Replies

"Yes. I read the ruling after I posted to you and this is still the primary. What struck me was that the earlier ruling did not matter and they plan to keep him off, despite the initial ruling, which was my point initially but they did it via appeal."

One, you didn't address the fact you didn't say anything about an appeal in #7. Two, you're still not getting it right, because Wallace's ruling does matter. This is important to understand.

Wallace's ruling was dispositive of both the primary and the general election ballot. Just because her Order mentions the primary doesn't mean it obtains to just the primary ballot.

They held a trial. Wallace ruled Trump can appear on the ballot. If CREW or a different Plaintiff had simply refiled to block Trump from the Colorado general election ballot, Wallace's ruling would have estopped anyone from pursuing the same course of action for the general election. Period.

CREW's lawyers understand that was a dead end, so instead they appealed.

SCOTUS, or more to the point Alito, now must consider a range of options:

Uphold the unconstitutional Colorado Supreme Court decision. Not happening.
Reverse and remand consistent with Judge Wallace's ruling. Less likely given her ruling 'on-a-technicality' was simply stinkbait primed to pass-the-buck to Colorado's Supreme Court; but not impossible -- and this is why her "initial ruling" has import, not just because it could be upheld by SCOTUS, but also because Alito could "reach in" and subtly advance arguments made by Trump's lawyers that were ignored by Wallace. Alito, a brilliant jurist, is surely scanning the landscape and may decide to take apart the lawfare against President Trump one case at a time, and may also have to limit the recourse to reverse and remand in order to obtain the four other votes.
Finally, Alito could and probably will curb-stomp the Colorado Supreme Court decision, primarily by its glaring unconstitutionality in their attempt to create an illicit "Bill of Attainder", such legislation in the matter of electing a President wholly reserved for Congress, and even then, any such legislation presumed unconstitutional on its face. Alito will likely draw from the constitutional arguments made by Trump's attorneys at the lower court level, perhaps even reference Colorado Supreme Court Justice Samour fairly incisive dissent, and his 5-4 decision (yes, Roberts will vote with the minorities), will pre-empt any ongoing or contemplated primary or general election state ballot challenges against President Trump.

I literally cannot make it any clearer than that. If you think something here is a 'gotcha' a week or a month or a year down the road, all I can tell you is that Freepers can read, and they can see you were on the short end of this exchange. Hey, no malice...

No less than Noah Feldman, Harvard's self-aggrandizing neocon-turned-neomarxist Harvard Law professor, directly stated that President Trump's actions on J6 did not rise to insurrection.

Not only that, but Feldman dictates that "banning Trump from running for office again in the future...would take a separate vote apart from the impeachment vote", thusly correctly corroborating that any ANY attempt to create a Bill of Attainder on a former President of the United States would require Congress to create a judicial 'court' for that very purpose; then said creation would have to survive a constitutional challenge that in all likelihood would revoke any such 'court' on the basis of that function already reserved for the Senate; and then said judicial 'court' actually find President Trump guilty of insurrection.

Last time I checked, this Congress is somewhat in the control of the GOP and will be until after Inauguration Day 2025.

“He's [President Trump] calling for a protest march on the Capitol and that's perfectly lawful and constitutionally protected, in fact,” [Feldman] says. “Similarly, when the President spoke later and told his supporters to go home while telling them that he loved them and that the election was being stolen, he was pretty careful not to use words that directed imminent lawless action... proving incitement in a court of law would be difficult, he says.
"What matters most for those who support impeachment and seek “long-term consequences” is banning Trump from running for office again in the future, he says, but it would take a separate vote apart from the impeachment vote."

You are a bit insufferable.

Reiterating things over and over.

After I said “yes.”

There’s no reason to be so confrontational.

My point stands. It was not over.

And I noted they were doing it via appeal, which you reiterate here in this post.

I was right it was not over in the initial dispositive decision.

Your Megan points are appreciated and good. But somewhat beside the point in terms of political machinations.

“ I literally cannot make it any clearer than that.”

You’re not a particularly good writer.

Stink bait being a highly specific legal term.

I think you can add a lot if you get off your high horse.