The Colorado Supreme Court 4-3 Decision is Pure Nonsense and Can Be Laughed At, They Even Admit It on Page 9 (court stays own ruling)

The Last Refuge ^ | 12/19/23 | Sundance

[cotton1706]

#3) Instead of me writing it, let me screengrab it so we can all laugh together [pdf page 9].

Wait, what?

Yes, that’s correct. As long as President Trump appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, the appeals court stays their own ruling – essentially indefinitely. The Colorado primary ballots printed, and the primary election will be over, before the Supreme Court puts this on their docket.

In addition to the virtual guarantee the high court will overrule this political nonsense, SCOTUS can make the entire issue moot before them by following their own normal schedule for submissions, arguments, deliberation and opinions delivered by the court.

The Colorado appellate court knows this, that’s why they put this self-stay into their 4-3 ruling. It’s a politically correct way of giving the optics of telling their tribe, ‘hey we’re with you,’ without the ramifications of the political backlash. In other words, psychological lawfare stuff – intended for media consumption.

[CaptainK]

Probably why the decision was 214 pages. They were hoping hoping the lazy media would miss that one sentence.

[george76]

Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)

also..

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4204600/posts?page=94#94

[butlerweave]

Bought and paid for by Soros , they should resign

[Jane Long]

Rather than smear the site, why not prove, with facts, where sundance is wrong.

Your severe TDS is showing, again.

[Dacula]

How many squirrels does the White House have?

There are so many that my head is spinning around from looking at all of the distractions.

[wny]

it’s just another stop on our way to a third-world banana republic police state....using corrupt judges to keep your opponents off the ballots....like they do in iran and venezuela.....

[teeman8r]

aw jeez, not this stuff again...

play for the cameras because our people are too stupid to know the truth

[silent majority rising]

If this ruling is allowed to stand, then why not take ALL Republicans off of the ballot. Trump was not convicted of any type of insurrection, so it is a judgement call by these (non) Justices, and apparently, these mental midgets can just ‘decide’ with no legal basis. Why not just declare the Republican Party insurrectionists because they don’t agree with the Democrat Socialists (that is what they do in the Nationalsozialistische (Nazi) Party)?

[cotton1706]

That’s what their hero Zelensky does

https://news.yahoo.com/zelensky-nationalizes-tv-news-restricts-173820471.html

[daler]

“NEVER was a trial. Colorado SC convicted Trump without any trial.”

It could be solidly argued that there WAS a trial, in the U.S. Senate, and that PDJT was acquitted.

[BlackbirdSST]

*cough*

[fruser1]

The jerks obviously recognize that “certifying” an insurrection occurred is not quite the same as certifying someone is at least 35 years old (the ruling includes reference to someone excluded from the ballot because they weren’t old enough).

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

So the 4-3 decision was essentially anti-Trump porn for the media, Democrats, and RINO's.

So some guy on the internet thinks so.

[Reno89519]

So this is just theatre, Trump will be on the ballot, they satisfy people with the ruling, and they are trying to avoid Supreme Court decision.

[j.havenfarm]

Trump paid propaganda, or not? I literally have no idea. Site quoted by Rush? I don’t remember one way or the other, but I’ll assume it’s true. That doesn’t mean that this piece isn’t a worthless piece of analysis.

SCOC is not a subordinate court to SCOTUS. However, a Writ of Certiorari will lie on constitutional issues from the decisions of the highest court of a state, so its subordinate in sort of a figurative sense. Subordinate courts, ruling in very important issues, ROUTINELY stay their own orders pending review.
That SCOC did so in a tacit acknowledgement that their decision is wrong, the central point of this article, is just BS. There is no doubt SCOTUS would have issued a stay if SCOC did not. Yes, they’re hacks, but in their hackery they still observe the forms of the law

This opinion is wrongly decided, and will be reversed. The District Court should not have even reached the issue of whether Trump engaged in insurrection, because the judge correctly decided that, under the plain language of the 14th Amendment, the prohibition does not apply to him

One of the dissents to this decision correctly points out that there is no enforcement legislation on the amendment. So you’re left with the language of the amendment. When statutory language is clear, the analysis stops there. You don’t proceed on to determine legislative intent. In this case that’s what SCOC relied on. However they didn’t cite any legislative history; they just said they couldn’t imagine that the framers would intend it to apply to sheriffs, but not the President

In short, others are correct that this decision is law porn for the left, and they’re doing the Toobin even as we speak. But this article is useless in analyzing the situation

[odawg]

“I think you meant to reply to ncalburt(#7).”

Yes, my apologies. Not enough coffee.

[silent majority rising]

Maybe the four Colorado Justices are guilty of insurrection and should be removed? By their interpretation, you don’t have to prove it, just claim it.

[cuz1961]

Wait, what?

Yes, that's correct.

\/

oh.

so this was just meant as another wedge, another act of division, another act of agitation, another chub in our face, another provocation meant solely to provoke a reaction to be used against America... another... ... .

[Vaduz]

Colorado needs to back off it’s weed use they are getting media mindlessness.

[Tell It Right]

My take: The Amnesty Act of 1972 invalidated Article 14/Section 3's insurrection clause anyway. Trying to keep Trump or anyone else off the ballot for "insurrection" is like using the 18th Amendment to imprison someone for alcohol (hoping people forget the 21st Amendment undid it).

Relevant text from 14th Amendment/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.

And later Congress did removed the disability with the Amnesty Act of 1872:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.