If I was standing with CONFEDERATES, I'd be in the company of jackasses.
Posted on 12/20/2023 7:42:28 AM PST by Lakeside Granny
The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to ban former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot undermines a “bedrock principle” of American democracy, one of the court’s Democrat-appointed justices wrote in a fiery dissent.
Justices Carlos Samour, Maria Berkenkotter and Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright all dissented, but Samour was particularly critical of the 4-3 ruling. Samour and Boatright were each appointed by Democratic former Gov. John Hickenlooper, while Berkenkotter was appointed by current Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat.
“The decision to bar former President Donald J. Trump — by all accounts the current leading Republican presidential candidate (and reportedly the current leading overall presidential candidate) — from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine,” Samour wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
All Colorado Supreme Court justices are Democrat appointees, but those who voted to remove Trump from the ballot went to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and UVA — all top 14 law schools. Those who dissented went to Denver Law School.
The so-called "elites" hate you.— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) December 20, 2023
Hey Colorado voters!
THIS black-robed tyrant is up for retention in NOV 2024.
Defeat this “Justice”. Vote NO for her retention.
Remember this name... Justice Monica M. Márquez
Amen.
he’s such a tool.
1924.
None of this matters... nothing will happen. It will stand and the lemmings will continue to allow Communist Democrats to do whatever they please. The GOP has no heart, no vision, no clarity and no message. The Conservative movement is dead... we’re just too stupid to realize it.
Well, aren’t you a ray of hope and sunshine?
Go spread your doom and gloom elsewhere!
Oh, thanks for pointing that out. We've never heard that before. /s
Same here, but one thing we do know is that if we keep doing what we have been doing we will get the same result.
If I was standing with CONFEDERATES, I'd be in the company of jackasses.
Laura Loomer
@LauraLoomer
MUST WATCH:
On @NEWSMAX moments ago, @RonDeSantis
was asked by the show host if he is going to stand in solidarity with @VivekGRamaswamy
and also remove himself from the GOP primary ballot in Colorado since President Trump has been removed from the ballot.
He said NO, and didn’t even condemn the egregious act of ELECTION INTERFERENCE!
DeSantis continues to become more unlikable every time he opens his mouth.
Shame on @RonDeSantis! #Trump2024
https://twitter.com/i/status/1737550459995312362
DeSwampus takes cRuz to a whole new lowlife level.
👍
Thanks!
On reading the blurb I predicted that if there were women on the court they would vote to hang Trump. Well two did, Melissa Hart and Monica Marquez; one did not. Close but no cigar.
Melissa Hart and Monica Marquez went to Ivy League Universities, the other one didn’t.
What does that tell you?
“It saving the GOP though Joe and crew say”
That’s bad news. Joe is wrong more often than not.
JUSTICE SAMOUR dissenting.Now it is undoubted that those provisions of the constitution which deny to the legislature power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or to pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are inconsistent in their spirit and general purpose with a provision which, at once without trial, deprives a whole class of persons of offices . . . for cause, however grave. - In re Griffin, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (C.C.D. Va. 1869) (No. 5,815) (“Griffin’s Case”).
"These astute words, uttered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase a century and a half ago, eloquently describe one of the bedrock principles of American democracy: Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law. Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office. Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America’s democracy that sets this country apart.
The decision to bar former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) — by all accounts the current leading Republican presidential candidate (and reportedly the current leading overall presidential candidate) — from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine.
By concluding that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing, the majority approves the enforcement of that federal constitutional provision by our state courts through the truncated procedural mechanism that resides in our state Election Code.
Thus, based on its interpretation of Section Three, our court sanctions these makeshift proceedings employed by the district court below — which lacked basic discovery, the ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and the opportunity for a fair trial — to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) masquerading as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim.
And because most other states don’t have the Election Code provisions we do, they won’t be able to enforce Section Three. That, in turn, will inevitably lead to the disqualification of President Trump from the presidential primary ballot in less than all fifty states, thereby risking chaos in our country.
This can’t possibly be the outcome the framers intended.
... procedures that must be followed to determine whether someone has engaged in insurrection after taking the prerequisite oath. That is, it sheds no light on whether a jury must be empaneled or a bench trial will suffice, the proper burdens of proof and standards of review, the application of discovery and evidentiary rules, or even whether civil or criminal proceedings are contemplated.
This dearth of procedural guidance is not surprising: Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically gives Congress absolute power to enact legislation to enforce Section Three. My colleagues in the majority concede that there is currently no legislation enacted by Congress to enforce Section Three.
This is of no moment to them, however, because they conclude that Section Three is self-executing, and that the states are free to apply their own procedures (including compressed ones in an election code) to enforce it.
That is hard for me to swallow."
These people are insane.
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.