking that Trump and Biden are the best we can do.

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

This has nothing to do with state rights.

---

I'm sorry, please remind me, what entity is responsible for conducting elections???

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

This has nothing to do with state rights.

---

I'm sorry, please remind me, what entity is responsible for conducting elections???

---

Are you familiar with the supremacy clause? If there is a matter addressed in the constitution, states do not have the right to abridge. Constitution decides who is qualified to run for president. The states decide the process for election as long as it does not conflict with or regulate something that has been exclusively reserved in the constitution. Since the constitution decides who is qualified to run for the presidency, the states must abide. The states could not put on a ballot for presidency a 2-year old or an illegal immigrant. This is entirely about qualification to run for the presidency.

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

It's good the Supreme Court is taking this up. I think they should have taken it up regardless of which way Colorado decided as they have to be the ultimate arbiter of this legitimate question. But obviously, for political reasons, SCOTUS is going to side with Traitor Trump. I mean, one of the justices is married to an insurrectionist.

All the same it is in the interest of the state to protect the integrity of the political process by excluding ineligible candidates. Colorado did what is right.

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

Abortion is an unenumerated right (or per SCOTUS' recent ruling there is no right to abortion in the C whatsoever). That's an underpinning of sending it to the states.

Article 3 is an express Constitutional constraint on a right or privilege. That lends itself toward federal court authority. But then you've got the pesky issue that the C also says states run Presidential elections. The dichotomy of those two things puts us in territories that go beyond whatever remnants of law school memories I have. But if nothing else, state court decisions that interpret the federal Constitution are subject to federal court review. So we get to federal court one way or another.

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

Abortion is an unenumerated right (or per SCOTUS' recent ruling there is no right to abortion in the C whatsoever). That's an underpinning of sending it to the states.

Article 3 is an express Constitutional constraint on a right or privilege. That lends itself toward federal court authority. But then you've got the pesky issue that the C also says states run Presidential elections. The dichotomy of those two things puts us in territories that go beyond whatever remnants of law school memories I have. But if nothing else, state court decisions that interpret the federal Constitution are subject to federal court review. So we get to federal court one way or another.

---

That's exactly right. Congress flirted with creating a national abortion law under the negative commerce clause. If it had, it would override any state law, including the state constitution. That's why the negative commerce clause is so controversial. The federal laws and constitution overrides any state laws as long as the federal laws are within the authority specifically granted in the constitution to the federal government. Since the negative commerce clause can be interpreted broadly (including the basis for the civil rights act impacting private actors), it has always been the source of state right tension. Anything not otherwise exclusively reserved for the federal government in the constitution is exclusively reserved for the states.

The confusion by lay folks like concordtom is that they do not understand the nuances of the constitution. That's why some people will say that their private employer limiting their speech is unconstitutional.

The states have the right to choose the time, places and manner of electing senators and representatives under the elections clause, although the us senate can override that. Also, the people in the states do not elect the presidents under the constitution. Under article II of the constitution, the citizens of the state elect the "Electors" whose numbers are based on the number of senators and representatives. They then meet and elect a president as long as they elect someone who is qualified under Article II of the constitution.

After the civil war, the country adopted the fourteenth amendment that provided that those who engage in insurrection or provided support cannot serve as a senator, representative, "Elector" mentioned earlier or any office of the federal government. This amendment that extended the bill of Rights restrictions against congress to states also included this insurrection clause. It is a qualification requirement similar to what is included in Article II if it is decided that the presidency is an "office" of the federal government (why just name congress and electors but not the president)? If so decided, then there would be a factual determination that would be required as to whether Trump provided support (seems obvious) since a house representative candidate has already been disqualified under the fourteenth amendment as a result of his direct participation in storming the capitol

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

Really? Which court has issued this "verdict?"

Donald Trump has been charged with many crimes, but insurrection is NOT one of them. Neither is sedition.

IF the Biden DOJ charged Trump with leading or facilitating an insurrection, and got a conviction, they'd have a good case to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. But at this point, the worst Jan 6 charge against Trump is the "corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding."

IMO, the Jan 6 riots in DC weren't an insurrection by themselves. However, the entire scheme to steal the 2020 Election through the use of fraudulent slates of fake Electors WAS -- clearly -- an unconstitutional insurrection.

Unfortunately, there were no charges of insurrection on Jan 7th, nor were there any articles of impeachment. Pelosi waited, allowing Trump to consolidate his power over the GOP. All the members of Congress who aided & abetted his attempt to steal the election -- many of whose lives were threatened that day -- realized that they were better off staying loyal to Trump than they were staying loyal to the Constitution. Jan 7th was the day for Pelosi & Schumer to act. Instead, they sat on their hands, and severely weakened the 14th Amendment argument.

Ryan Grim makes a good point: that this use of the 14th Amendment is just one more attempt by the Democrats to "call the manager" and make their Trump problem "go away."

Ryan Grim makes a fair point about Dems' 'half-a--ed' approach

Krystal & Saagar actually have a very thoughtful & informed debate on the 14th Amendment issue. It's illuminating, regardless of where you're aligned politically.

Krystal And Saagar DEBATE: Should Trump Be BANNED From Ballot?

Bottom line: SCOTUS kills this without much debate, and by a wide margin, even IF Clarence Thomas recuses himself. If they didn't, 'red' states & a few swing states will move to dump Biden from their ballot primary ballots.

It's unclear to me whether we are still a nation of laws.

The thought that people genuinely believe that red states will remove Biden from the ballot is telling.

There is an argument that Trump engaged in insurrection. The trial court in Colorado found that to be the case. The question for the CO sup court was really whether as a technical matter, the 14th amendment wouldn't even apply to a president (meaning that someone could try to overthrow the government and then still run for office).

I think it's a tortured reading of the constitution to conclude, as many conservatives have, that the clause isn't meant to apply to presidents. It's comical and shows that conservatives have never really been wedded to any of the originalist BS they've been pushing for decades. It was always just a position that was advantageous because they wanted to prevent change.

The truth is, conservatives do want the courts to decide elections, when they can do so for the GOP. They had no problem with SCOTUS giving Dubya the 2000 election and if there was a way that SCOTUS could deliver Trump the white house in 2024, conservatives would happily take it.

But setting all of that aside, under what freaking tenuous theory could anyone ever argue with a straight face that Joe Biden has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US?

Everyone knows what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 was wrong. The very thought of a president challenging the election the way he did in November 2020 would have been appalling to conservatives even a decade prior. The fact that he called for his VP to be hanged for doing his job would have been appalling. At the time of the insurrection, conservatives (including most Republicans in congress) were actually appalled. Everyone knew this crossed a line that should never be crossed but the GOP realized relatively quickly that their base never cared about the rule of law or the constitution and that their lifeblood (being professional politicians) demanded that they follow their base into hell.

So that's where we are.

If you don't follow the law because you are under threat - then you are a hostage

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

This has nothing to do with state rights.

---

I'm sorry, please remind me, what entity is responsible for conducting elections???

---

Are you familiar with the supremacy clause? If there is a matter addressed in the constitution, states do not have the right to abridge. Constitution decides who is qualified to run for president. The states decide the process for election as long as it does not conflict with or regulate something that has been exclusively reserved in the constitution. Since the constitution decides who is qualified to run for the presidency, the states must abide. The states could not put on a ballot for presidency a 2-year old or an illegal immigrant. This is entirely about qualification to run for the presidency.

---

I totally agree.
So, let's go to the text:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

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.

At issue is who gets to decide, judge, whether this applies.
Should it be by vote of the entire nation?
Should it be by decision of a judge in whatever jurisdiction/state?
Should it be by that state's Supreme Court?
Should it be by the nation's Supreme Court?
And/Or should a President be allowed to "pardon" a character who has been found guilty of the above?

I'm confident that the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor here, even though we both know that I wish Trump would find himself undergoing a quintuple bypass.

The point of this thread, for me, was not to argue over whether it's a just decision or not, but to point out how odd it is that some decisions get to be left to States while others not.
It seems to depend on the political lean of the decision makers, across the board (congress, president, courts, voters).

What was it Rudy Giuliani said? "Truth is not truth."
Or Kellyanne Conway: "Alternative facts."



If I told you that Dwight Garner's knee was down, or that Kevin Moen caught a forward lateral from Mariet Ford, you might just argue otherwise!

Quote:

---

"I was stopped for a couple of seconds, but I don't think my knee went down," Garner said in 1992. "It seems like such a long period now. People still question me, and honestly, if you're from Stanford, I was down, and if you're from Cal, I wasn't." Nov 19, 2022

---

I came across this story recently:

Quote:

---

The Founding Fathers own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less than enthusiastic.

Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin's logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it.

---

We don't do that anymore.


https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

Abortion is an unenumerated right (or per SCOTUS' recent ruling there is no right to abortion in the C whatsoever). That's an underpinning of sending it to the states.

Article 3 is an express Constitutional constraint on a right or privilege. That lends itself toward federal court authority. But then you've got the pesky issue that the C also says states run Presidential elections. The dichotomy of those two things puts us in territories that go beyond whatever remnants of law school memories I have. But if nothing else, state court decisions that interpret the federal Constitution are subject to federal court review. So we get to federal court one way or another.

---

Okay, I'll buy that at first glance.

Here's what I think - let it go to Supreme Court, and if they are Blind Justice, they will agree that Trump was part of an effort to overthrow the free election, and I guess they call that "insurrection". He instigated it, he sat quietly while it happened, and he gave comfort to the violent actors. Guilty. Inelligible to run.
And, separately, he should be throw in jail for being a part of it all.

Again, we know that's not going to happen. "His" justices will do what everyone expects them to do.
I'm just going to see what Kagen et al have to say about it.

cbbass1 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

That Roe / state's rights thing is a fun talking point but ultimately different for somewhat obvious reasons, IMO.

We now have different states ruling on this question in different ways. In my opinion that pretty much calls for federal court intervention.

And acknowledging that others have a different opinion (as expressed in a different thread) I think there's a legitimate Due Process problem with the Colorado ruling. Again, my opinion.

---

I don't disagree with your logic there.
But different states decide all sorts of issues differently:
Abortion
Tax rates
Speed limits
…or previously, slavery
And now we have a fairly reasonable verdict of insurrection!

Which issues demand federal courts to decide a uniform law?

---

Really? Which court has issued this "verdict?"

---

My understanding is that a lower CO judge at a "District Court" decided it, and the CO Supreme Court affirmed it.

Google tells me that the "CO Supreme Court is a seven-member, non-partisan body that handles appeals from the state's district or municipal and counrty courts and the state's court of appeals."

Here is the entire 200+ page PDF text of that latter ruling. It took a while to download, be advised.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9927fc28f3500b61/96292b55-full.pdf

I see in an introductory section:

Quote:

---

After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee ( CRSCC ; collectively , Intervenors ) to intervene in the action below,the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three . Anderson v.Griswold,No. 23CV32577 , 241,298 (Dist. Ct.,City & Cnty.of Denver,Nov. 17,2023). But,the district court concluded, Section Three does not apply to the President. Id. at 313. Therefore,the court denied the petition to keep President Trump off the presidential primary ballot.

---

Later, the Supreme Court affirms:

Quote:

---

* 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. Capitolon January 6, 2021, constituted
an" insurrection."
* 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

---

You're right. I'm just a lay person!
If you are a lawyer, then you can render your professional rebuttal to that 200 page document. Be my guest.

Very well said.
It's a joke if someone wants to argue that Trump is an innocent to it all.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Thought:
Anyone who believes in state's right, as the Supreme Court decided when they overruled Rowe v Wade, has to agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, no?

---

This has nothing to do with state rights.

---

I'm sorry, please remind me, what entity is responsible for conducting elections???

---

Are you familiar with the supremacy clause? If there is a matter addressed in the constitution, states do not have the right to abridge. Constitution decides who is qualified to run for president. The states decide the process for election as long as it does not conflict with or regulate something that has been exclusively reserved in the constitution. Since the constitution decides who is qualified to run for the presidency, the states must abide. The states could not put on a ballot for presidency a 2-year old or an illegal immigrant. This is entirely about qualification to run for the presidency.

---

I totally agree.
So, let's go to the text:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

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.

At issue is who gets to decide, judge, whether this applies.
Should it be by vote of the entire nation?
Should it be by decision of a judge in whatever jurisdiction/state?
Should it be by that state's Supreme Court?
Should it be by the nation's Supreme Court?
And/Or should a President be allowed to "pardon" a character who has been found guilty of the above?

I'm confident that the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor here, even though we both know that I wish Trump would find himself undergoing a quintuple bypass.

The point of this thread, for me, was not to argue over whether it's a just decision or not, but to point out how odd it is that some decisions get to be left to States while others not.
It seems to depend on the political lean of the decision makers, across the board (congress, president, courts, voters).

What was it Rudy Giuliani said? "Truth is not truth."
Or Kellyanne Conway: "Alternative facts."



If I told you that Dwight Garner's knee was down, or that Kevin Moen caught a forward lateral from Mariet Ford, you might just argue otherwise!

Quote:

---

"I was stopped for a couple of seconds, but I don't think my knee went down," Garner said in 1992. "It seems like such a long period now. People still question me, and honestly, if you're from Stanford, I was down, and if you're from Cal, I wasn't." Nov 19, 2022

---

I came across this story recently:

Quote:

---

The Founding Fathers own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less than enthusiastic.

Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin's logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it.

---

We don't do that anymore.


https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-library/classroom/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it

---

It probably seems odd to you since you may not be familiar with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This interpretation of the constitution is strictly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court the final arbiter. The state courts get to decide but their decision is appealable to the Supreme Court if they accept since it is within their jurisdiction. I would also guess that at least one liberal justice would side with the majority in overturning the Colorado decision. Courts have generally been resistant to get mired in what is normally a political process. If the Democrats cannot beat someone as despicable as Trump, it is no one's fault but the Democrats.

calbear93 said:

---

It probably seems odd to you since you may not be familiar with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This interpretation of the constitution is strictly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court the final arbiter.

---

No duh!
You're so focused on what you think I do or do not know, and your desire to have this anti-Trump movement by Colorado quashed, to have understood what I've previously written and questioned.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough for you, but I think I'll not type all that again.

Quote:

---

The state courts get to decide but their decision is appealable to the Supreme Court if they accept since it is within their jurisdiction. I would also guess that at least one liberal justice would side with the majority in overturning the Colorado decision.

---

Again, you failed to read what I wrote.

Quote:

---

Courts have generally been resistant to get mired in what is normally a political process.

---

I wonder what Al Gore would have to say about that. Please watched two movies, with popcorn:
Unprecedented, a documentary on YouTube.
Recount, starring Kevin Spacey.
Then we can revisit such things again.

Quote:

---

If the Democrats cannot beat someone as despicable as Trump, it is no one's fault but the Democrats.

---

Immediately, a satirical cartoon popped into my brain:
Scores of MAGA voters are gleefully exiting the voting booths with that speech bubble up over their heads after they've all just voted for someone they call "despicable".

Riiiiiiight!
It'll be someone ELSE'S fault.

What a joke!

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

It probably seems odd to you since you may not be familiar with the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This interpretation of the constitution is strictly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court the final arbiter.

---

No duh!
You're so focused on what you think I do or do not know, and your desire to have this anti-Trump movement by Colorado quashed, to have understood what I've previously written and questioned.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough for you, but I think I'll not type all that again.

Quote:

---

The state courts get to decide but their decision is appealable to the Supreme Court if they accept since it is within their jurisdiction. I would also guess that at least one liberal justice would side with the majority in overturning the Colorado decision.

---

Again, you failed to read what I wrote.

Quote:

---

Courts have generally been resistant to get mired in what is normally a political process.

---

I wonder what Al Gore would have to say about that. Please watched two movies, with popcorn:
Unprecedented, a documentary on YouTube.
Recount, starring Kevin Spacey.
Then we can revisit such things again.

Quote:

---

If the Democrats cannot beat someone as despicable as Trump, it is no one's fault but the Democrats.

---

Immediately, a satirical cartoon popped into my brain:
Scores of MAGA voters are gleefully exiting the voting booths with that speech bubble up over their heads after they've all just voted for someone they call "despicable".

Riiiiiiight!
It'll be someone ELSE'S fault.

What a joke!

---

I'm trying to be nice and not mock your utter ignorance but you just decided to dedicate your life to obsessing over Trump that you don't know how to behave like even a semi-sane person. Whatever. No one here would ever accuse you of being intelligent or knowledgeable. Just angry and mentally unstable without any sign of intelligence. You are the one who allowed someone stupid like Trump to turn you into a joker.

Go off the rails over the topic of subject matter jurisdiction.

Calm down Skippee.

The Bush / Gore was famous because it was an anomaly for courts to get involved in political process and not because it was normal. There is a reason why impeachment, a political process, is not reviewable by the judicial body.

But, no, you got this whole thing figured out asking why the state cannot have final say on a constitutional issue but is subject to appeal and comparing qualification to run for presidency with abortion and asking - what about state rights on a 14th amendment interpretation?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

There is an argument that Trump engaged in insurrection. The trial court in Colorado found that to be the case. The question for the CO sup court was really whether as a technical matter, the 14th amendment wouldn't even apply to a president (meaning that someone could try to overthrow the government and then still run for office).

But setting all of that aside, under what freaking tenuous theory could anyone ever argue with a straight face that Joe Biden has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US?

Everyone knows what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 was wrong. The very thought of a president challenging the election the way he did in November 2020 would have been appalling to conservatives even a decade prior. The fact that he called for his VP to be hanged for doing his job would have been appalling. At the time of the insurrection, conservatives (including most Republicans in congress) were actually appalled. Everyone knew this crossed a line that should never be crossed but the GOP realized relatively quickly that their base never cared about the rule of law or the constitution and that their lifeblood (being professional politicians) demanded that they follow their base into hell.

So that's where we are.

---

I think the question is whether the 14th amendment insurrection clause that does not expressly state the presidency applies to the presidency. I think common sense would indicate that "office" should include the office of the president.

I also don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that January 6th was an insurrection. Remember that a candidate for the house has already been disqualified under the 14th amendment for participating in January 6th storming.

I also don't think it would be a stretch to conclude that Trump provided support for the insurrectionists.

However, I also don't believe there is any chance in hell that the Supreme Court will allow the court to basically determine an election for the highest office and remove it from the normal political process. So, I think Trump will lose nothing but instead gain even more support from this, much to the chagrin of people like me.

And any claim that Biden can be removed from the ballot is complete idiocy. DeSantis knows better. There is no ineffective president clause. Being an ineffective president on immigration is not a basis under the constitution to be disqualified from running for a second term.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

There is an argument that Trump engaged in insurrection. The trial court in Colorado found that to be the case. The question for the CO sup court was really whether as a technical matter, the 14th amendment wouldn't even apply to a president (meaning that someone could try to overthrow the government and then still run for office).

But setting all of that aside, under what freaking tenuous theory could anyone ever argue with a straight face that Joe Biden has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US?

Everyone knows what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 was wrong. The very thought of a president challenging the election the way he did in November 2020 would have been appalling to conservatives even a decade prior. The fact that he called for his VP to be hanged for doing his job would have been appalling. At the time of the insurrection, conservatives (including most Republicans in congress) were actually appalled. Everyone knew this crossed a line that should never be crossed but the GOP realized relatively quickly that their base never cared about the rule of law or the constitution and that their lifeblood (being professional politicians) demanded that they follow their base into hell.

So that's where we are.

---

I think the question is whether the 14th amendment insurrection clause that does not expressly state the presidency applies to the presidency. I think common sense would indicate that "office" should include the office of the president.

I also don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that January 6th was an insurrection. Remember that a candidate for the house has already been disqualified under the 14th amendment for participating in January 6th storming.

I also don't think it would be a stretch to conclude that Trump provided support for the insurrectionists.

However, I also don't believe there is any chance in hell that the Supreme Court will allow the court to basically determine an election for the highest office and remove it from the normal political process. So, I think Trump will lose nothing but instead gain even more support from this, much to the chagrin of people like me.

And any claim that Biden can be removed from the ballot is complete idiocy. DeSantis knows better. There is no ineffective president clause. Being an ineffective president on immigration is not a basis under the constitution to be disqualified from running for a second term.

---

I agree with everything you are saying. SCOTUS is likely to reject the plain language of the 14th amendment to achieve the outcome their patrons want. I don't think the CO supreme court needed a 200+ page opinion to kick this to the supreme court and their decision (though it may be lauded by some) will be no more effective than a one pager would have been.

SCOTUS will probably use procedural grounds or some other sleight of hand to ignore the plain language of the constitution because it suits them to do so.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

There is an argument that Trump engaged in insurrection. The trial court in Colorado found that to be the case. The question for the CO sup court was really whether as a technical matter, the 14th amendment wouldn't even apply to a president (meaning that someone could try to overthrow the government and then still run for office).

But setting all of that aside, under what freaking tenuous theory could anyone ever argue with a straight face that Joe Biden has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US?

Everyone knows what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 was wrong. The very thought of a president challenging the election the way he did in November 2020 would have been appalling to conservatives even a decade prior. The fact that he called for his VP to be hanged for doing his job would have been appalling. At the time of the insurrection, conservatives (including most Republicans in congress) were actually appalled. Everyone knew this crossed a line that should never be crossed but the GOP realized relatively quickly that their base never cared about the rule of law or the constitution and that their lifeblood (being professional politicians) demanded that they follow their base into hell.

So that's where we are.

---

I think the question is whether the 14th amendment insurrection clause that does not expressly state the presidency applies to the presidency. I think common sense would indicate that "office" should include the office of the president.

I also don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that January 6th was an insurrection. Remember that a candidate for the house has already been disqualified under the 14th amendment for participating in January 6th storming.

I also don't think it would be a stretch to conclude that Trump provided support for the insurrectionists.

However, I also don't believe there is any chance in hell that the Supreme Court will allow the court to basically determine an election for the highest office and remove it from the normal political process. So, I think Trump will lose nothing but instead gain even more support from this, much to the chagrin of people like me.

And any claim that Biden can be removed from the ballot is complete idiocy. DeSantis knows better. There is no ineffective president clause. Being an ineffective president on immigration is not a basis under the constitution to be disqualified from running for a second term.

---

I agree with all of this.
Bravo!

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

There is an argument that Trump engaged in insurrection. The trial court in Colorado found that to be the case. The question for the CO sup court was really whether as a technical matter, the 14th amendment wouldn't even apply to a president (meaning that someone could try to overthrow the government and then still run for office).

But setting all of that aside, under what freaking tenuous theory could anyone ever argue with a straight face that Joe Biden has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US?

Everyone knows what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 was wrong. The very thought of a president challenging the election the way he did in November 2020 would have been appalling to conservatives even a decade prior. The fact that he called for his VP to be hanged for doing his job would have been appalling. At the time of the insurrection, conservatives (including most Republicans in congress) were actually appalled. Everyone knew this crossed a line that should never be crossed but the GOP realized relatively quickly that their base never cared about the rule of law or the constitution and that their lifeblood (being professional politicians) demanded that they follow their base into hell.

So that's where we are.

---

I think the question is whether the 14th amendment insurrection clause that does not expressly state the presidency applies to the presidency. I think common sense would indicate that "office" should include the office of the president.

I also don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that January 6th was an insurrection. Remember that a candidate for the house has already been disqualified under the 14th amendment for participating in January 6th storming.

I also don't think it would be a stretch to conclude that Trump provided support for the insurrectionists.

However, I also don't believe there is any chance in hell that the Supreme Court will allow the court to basically determine an election for the highest office and remove it from the normal political process. So, I think Trump will lose nothing but instead gain even more support from this, much to the chagrin of people like me.

And any claim that Biden can be removed from the ballot is complete idiocy. DeSantis knows better. There is no ineffective president clause. Being an ineffective president on immigration is not a basis under the constitution to be disqualified from running for a second term.

---

I agree with everything you are saying. SCOTUS is likely to reject the plain language of the 14th amendment to achieve the outcome their patrons want. I don't think the CO supreme court needed a 200+ page opinion to kick this to the supreme court and their decision (though it may be lauded by some) will be no more effective than a one pager would have been.

SCOTUS will probably use procedural grounds or some other sleight of hand to ignore the plain language of the constitution because it suits them to do so.

---

This is really sad. The legal scholars on our board agree the Constitution says what it says. They agree that Trump did what he did. That the final arbiter of the decision is the US Supreme Court. But that it will be inconvenient for the SCOTUS to support the Constitution in this matter so they will rule against the Constitution, presumably so they will still be welcome at the appropriate cocktail parties.

But do not say the SCOTUS is staying out of it and not interfering in a political matter. Staying out of it would mean letting the Colorado ruling stand for Colorado. The SCOTUS will be getting involved to overrule the support of the Constitution that Colorado has decided upon. That is not staying out of it.

Truth

dajo9 said:

---

The legal scholars on our board agree the Constitution says what it says.

---

All the dirty people in position of power who supported Trump need to stick with Trump to keep their secrets buried and in the hope he wins and they too can avoid consequences. Great party. Grat adminsitration. Great path America. Drained the swamp to flood the nation.

blungld said:

---

All the dirty people in position of power

---

Jack Smith lost again.

Taibbi's ability to remember some of the news coverage back then is pretty amazing tbh. I truly do enjoy his writing style as well.

Newsom warns efforts to keep Trump off California ballot could be 'political distraction' | The Hill


https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4374706-newsom-warns-trump-ballot-efforts-political-distraction/

And now Maine. Unlike Colorado where the SoS brought the issue to a court to decide, here we have a non-lawyer SoS making a unilateral decision to remove Trump from the ballot after a 1 witness hearing, and relying on news reports and YouTube videos. This is wrong and really bad for our country.

tequila4kapp said:

---

And now Maine. Unlike Colorado where the SoS brought the issue to a court to decide, here we have a non-lawyer SoS making a unilateral decision to remove Trump from the ballot after a 1 witness hearing, and relying on news reports and YouTube videos. This is wrong and really bad for our country.

---

Democrats Disprove Claims They Will Covertly Rig Election By Rigging It In Plain Sight https://t.co/sO7TSqbQyk pic.twitter.com/fSbflVIRU7

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) December 29, 2023

A handful of our liberal posters here support this.

I support the obvious application of the Constitution by people in position to make such decisions.

There are fascists in government and America that disagree. Fascists have to be defeated. They have shown us it is not a debate competition.