The Colorado Supreme Court says Trump can't appear on the primary ballot ... except, they stayed the decision until the day before certification date (January 5) and said that if there is an appeal, then the stay is extended and Trump will be on the ballot.  Since Trump will appeal, Trump will remain on the ballot.
.
This is intended to make a political statement -- election interference -- without actually doing anything.
.

And of course it's up to SCOTUS which is a Trump-majority conservative bastion. That said, SCOTUS has gone against Trump in several election-related cases. So we'll see.
In fact, the CO court may have done something significant.

But they could write him in, can't they? And does the name written need to match his full name??
Imagine trumpies having to  write, D-o-n-a-l-d J-o-h-n T-r-u-m-p....man that's asking alot here.
Or will just trump do??  
By the way. I don't see this standing.

This case will die by mootness. The stay upon appeal puts it past Jan 4th making it moot. SCOTUS doesn't bother with moot cases. Trump will be on the primary ballot.

I like how Vivek comes out immediately with a forceful statement and plan of action, while the other primary yahoos have to do internal focus groups to figure out how to play it.

I am also wondering about Faithless Electors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
"... As of 2020, 33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, though in half of these jurisdictions there is no enforcement mechanism. ..." [Colorado requires electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to vote for.]  
.
See also: http://fairvote.org/resources/presidential-elections/#faithless-electors

"If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot"
.
Trump will seek a review. This triggers the stay extending past the Jan 4 deadline and Trump stays on the ballot.
.
All sound and fury signifying nothing.

I haven’t heard of anything earth shattering come out other then that. And if he did, who would really care  
Or Is he going to storm the Colorado capital with his mini me militia?
Am I missing something??

Alan Dershowitz: “In the sixty years I’ve been practicing and teaching law, I’ve never seen a decision that is so antidemocratic and so unconstitutional. It is absurd.”

A president who tried to overthrow an election process … did he mention that ??

The stay remains in place only for so long as the Supreme Court considers the case. Should SCOTUS decide to uphold the CO court's ruling, then SCOTUS' ruling prevails. If it rejects the ruling then the decision falls, stay or no.
Fester needs a new brain.

Don’t know what the Colorado Supreme Court was thinking.

That is my opinion. The problem about the ruling is that he hasn't been found guilty of this in any trial in America as yet. I would whole heartedly agree with the decision post trial with a guilty verdict.  
Politically this helps Trump quite a bit either way. Since he wouldn't likely win Colorado anyway, he can claim it's another case of the "deep state" trying to hurt him.  
He will also make the argument it is "voter suppression" and a "threat to democracy", two things us Democrats have accused him of doing. I think its likely SCOTUS will side for him and then he will say "see, I told you all this was unconstitutional" and get a political win for that.  
Constitutional arguments aside on the merits, Trump wins here on the politics and that is what worries me.

Here is the plain language:
"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
In what world does "any office, civil or military, under the United States" not include the President?
In what world does someone who "having previously taken an oath...as an officer of the United States" not include the President? Ever heard a President swear to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution?
Only in ChicKie'S bizarro world does this not happen.

As noted above, I am predicting that SCOTUS won't even bother to address the situation, since the deadline is literally just 2 weeks away -- during the holiday season.  This is moot and the Colorado Supreme Court knew it would be moot.  This is political grandstanding, really bringing shame on the courts.  The idea that SCOTUS is going to resolve this issue in two weeks over the holiday is just stratospherically insane.  The deadline will long have passed before SCOTUS could assemble the necessary arguments from both sides.  I'm predicting the SCOTUS will just sit on this for two weeks and then since it becomes moot, throw it in the trash.  Trump remains on the primary ballot.

The POTUS is a "civilian" AND commander in chief of the armed forces i.e. head of the "military" so he/she would likely be included under both terms. It also states "any" office. Hard to imagine the framers were excluding the President.

Dersh sucks Trump's cock all day long.  Dersh wants Trump to be prez again because he thinks Trump would be better for Israel.  Dersh doesn't give a shit about America remaining a democracy.  All he cares about is Israel.  
Judge Luttig is an arch conservative whose only loyalty is to the Constitution.

Judge J. Michael Luttig and Professor Laurence Tribe state that "Section 3 requires no legislation, criminal conviction, or other judicial action in order to effectuate its command.  That is, Section 3 is 'self-executing.'"

So bottom line,if the red states take out Biden, and the Blue states take out trump...then Biden will win in 2024, right?
I like this tic for tac game...

-- Modified on 12/20/2023 6:29:14 PM

Democrats are reverting to form.  The last time they removed someone from the presidential ballot was when 10 states removed Abraham Lincoln from the ballot in 1860.  Democrats, always the same.

What kind of cigol (backwards logic) are you using? You clearly mean that the "forces who had everything to gain" are the Dems. The Dems had already WON! There was ZERO reason to interfere with of to prevent Pence from counting the electoral votes to finalize the election of Biden.  
.
I can't wait for Alina Habba to follow up with your brilliant idea in one of her incompetent court filings.

He has a habit of throwing older women back in the pond for a younger one. But if I am being honest, Habba is very, very attractive.

From the journal Lawfare:
"During the floor debates over the Joint Committee’s final version of Section 3, a momentous exchange occurred—at least for our purposes. Magliocca testified about it at the Colorado trial and many briefs and law review articles address it.

Messing with people's quotes and imagining he's clever.

Some are saying that the Colorado Supreme Court constituted a proper Jury.  But the "conviction" was 4 to 3.  In all other jury cases, you need a unanimous decision.  Also jurors would challenged and struck for pre-existing bias.  
.
None of this case meets the minimums of standards of justice which were the norm until Democrats decided power was more important than long standing procedure.

If SCOTUS did overturn Colorado ruling as unconstitutional, should those judges be charged with insurrection for interfering with the peoples' right to free and fair elections?

An insurrection is a "violent" uprising Lester, and your scenario was non-violent. Maybe this is the issue with Republicans and their inability to state January 6th was an insurrection? They simply don't know the definition of the word.

Dershowitz points out section 5 of the 14th amendment ... "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."  State courts aren't part of the Congress and therefore cannot enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment except as legislated by the Congress of the USA.
.
Furthermore, Dershowitz points out that the 14th was enacted shortly after and in response to the Civil War.  There is no way the 14th was intended to give states the power, specifically southern rebel states, the power to declare who is eligible to be president.  It would be absurd to write the 14th to prohibit rebels from being in the government, and then also give the rebel states the power to select who could run for president.
.
Dershowitz predicts the SCOTUS, if they even take the case, will rule based on section 5.  He also predicts the ruling will be greater than 6:3.

You have to admit it is an interesting ethical dilemma ... when, say, a police officer violates a citizen's constitutional rights under the color of law, he can be imprisoned for many years.  When a judge's ruling is overturned as an unconstitutional violation of a citizen's rights, nothing happens to the judge.  He returns to work the next day as if nothing happened.

First of all "MILLIONS OF AMERICANS" didn't die in the Civil War. It was less than a million; 620,000, to be exact.
There were guns at Trump's pre-riot incitement-fest. That's why he wanted the mags turned off, because "They're not here to hurt me." They just weren't used in storming the Capitol; on;y bear spray, clubs, spears, etc. That's all they needed to injure dozens of cops, breach the building and steal Congressional materials.
And, for the umpteenth time, BLM never "attempted to break into the White House and murder the President." Show us evidence of your wild charge.

For Fester's edification, here's an explanation of the power of states vs. the Federal Government in regulating elections. Both have rights. The fact that the 14th Amendment gives some additional rights to Congress in no way negates a state's right to also regulate.
Fester is also confused and WRONG about the Southern states post Civil War. It actually makes complete sense that they were empowered "to declare who is eligible to be president." Because when the Amendment was passed in 1868 the southern states were in the midst of Reconstruction and were controlled by Unionists. This was true until 1877.
Fester is hereby ordered to report for his Remedial US History class. There will be a test based on the attached article.

I don’t see how you could read the analysis you posted and deduce that states have the authority to act on the Insurrection clause. If anything, that article points to precedents that highlight Federal supremacy over the states when it comes to ballot access.

Because the Constitution gives the primary authority to regulate elections to the states. The Federal Gov't. has only the several enumerated rights in the Constitution but they are secondary to the primary state right to regulate.
But ChicKie is smarter than Luttig and Tribe, right?
And Fester is smarter than a gnat. But just barely.

The article you posted cited SCOTUS cases that give primacy to the federal government when it comes to ballot access (see state attempts to impose Congressional term limits).  

The CO court specifically gave deference to SCOTUS as the ultimate authority on this. So, duh. Also, the fact that states are not mentioned in the Insurrection Clause is irrelevant. First because the states' powers to regulate elections are enumerated elsewhere in the the Constitution and don't need to be re-stated to be relevant. Second because the Constitution elsewhere states that ALL rights not specifically granted to the Federal Gov't. by the Constitution automatically devolve to the states.
Now please return your Constitutional Law degree to whatever bogus school that mistakenly granted it to you.
ChicKenShit, our foremost authority on Lawyering...

*pats Old Nicky on the head*

He really doesn't know what "insurrection" means like I thought. Let me help him and Lester and the other Rs out here:
"Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government." BLM was a riot Willy, as gas stations and 7-11s are NOT an "authority" nor are they the "government." But January 6th...now THAT was an insurrection as it was obviously a "violent uprising" against the "government." See the difference now Rs??????

Which, as I recently said here, consisted of putting together slates of fake electors; trying to coerce state election officials to throw out legally cast votes and "find" (invent) fake Trump votes, etc.

US Constitution, Article 2, section 1 ...

And before someone says that therefore the legislature can therefore go ahead and remove Trump due to Jan6, you have to remember that the US Constitution expressly forbids ex post facto laws.  They would have had to have that law already on the books by Jan 6.  Not the day after.

Jonathan Turley comes around to my mootness argument.  
.
"...avoid a review by the Supreme Court by effectively mooting the case if the Supreme Court simply lets the clock run past January 5, 2024."
.

Just saw Turley’s comments and it reminded me that you predicted this almost as soon as the Colorado Supreme Court ruled.  Great analysis!

From the day of the decision, one just had to look at the calendar to realize it was moot.  There was simply no time to review such a novel legal theory before Jan 4.  And no particular reason to consider it an emergency.  On the contrary, had the SCOTUS stepped in and let the ruling stand (by not issuing a stay) there would have been a cascade of every liberal state in the union knocking Trump off the ballot.  Instead the stay was auto-extended by the Colorado Supremes upon appeal. SCOTUS hands remain clean and the stink bomb fades away.  Why the hell would anyone expect the SCOTUS to jump into that shit pile?  Of course they are going to let it go moot.

If SCOTUS does not grant cert  and rule by January 4 which is almost certain to be the case, the Colorado Supreme Court decision is NOT moot. This is because, if SCOTUS grants cert review, and affirms [as we hope-yay]  AFTER the ballots are printed, votes for Trump will not be counted by Secretary of State Griswold.

Of course if the SCOTUS affirms Trump would be removed from every liberal state ballot. We're saying the SCOTUS will just let the clock run out -- thereby mooting the issue.  They don't have to do anything and the case goes away.  It's a burning bag of crap that Colorado has delivered to the SCOTUS front door.  They are smart enough not to stomp on it.

Come on, you cannot have it both ways. If SCOTUS review could potentially harm Trump even though he is on  the ballot, the case cannot be moot.

The first deadline is Thursday, the 4th.

SCOTUS announced today they will take the Colorado case, briefs due Jan 18,  responses due Jan 31, reply due Feb 5 and oral argument Feb 8.  Meanwhile on hearing that SCOTUS has taken the case, Colorado will put Trump on the primary ballot.  Which would seem to moot the case.  
.
Super Tuesday is March 5th which includes Maine.  Will SCOTUS render a decision in less than a month?  They will have been 11 GOP caucuses and primaries by then, and 17 on super Tuesday.  
.
Anyhow, section 5 of the 14th amendment says: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."  Note "the power" -- that grants to Congress alone the power to enforce the 14th -- that's an exclusionary phrase.  I suspect this will be the basis of striking down these 14th amendment state challenges.

27 state AG's, a majority of all states, have filed an amicus brief with the SCOTUS in support of Trump in the Colorado 14th amendment case.

Trump will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Fearless prediction 9 to 0.

You're probably right, but if Justice I-can't-tell-you-what-a-woman-is wants to have ANY credibility on this court, she needs to make it 9-0.

Aside from the clear language that makes Colorado and Maine decisions unconstitutional, I believe the reason the decision will be 9-0 is because otherwise just a few states can dictate at their discretion who can and can't be president -- a sort of heckler's veto.  
.
The trouble with liberals who always assume new government powers will be wielded by "enlightened" geniuses such as themselves, in fact, power does corrupt and draws corrupt people.  

and we can bar blacks from voting  since only Congress has the power to enforce Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen.

We'll see if your prediction is correct -- probably by March sometime.

The Maine Superior court put Trump's name back on the primary ballot pending a ruling from SCOTUS.
.
So Trump remains on all state primary ballots or caucuses.
.
As predicted.