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.
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.
You really are like a fool who plays catch with a hand grenade. If you can label a protest an insurrection, then you apply that label to anything, including real insurrections like when BLM burned down half the country over a guy who wasn’t murdered by the police but just OD’d.
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
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.
…when an actual attack against democracy happens?
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.
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!
...This statement has appeared on a couple sites and raises a novel question of whether it could effectively avoid review by the Supreme Court by mooting the issue for the primary ballot if the court simply runs out the clock before Jan. 5th...
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.
Just as she would not count write in votes for an unqualified candidate, she will not count Trump primary votes if SCOTUS affirms after January 4. She has already said this in an interview with Colorado Public Radio:
"It’s also possible that Trump’s name will appear on ballots, but votes for him won’t count. That could happen if the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the Colorado ruling after ballots are certified in early January.
Griswold said in that scenario, votes for Trump either wouldn’t be counted at all or they would be set aside and not used for the final determination.
“It's honestly not atypical to have a candidate who either withdraws or becomes disqualified on a ballot,” she said in an interview. “It's not our preferred way to run elections, but that has happened.”
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.
And your “mootness” argument is not the one that Turley is making. Here is your “argument”-
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
He is not saying that at all. Here is what Turley said:
The question is whether Griswald herself will seek to have the matter declared as moot after January 5th. She can argue that, while the same objections could be raised for the balloting for the general election, it is pure conjecture that Trump will win the primary despite every poll showing an overwhelming lead. She could then avoid a likely reversal but arguing that there is no change on the balloting and thus no injury to the Colorado GOP.
The Colorado GOP is arguing that it is being denied the constitutionally protected right to association due to the removal. Once again, even that right would be effectively protected by a default retention of Trump on the ballot.
In other words, he is saying that Trump may not win the primary even if he is on the ballot and therefore the case is moot. But this is wrong for the reasons I pointed out above- if affirmed, the Trump votes will not be counted and the fear of this happening probably will cause some voters to vote for Haley or not vote at all. So Trump is injured even though it is possible he may not win.
Nice try at some independent analysis but you need to rethink this one. The case is not moot and that is why Trump and the GOP are frantically petitioning for review.
The first deadline is Thursday, the 4th.
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 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??
"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.
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.
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 ??
A president who tried to get to the bottom of a stolen election process … did he mention that ??
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.
A president who tried to get to the bottom of a stolen election process … did he mention that ??
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.
Messing with people's quotes and imagining he's clever.
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.
Don’t know what the Colorado Supreme Court was thinking.
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.
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.
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.
Sen. Reverdy Johnson was concerned about the draft. He commented that former rebels “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them?”
Sen. Lot Morrill responded: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.”
Johnson, apparently mollified, walked back his statement: “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.”
The committee approved Section 3 in its final form the next day.
Referencing the Johnson – Morrill exchange, Magliocca wrote in his law review article (and he expressed similar conclusions in his testimony in October): “Congress did not intend (nor would the public have understood) that [former Confederate president] Jefferson Davis could not be a Representative or a Senator but could be President.”
Still, it’s just one exchange. There’s no proof positive that other drafters were listening or, if they were, that they agreed with what they heard. Lash argues that if Sen. Johnson had been “misled” by the language into thinking the presidency was excluded, perhaps ratifiers of that language shared Johnson’s first reading: that the presidency was excluded."
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.
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 Colorado supreme court knows that the Democrats pushing for this are fucking bonkers. This attempt failed in every other state. I’m guessing the judges were threatened in some way by the nuttiest Dems, so they had to find a way to throw them a bone without wrecking this country’s democracy. A move to remove Trump from the ballot without removing him from the ballot was probably the best way they figured they could cover their asses.
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.'"
I believe Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe know more about the Constitution than YOU do. I believe Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe know more about the Constitution than all nine members of the Supreme Court put together.
…in the worst case scenario that Trump is removed from the ballot. They will just switch from a primary election to a caucus election and bypass the court decision.
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
Because that’s exactly what you’re asking for dumbass.
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.
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.
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.
Republicans don’t understand the meaning of the word “insurrection”. It has to be violent. So language used to originally refer to THE CIVIL FUCKING WAR WHERE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS DIED is comparable to a protest. And it was an insurrection, because a bunch of right wing gun nuts tried to “overthrow” the government, and yet somehow forgot to bring their guns. I understand now. So, based upon this, Robert, was BLM not an insurrection? On 5/29 BLM attempted to break into the White House and murder the President. Kamala and other Democrats were funding them and paying their bail money. So does that mean Democrats are disqualified from running for office?
Or are Democrats just selectively using the word “insurrection”, a protest where undercover federal agents were present in order to subvert the voter’s right to vote for whom they want to vote for?
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.
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.
So BLM wasn’t an insurrection because they burned down Wendys and Targets and gas stations and court houses and police precincts and tried to run trucks off the road delivering medical supplies in a pandemic, and pulled down statues, and tried to storm the White House and murder the President, injuring over 60 secret service agents in the process, forcing the secret service to move the President to a secure bunker and then when that didn’t work they tried to burn down a church used by every President since Madison and they spent entire fucking year trying to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland but that was just a riot. A year long coast to coast riot. But a 3 hour protest where cops escorted protesters inside the Capitol and some of whom were undercover Feds now THAT’S an insurrection. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense now.
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.
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).
There is nothing in the Insurrection Clause that remotely hints at states having a say in this.
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*
How does the Colorado court’s award of deference to SCOTUS advance your argument that states have a say in the Insurrection Clause?
US Constitution, Article 2, section 1 ...
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ..."
--- as the Legislature thereof may direct ---
State elections are regulated by the state Legislature. Not at the whim of the courts.
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.
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.
and we can bar blacks from voting since only Congress has the power to enforce Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen.
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
All three amendments all have the same language. SCOTUS has already ruled that all three provisions are self- executing.
From the Colorado decision:
If these Amendments required legislation to make them operative ,then Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation . The result of such inaction would mean that slavery remains legal; Black citizens would be counted as less than full citizens for reapportionment ;non white male voters could be disenfranchised ; and any individual who engaged in insurrection against the government would nonetheless be able to serve in the government, regardless of whether two-thirds of Congress had lifted the disqualification. Surely that was not the drafters intent.
The word you are missing is “exclusive.”
Glad to see you are on top of things as usual.
We'll see if your prediction is correct -- probably by March sometime.
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.
SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor 8 - 1
the most recent addition to the court will go against trump
2024 = GOP
Let's go Brandon
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.
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.