Posted on 12/27/2023 4:13:47 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
The Supreme Court will likely face difficult legal maneuvering if its justices wish to return Donald Trump to the ballot in Colorado, a legal analyst argued, given the "ironclad" originalist argument at the heart of the ruling.
Trump, the former president who is currently the leading candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, was ruled ineligible to appear on ballots in Colorado last week following a ruling from the state's Supreme Court. The justices ruled in favor of petitioners who argued that Trump's actions around the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol disqualified him from holding elected office, per the terms of the 14th Amendment.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and then engage in insurrection from holding office again. It was drafted initially to keep former Confederates out of office after the Civil War and has been cited in numerous Trump ballot challenges. This ruling out of Colorado is the first one to find any success.
"Using cherry-picked, false, and bad-faith history, originalism has been the pure pretext for overturning Roe, dismantling commonsense gun regulations, ending environmental regulation, gutting consumer protection, and voiding voting and civil rights," Blumenthal wrote.
"Textualism is the sister doctrine of originalism, providing snatches of text from the constitution divorced from social and legislative context as if in scriptural fundamentalism to undergird the reversal of rights...It works hand in hand with originalism to exclude inconvenient portions of the historical record from judicial consideration."
He added: "The Colorado Supreme Court found, without disagreement, and by clear and convincing evidence, that Trump indeed engaged in insurrection on January 6.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Just another Liberal with an opinion.
I love the smell of desperation in the morning!
“The Colorado Supreme Court found, without disagreement...”
I coulda swore it was 4-3 🤔
This author is a typical fraudulent leftists. There is a major problem in the 14th A attack on President Trump which of course is a conviction.
Setting up the “the scotus was rigged against Jack smith by Trump judges” excuse.
Who is little Tommy tryin’ to convince....us, or himself?
It’s not the law but the facts that doom the Colorado decision.
This article should come with a laugh track
Sidney Blumenthal? Come on newsweek. Can’t you do better than that?
> The Colorado Supreme Court found, without disagreement, and by clear and convincing evidence, that Trump indeed engaged in insurrection on January 6. <
Where in the Constitution does it say that a state body can declare an insurrection? If this idiocy stands, then any state (and perhaps any city) can declare an insurrection, and bump off the ballot anyone they wish.
But the Constitution does prohibit ex post facto laws, made by either Congress or the states. And that’s exactly what we are seeing in Colorado, an ex post facto law.
Up is down and left is right in Liberal Land.
They forgot “without evidence “
LOL at this guy’s opinion.
Let’s see.....it doesn’t apply to the president.
It only applied in the post civil war era and even this provision was eventually waived anyway.
Trump was never even charged with let along convicted of “insurrection”.
There was no “insurrection”.
That’s just for starters. The reality is the 14th amendment was never legitimately passed - but no SCOTUS would ever have the balls to rule that way even though its true.
Don’t be suckered by the label “originalist” because the 14th Amendment never originally, and still doesn’t, applied to the President.
Not to mention the authors of the 14th specifically and intentionally excluded the President or SCOTUS.
BTTT
Trump was found guilty of what he was accused. The CO Supreme Court is a sick joke. They should be driven from office in disgrace.
NOBODY was charged with let along convicted of “insurrection”. Not just President Trump.
If the evidence were so clear, why did only four of seven Democrat judges vote to remove his name from the ballot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.