American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I think Trump is a pig but the Colorado decision is a terrible legal mistake and an awful precedence that hopefully will be overturned and likely will be overturned. This can only lead to Tit for Tat reprisals and further law fair. The idea that a democratic appointed court can remove someone off of ballot without due process is pretty silly to me

Republicans Sued to have him excluded from the ballot. They won the case.
It was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, who affirmed the decision.
It will likely be appealed to the SCOTUS.

How is that without due process?
Looks to me like it is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I think Trump is a pig but the Colorado decision is a terrible legal mistake and an awful precedence that hopefully will be overturned and likely will be overturned. This can only lead to Tit for Tat reprisals and further law fair. The idea that a democratic appointed court can remove someone off of ballot without due process is pretty silly to me

Woah, dude. What are you reading to have come to that whack conclusion?

And if the precedent is you aren't allowed to run for president after you have incited an insurrection then it's a good precedent.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

the idea you can try and overturn democracy but when you eff it up get a mulligan and try again 4 years later is absurd

The courts are supposed to decide that with due process.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

The courts are supposed to decide that with due process.

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but as Bring_Back_Shantz (no #### that) said it looks like they followed the process.

Where was it not followed?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but as Bring_Back_Shantz (no #### that) said it looks like they followed the process.

Where was it not followed?

The 3 dissenting opinions on the Colorado Supreme case all argued that the state courts were not actually empowered to rule on the merits of the case and erred in doing so. None of the dissents disputed the findings of fact or 14th amendment applicability... only that the process by which the case was taken was improper.

That said, "due process" is decided by the majority here. And next, by the SCOTUS. And I suspect the SC will overturn this solely on jurisdictional/procedural grounds so they don't even have to touch on the merits.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but as Bring_Back_Shantz (no #### that) said it looks like they followed the process.

Where was it not followed?

Trump has been convicted of seditious behavior and attempting a coup without it actually going through a court and a jury or a trial of any sort.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Trump has been convicted of seditious behavior and attempting a coup without it actually going through a court and a jury or a trial of any sort.

You're making things up. He has not been convicted of anything. The court determined based on a preponderance of evidence (actually stated as being "clear and convincing") gathered during a civil procedure (you're right... not a trial) that he engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible for public office.

For now, that is, because due process is still ongoing.

[Duruss]

Why would the USSC be able to rule on a state matter?

[Galakanokis]

I thought for the purposes of the 14th amendment that he did not need to be convicted or even charged in public court. Just that the the courts themselves can make the ruling which is what happened here.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Galakanokis

I thought for the purposes of the 14th amendment that he did not need to be convicted or even charged in public court. Just that the the courts themselves can make the ruling which is what happened here.

That is exactly correct.
The issue isn't whether he engaged in insurrection. The Original judge and all 7 SC Judges in Colorado agreed he did.

Where there is some question from the court is whether that means they can keep him off the Primary ballot.

He got all the due process he deserves, and this will likely go to the SCOTUS so there's more to come, but how/what they'll rule on will be interesting, as they can't overturn the state ruling, they'll have to make a decision about how the 14ht amendment applies in this case or to the President.

[White Out 403]

is this the kind of sweeping judicial power you want wielded by 7 hillbilly judges in Oklahoma?
edit: I'm going to go ahead and acknowledge I may be in the minority on this. It appears independents support this and almost a quarter of republicans.

[ResAlien]

If one has a base understanding of the powers granted to the Colorado state Supreme Court, the process that got the case where it is, or even the defence his team tried to use one wouldn’t be flailing their arms around screaming about due process.

Remember kids: read more than just the headline. Will the Supreme Court overturn this? Undoubtably. Which is fine, that’s the way this all works.

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

is this the kind of sweeping judicial power you want wielded by 7 hillbilly judges in Oklahoma?

The GOP are already running with this. If they can removed Trump we can remove Biden. I mean, he still has had to of done something wrong like Trump did. But right and wrong don't really mean a lot to republicans. Over half of the US Supreme Court is pretty much a bunch of hillbilly judges that have already been bought off. They will decide the fate of the entire USofA. This is exactly why Trump rammed those two judges through. Your worried about Denver when the Supreme Court is already a joke? A little late.

[KelVarnsen]

The Colorado ruling doesn't change much. Trump will still get elected President and democracy in the USA will be dead.

[TherapyforGlencross]

I’m not sure the Supreme Court will even be looking at whether he committed insurrection or not. That finding has likely been worked out during the fact finding procedure, occurring within the lower courts. I assume the Supreme Court will be determining whether or not the interpretation of the 14th amendment was filed correctly. Which, with the SC being originalists, should be pretty clear. Colorado SC used the amendment to a tee.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That is exactly correct.
The issue isn't whether he engaged in insurrection. The Original judge and all 7 SC Judges in Colorado agreed he did.

Where there is some question from the court is whether that means they can keep him off the Primary ballot.

He got all the due process he deserves, and this will likely go to the SCOTUS so there's more to come, but how/what they'll rule on will be interesting, as they can't overturn the state ruling, they'll have to make a decision about how the 14ht amendment applies in this case or to the President.

Thankfully, this was hammered out when the amendment was created. See below:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Now, your last sentence was directly asked when the amendment was created (1866). See below:

Mr. JOHNSON. But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency.
I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and 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. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President—

Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency: no doubt I am[...]

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...3.db&recNum=20

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

The Colorado ruling doesn't change much. Trump will still get elected President and democracy in the USA will be dead.

Trump will never take the office again. Won't happen.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Trump will never take the office again. Won't happen.

I sooo hope you are right on this. Just feels like this cockroach is unkillable due to the MAGA cult.

[Barnet Flame]

He is the stubborn turd that just won’t flush.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Trump is just a means to an end. He could choke on a polonium McNugget and the far right would still push ahead. Johnson or any of a number of ruthless, ambitious men would just take his place.