Posted on 01/05/2024 3:30:17 PM PST by bitt
The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off state presidential ballots after the Colorado Supreme Court found he had violated the Constitution’s so-called “Insurrection Clause.”
In a brief order Friday evening, the high court announced it will hear arguments Feb. 8 in the 77-year-old’s challenge to the Centennial State ruling, which temporarily removed from the state’s March 5 Republican primary ballot.
With voters already casting ballots in primaries and caucuses across the country by the time the case is heard, a decision is likely to follow quickly.
The Colorado decision, handed down Dec. 19, had cited Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot as proof that he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars those who have violated their oath of office and “engaged in insurrection” from holding high office again.
In an appeal filed Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys had argued that “[i]n our system of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,’ Colorado’s ruling is not and cannot be correct.”
“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” the filing added.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“...it will lead to most blue states banning Trump from the ballot and a majority of red states banning Joe Biden.”
What fun the next Civil War is going to be....
I predict 9-0 as well. Putting aside the Section 3 issue, there are 2 fundamental problems with the CO and ME rulings: (1) you can’t have different rules for different states. He is either barred from all 50 or none at all. (2) if COnis correct the result will be chaos as red and blue states make disqualification decisions based on politics not facts. We can already see this in TX and FL.
Impeachment is the process designed to address this situation. There was no conviction so it’s finished.
The Communists on SCOTUS will reject the Constitution.
Again.
They say if Trump does not prevail then all candidates for all offices and assuredly all Presidential ones will face ballot denial by enemies in every American election from now on.🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌🍌
These are the stakes. This is it.
All Or Nothing At All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAN_jLnD_Q8
There is no definition of insurrection that you could find as a legal definition of a crime (of fomenting an insurrection, participating in one, conspiring, etc.) that is satisfied here. In my view an insurrection has to have at least some probability of succeeding. Even if it is a minute fraction of a single percent. If you participate in something (the riot or melee that occurred on J6 for example) that has absolutely no possible chance of overthrowing the government, it's not an insurrection. Its a riot, a protest, a disturbance. But it's not an insurrection.
Clearly Trump was not involved in an insurrection.
What is most disturbing about this from a legal perspective, as a procedural matter, is the proof that the trial court in Colorado accepted. It was merely reading into the record the report of the J6 Committee. No live witnesses to be questioned before a trier of fact, no confrontation of the witnesses by the defense. It is an absurdity to deny Trump an important right, like the right to be a candidate in the political process (when otherwise qualified), based on something that had none of the hallmarks of due process afforded to civil and criminal defendants in any other court in this country. It is bizarre to read into the record the conclusion of a highly biased political investigation and say that is established fact.
I hope that the Sec. of State for Maine and the Supreme Court of Colorado are severely bitch-slapped by the SCOTUS.
Its simple. Where in the constitution or the amendments or any government rule or law state that the President is an officer. In fact, the 14th amendment goes out of its way to list officers, congress, etc and specifically doesn’t mention the President. Meaning, the 14th doesn’t apply. This is a simple case that shouldn’t take 1 minute to litigate.
Oh, the Court was always going to take this case, as a practical matter. But, again, strictly speaking, it was no obligated to do so. There are only a very few types of cases that the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to hear.
My point was in response to the apparent complaints by some who appear to think the Court is taking its time, going too slowly, not approaching this matter with a sense of alacrity.
Such complaints are grounded in ignorance. What? Did they imagine the Court was going to treat this matter like it was an episode of the "People's Court" or something? Hear argument completely on the fly and then come back with its decision after the commercial break? The Court was always going to require briefing in this case, and the schedule they've adopted is very expeditious.
There's no shame in ignorance, of course, but some people insist of declining to employ what brains the good Lord gave them. Sheesh.
Because it's going to be a campaign strategy once they get rid of Biden. Hell, they might even be bold enough to run Biden and bash Trump's age.
That’s right. Section 5 of the 14th amendment specifically places enforcement under Congress. Since he was acquitted, it’s a closed case.
Absolutely. We've come to expect of the Chief that he would want to trim the decision to the minimum required to dispose of the case. Will they come down firmly on applicability 14A3 AND due process? Anything else? Congressional responsibility under 14A5?
Since this is popping up in places beyond Colorado, I think that the Court has to get this under control so that it does not cloud the election. I would imagine that having this matter unsettled would cost Trump votes from the low information voters so it is best to deal with it and be done with it at this point.
In unrelated news, Bill and Hillary Clinton invited Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to Cibolo Creek Ranch in Marfa, Texas for the weekend.
/SARC
I will take a piece of that action MrZippy2k. I feel like going all in, so put me down for 12¢ . I think that they at least find a lack of due process, which is not a punt. They will also want to craft something that shields Brandon from getting taken off of the Texas ballot while they are doing this. They have to know that it will come right back at them if they don't deal with it somewhat substantively.
I will set my 12¢ aside right now so I am sure to have it if needed.
So, it turns out the President Trump DOES have ‘standing’ after all.
Interesting…
The Supremes had to agree to accept this case. All of this could had been avoided if the Supremes had taken any of the petitions that the 2020 Presidental Election was invalid because of the extensive fraud in voting and counting the vote in 2020.
Why wait until February?
SCOTUS are a buncha lazy b@sturds.
if Trump is guilty of insurrection
why havent they charged him?
they have not been shy about indicting him on any premise
0% chance they will allow it, because otherwise immediately red states will start throwing Democrats off the ballot for the same supposed reason.
I view the BLM riots personally as more of an insurrection then J6! so from my point of view nearly all Democrats can be thrown off the ballot for encouraging the BLM insurrection!
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.