Now We Need Michigan and Nevada

we can hope for other states to follow.

This will not survive the current conservative Supreme Court......

perfect cover for the GOP to rid themselves of Trump...

Even if Thomas recuses himself, - and what are the chances of that? - we would still need Roberts to do the right thing. Don't know if he's up for that.

I think Trump terrifies everyone on the supreme court except for Thomas and Alito. I think a majority of the conservative justices would like Democracy to continue for their children and grandchildren. I guess we shall see.

I don't think these justices are willfully ignorant to the threat that Trump poses like so many in his base. My main concern is that the Trump tactics of inviting violence against all who cross him will intimidate the justices enough so they cave to his madness.

"And the Court will rise, while the pillars all fall." -- Peter Gabriel

This Court has already rejected Trump before, in the 2020 election cases. But this state ballot thing is a very interesting twist and test. I don't know, and you don't know either, how this might play out. But I am pretty sure of this: if Trump is disqualified from these state ballots even though he's the GOP front runner, there is going to be some chaos and violence going on. This guy (and his backers) have played the fascist game to perfection with all of these Downtrodden Persecuted White Folks. And there are more Latinos going to his side too, which shocks me because of how he has completely demonized Mexicans as one example.

The Colorado thing here just seems too easy. I don't trust it. It's not that easy to get rid of this guy. I would certainly expect the Supreme Court to at least overturn the Colorado court and issue a stay by saying, "You can't remove Trump from the Colorado ballot based on the insurrection, because Trump has not yet been CONVICTED of that crime yet in the coming trial. There is no standing for Colorado to do this without Trump first having due process in the upcoming federal trial." I expect that response. Because realistically, it's too easy for Colorado to say Trump was complicit in the insurrection, but he has to be convicted of that in a court of law before it can be held against him as a candidate on a ballot. 

>> I don't think these justices are willfully ignorant to the threat that Trump poses like so many in his base. My main concern is that the Trump tactics of inviting violence against all who cross him will intimidate the justices enough so they cave to his madness. <<
 

trump doesn't own the right wing justices, leonard leo does

they ain't afraid of him or his base, but the media would have you think that

It's easy to see the Court ruling that Colorado overstepped too early by basically convicting and punishing Trump for the insurrection, before that case has been tried in the federal Jack Smith prosecution. It's easy to imagine the Court saying, "If we allow CO to do this, then any candidate can be removed from a ballot based on allegations that have not yet been proven in a court of law."

I wish I could say the Colorado action would stick, but I think it's too easy and I don't even think it's legal. 

I think the elephant in the room is if the 14th Amendment situation applies to someone who has not yet been found guilty in trial of insurrection. I don't think CO's action will stand because so far Trump is only alleged to have supported the insurrection, but it hasn't been decided in court yet. And it sets a pretty insane precedent, I would imagine, to let a state court remove an accused person from a ballot before that person has had their due process in court.

In short, Trump needs to be tried and convicted of insurrection first, before the 14th Amendment applies.

Or to put it another way, Jack Smith needs to be allowed to do his job first. Colorado is trying to jump the gun. I can even see Sotomayor and Kagan ruling against Colorado because it's kind of a pipe dream before Trump's trial has even begun. 

Good week for Colorado. Dump Trump, reintroduce wolves and ban single use plastic bags. Winning!

>> Now we will see if the Dems follow through or if they wring their hands, but at the end of the day it is never good for a court to decide you can't run because you led an insurrection. Keep it simple. <<

6 colorado republican voters (no democrats) brought the lawsuit

then appealed it to the colorado state supreme court 

now trump is appealing it to scotus

the scotus job is to interpret the constitution and the amendments

what would the dems have to follow through with?

The CO ruling was too easy and will never stand because it's premature.

The real deal goal here is for Jack Smith to get Trump convicted. The Grand Jury indicted Trump for insurrection, and that was huge. That trial is where the real action is. This Colorado ruling will get overturned, simply because Trump has not yet been convicted, and the Court will never support removing someone from a state ballot based only on allegations. 

section 3 of the 14th amendment says nothing of having to be convicted or charged 

it says that "acts" of insurrection can disqualify someone from office

after a lengthy court trial, lower colorado court ruled he did commit acts of insurrection 

and is why he got booted off the ballot

in addition...

jack smith didn't indicted trump with insurrection, he could supersede an insurrection idictment

but he's taking the fastest way to conviction

>> Congress can overrule with a 2/3 vote. <<
 

that would never happen, fools errand

math and shit

4 of the 6 republican voters that started this are never trumpers 

it's republican vs republican fight

get the popcorn ready when gorsuch has to disagree with gorsuch on colorado state rights and textualist/originalist/federalist society justices have to interpret the original text of the 14th amendment, lol

the dems don't need to fight this, it's a self inflicted shit show, let them own it

media has got people all riled up

The Colorado ruling is regarding ballot eligibility. They've determined through his conduct he is (in fact) ineligible to be on the ballot. 

There doesn't need to be a criminal conviction for civil law (ballot eligibility) to be upheld. They're two different worlds.

He isn't being "taken off" the ballot, he's just not being put on it to begin with. 

Colorado isn't testing the 14th amendment, it's more a test of the Supreme Court. 

> You can't remove Trump from the Colorado ballot based on the insurrection, because Trump has not yet been CONVICTED of that crime yet 

>  They've determined through his conduct he is (in fact) ineligible to be on the ballot. 

I'm with Bss on this one. The Colorado Supreme Court found "that the events of January 6th constituted an insurrection and President Trump engaged in that insurrection." The Court's finding of fact is the key here.

The trial began, as scheduled, on October 30. The evidentiary portion lasted five days, with closing arguments almost two weeks later, on November 15. During those two weeks, the Electors, the Secretary, President Trump, and CRSCC submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court issued its written final order on November 17, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and President Trump engaged in that insurrection.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Co...

...and trump actually did receive civil due process here (in the CO court); he just decided not to participate, so in his world it "doesn't count".

go figure

Judges and juries are both used in our justice system to determine guilt or non guilt.  I don't see anything in the the 14th that talks about a potential candidate needing to be convicted of insurrection by a jury of their peers.  Trump had due process in this Colorado case. The lower court justice and the higher court justices all heard both sides of the story and actually found that there was sufficent evidence that Trump partook in an insurrection.

Due process was had and the verdict rendered.  It seems weird because Trump is weird and mad.  He has forced the courts to make decisions nobody thought would ever be needed.  The the Colorado Supreme court justices have ruled and due process was had. I really think the Supreme Court, being all big talkers about States Rights, should just refuse to take up the appeal and let the state supreme court order stand in this case. It appears to be a well reasoned decision and not some crazy shit that warrants an appeal.

The trial judge might have provided an opening for an appeal to the US Supreme Court when she noted that the 14th Amendment does not specify the President, and that could be seen as a Constitutional issue that needs to be settled by the SC.

Logically; the constitution applies to all Americans equally (including the President). This is the framers' original intent. I don't see a legal opening there.

Keep in mind the supreme court could decide not to review this case at all. They could affirm the Colorado ruling in full or in part. Obviously they could overturn the ruling in whole or in part.

There is no reason for other states to follow suit at this time. The Supreme Court's ruling, if there is one, will inform the remaining Secretaries of State exactly how to craft their challenges.

This is just the first bite of the apple. If the Colorado ruling fails, depending on how; basically there could still be 49 more chances to get it right

Like B.B. King said; Never Make Your Move Too Soon

> Keep in mind the supreme court could decide not to review this case at all.

That's one possible outcome, for sure, but I think it's likely that they do take up the case, if only to keep us from having 50 different interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

> I don't see a legal opening there.

The trial judge, Sarah B. Wallace, apparently did see one though. In her ruling, she noted that "it was unclear whether someone who had only taken the presidential oath could be disqualified under Section 3. The debate hinges on whether the president is an 'officer of the United States.' Judge Wallace noted in a footnote that the matter was 'not for this court to decide.'” I read that last part as pretty much an invitation for the SC to take this up.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/denver-district-court-trump-disqualification-challenge-dismissed (There's a PDF of Wallace's ruling at this link also.)

That the 14th amendment, section 3 does not specifically exclude a president as an officer of the government doesn't mean it's unclear 

As the CO Supreme Court has correctly determined

If we're taking a literal English interpretation, of course

I hear you, Bss, and wholeheartedly agree with you. The CO Supreme Court was very clear in their ruling: "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." But that doesn't mean the highest courts in Texas, Florida, and the other 47 states will see it the same way.

that's very true

buckle up kids!

I was too young for Civil Rights> Assasinations>Chicago>Vietnam>Watergate but to my elders,

Does these times feel like then?

I was 18 when the Kent State killings took place in May of 1970. I had a #24 draft number hanging over my head.

It does feel nowadays like it did then, but with the wisdom of age I can see that it's much worse now.

The threat to  our democracy, such as it is, is much greater now, IMO.

How Gorsuch made the case for banning Trump from the 

Back in 2012, Gorsuch was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In that capacity, he wrote the panel opinion in Hassan v. Colorado. Hassan, a naturalized citizen, sued Colorado, arguing it was required to put him on the presidential ballot even though he was not a natural-born citizen and was therefore not constitutionally qualified to run for president. The Tenth Circuit ruled against him, with Gorsuch writing that states have “a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” and that because of that, they can “exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” It’s that quote that makes its way into the Colorado Supreme Court opinion.

https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-colorado-ballot-case-14-amendment-go...

*ballot

Welcome aboard, Maine!

Haha

trump 2024

the states rights tour

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

"We've only just begun" 

I'm not sure this is the best way to go about this 

  "I'm not sure this is the best way to go about this"

Please, offer some suggestions.

I've been reading a lot of commentary that this issue should be decided by the political system and not by the legal system. I don't agree with that take, but the 14th Amendment strategy seems to do just that.

In her announcement yesterday, Maine's Secretary of State (a political office that oversees elections) emphasized that the 14th Amendment say that anyone who engages in insurrection may not hold any office, and does not say that a person needs to have been convicted of insurrection. So Maine's political system, not their courts, has determined that Trump is not eligible to hold office.

I don't have a suggestion, I'm just not sure that these attempts to keep someone away from the voters is the best way. Just looks like desperation and fear and does nothing but fuel the rights fire . I personally think if the right wants him on the ballot, so be it, it will be their loss when the majority of voters turn out to keep him out of office. No matter what I predict total chaos for 2024

I still say if that's their choice let em have it, he's gonna lose again anyway, not sure thecright needs any help digging their grave

Secretaries of State (elected by a majority, or appoined by a governor who has been elected by the majority) generally have the discretion to qualify and disqualify ballot candidates for all levels of elected office within their states every single day. It actually happens in just about every single election for every single office. 

If this was an issue of residency, or citizenship, or age, this wouldn't even be a question. Why? Because determining eligibility is what the Secretary of State does. To prevent the secretary from exercising this discretion this would be an actual and crystal clear violation of election law.

Was anybody assed up when their favorite candidate for library district was dq'd for living in the wrong zip code? It's really not that much different.

Should this law be different for a Republican presidential candidate than say - a city councilman? Should this be different for Donald Trump? Why?

The correct recourse is to petition the court. This is definitely the potential ballot candidate's right.

And we know trump loves to take his fights to court

so let him

And don't miss the irony that the senate had the opportunity to ban Donald from ever holding office again, during his historic second impeachment. At that time they insisted this is a criminal issue and should be left to the courts. And now that the courts are weighing in, the same idiots are screaming that it should be left up to the voters. 
 

its a hard knock life