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 ...
This opinion will have short shelf life.
The decision was 4 to 3. It can’t hardly be said there was full agreement. One of the dissenting Democrat judges blasted the majority ruling.
We haven’t had the Rule of Law since the Clintons the Clintons violated every Law known to Mankind with impunity. If we had The Rule of Law , Hillary Clinton would have long ago been in prison. Now the Ruling Class do as they please without fear. The serfs do as they are told.
There was a trial. It was a civil proceeding. It was the one where Trump’s defense was that he did not swear to uphold the Constitution, but to Preserve, Protect and Defend it. Weasel words at best.
Another argument being made is that the Due Process clause doesn’t apply because Trump was not in jeopardy of losing his life, liberty, or property.
I think the decision wasn’t right.
It is just an example of the bullcrap that the country will have to endure for another four years. Every day it will be more chaos. For four years, nothing significant will get done.
For those who think life should be a reality TV show, I guess that is OK. I prefer to cut the useless drama from my life.
Nice catch.
<><>The USSC ruling in the 2020 electoral vote case
<><>concluded that Texas had no standing to challenge another state’s election process
<><>means that Colorado courts have no legal standing to impose a penalty on Trump
<><>WRT a so-called “insurrection” that
<><>(a) didn’t happen in Colorado,
<><>(b) did not violate Colorado laws, and,
<><>(c) has never been adjudicated in a court of law.
Bull spit! Never convicted of insurrection, all he did was protest an election as there were numerous instances of voter fraud. Hillary and Gore also protested elections just as Trump.
They keep forgetting to mention that Section 3 specifically says “any office UNDER the United States”.. the President is not an office UNDER the United States.
Delusional article.
So many on the Left love to use the word “originalist” when it suits them and without having a clue as to the meaning of the term.
Yeah... they do that with Scriptures, too.
The GOP needs to start removing Joe Azho from the RAT side of the ballot for his massive failure of allowing foreign garbage and sewage to turn America into the world’s septic tank. He failed to defend and protect the American people. LOCK HIS DEMENTED COMMIE ASS UP AND LOCK HIS “ECONOMY” UP WITH HIM.
“I coulda swore it was 4-3 🤔”
Shhhh! Hush up there. The sheep are not supposed to hear that. Shame on you.
Trump hasn’t been convicted of insurrection. It should be an easy ruling for the supremes.
Obviously Thomas Kika is a Lefty.
I for one tend to believe George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley, A DEMOCRAT, over some “journalist” working for the most liberal rag in existence........”Newsweek”.
Remember Newsweek is the political rag that sold for one dollar a few years back.
Anyway, Turley’s opinion is that the Colorado Judges are as wrong legally as wrong legally gets. Turley is joined in that opinion by nearly all commenting lawyers.
I know right?
Not to mention a DEMOCRAT judge on that court that voted AGAINST it wrote a scathing dissent about it.....that should tell everybody how absolutely ridiculous it is.
Also, little Tommy conveniently left out that the fine print states that if Trump appeals to the SCOTUS by January 4 the whole mess gets set aside.
The wh thing is nothing more than a liberal wet dream IMO.
But I am concerned however about shenanigans at the election supervisor precinct level.
PP: 77-78
Senator Reverdy Johnson worried that the final version of Section Three did not include the office of the Presidency. He stated, “[T]his amendment does not go far enough” because past rebels “may be elected President or Vice
President of the United States.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2899 (1866). So, he asked, “Why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.”
Senator Lot Morrill fielded this objection. He replied, “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
This answer satisfied Senator Johnson, who stated, “Perhaps
I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.”
This colloquy further supports the view that the drafters of
this Amendment intended the phrase “any office” to be broadly inclusive, and certainly to include the Presidency.
Its strange these others states are throwing these nonsensical cases aside despite the ironclad status of the charges😂
The writer, Thomas Kika, is not a lawyer and lacks even a law degree.
So your point brings up an aspect of this case I find interesting. The lower court in Colorado had two points of law to rule on to remove Trump from the ballot. 1. Did he participate in an insurrection? and 2. Does the law exclude him from office as president if he did? The lower court ruled yes on both counts. The appeal to the State Supreme court was based on reversing the ruling that the law applied to the Office of the President. Nowhere was the question of was it an insurrection before the State Supreme Court. They ruled the law applied and assumed that the lower court was correct in their ruling on participation.
We can all agree the ruling was mickey mouse at best.
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.