Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,957]

8 minutes ago, LilMissThang said:

Exactly this.

Why should we allow the inmates to run the asylum here? If a majority of Americans said they thought the Earth was flat, would we have to stop insisting that it was round out of fear of being viewed as politically biased? 

[kurtz 52]

“Trump is a threat to democracy” but then “Why let the inmates run the asylum?”  So are we all in favor of democracy until our candidate is losing?  
 

Biden wins and it’s “The people have spoken!”  Trump wins and it’s “The inmates are running the asylum!”

We either support democracy or we don’t. 

[MOT 3,608]

1 hour ago, kurtz said:

“Trump is a threat to democracy” but then “Why let the inmates run the asylum?”  So are we all in favor of democracy until our candidate is losing?  
 

Biden wins and it’s “The people have spoken!”  Trump wins and it’s “The inmates are running the asylum!”

We either support democracy or we don’t. 

I don't understand what you're saying here.

'Why let the inmates run the asylum' just means that you should try to do what you think is right as opposed to what you think will go down well with the public.

'Trump is a threat to democracy' has to do with the fact that when he lost the election in 2020 he tried to prevent the certification and overturn the result.

I don't understand why you've linked those two statements.

 

[kurtz 52]

I guess it is my reaction (maybe poorly worded)  to the “inmates running the asylum” comment when it comes to 46% of the public thinking Trump is being unfairly targeted in the legal system. The comment sounds to me like we don’t really need to listen to a large portion of the country but at the same time we are supposed to value democracy. 
 

I think it would be really interesting to investigate why so many Americans are supporting Trump despite all these reasons not to. Not just interview the flag-draped nutcases who are waiting 10 hours to get into one of his rallies. Talk to sane, thoughtful people who are backing him, even now many who voted for Biden last time. 
 

I know Trump voters who are rational, ordinary people, including women, minorities and immigrants. Why don’t we listen to them?  

[MOT 3,608]

2 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

Especially when there is selective enforcement of laws (Trump is -rightfully- impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden family but Biden has faced little to no consequences so far for taking hundreds of thousands from Ukraine without reporting it as income and paying taxes: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/hunter-bidens-foreign-dealings-spell-more-trouble-ahead-19e3a465 ) 

I can't see much of that WSJ aricle, it's behind a paywall. Who has taken hundreds of thousands from Ukraine without reporting it as income and paying taxes ?

[SpadesToStart 3,808]

21 minutes ago, kurtz said:

 

I know Trump voters who are rational, ordinary people, including women, minorities and immigrants. Why don’t we listen to them?  

I’ve never encountered a Trump voter whose support of him doesn’t ultimately boil down to one or more of the following: greed, irrationality, xenophobia, conspiracy, idolatry, or misinformation. 

[Inactive 698]

On 12/20/2023 at 1:52 PM, MOT said:

I can't see much of that WSJ aricle, it's behind a paywall. Who has taken hundreds of thousands from Ukraine without reporting it as income and paying taxes ?

.

[PartySick 172,541]

22 hours ago, Okinawa said:

yes, usually only authoritarian and pseudo-democratic states like Russia, Iran or Turkey ban promising candidates in advance with legal pseudo justifications that are very arbitrary and this one is ultra-arbitrary. What Colorado has decided is extremely damaging to America's reputation of being a democracy and shades the election process already now without even having begun yet. This is likely going to the highest Supreme Court and will create more chaos and eroding trust into institutions. From now on, when Biden visits or speaks of other less democratic countries and gives a lecture they might say "but you behave the same, what a hypocrisy" ...

 

22 hours ago, Okinawa said:

that's true (Trump already has planned to discredit it without waiting for things to happen first ) but it will have an impact on undecided voters and will have a controversial signal to the rest of the world "look, they exclude candidates in America. And now they tell us we aren't a democracy. They are the same" - could African or Asian presidents say to justify things in their countries or react to the West's criticism.

This isn't accurate

You speak as though they just arbitrarily decided to boot Trump but there's a literal rule in the Constitution of the United States that persons who've previously engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US cannot legally hold office.

He's not removed because some Democrats wanted him off the ballot, he's removed 'cause he led a coup attempt with a bunch of armed hillbillies who plotted and almost succeeded in not only overturning/halting an election from taking effect but also murdering the then vice president and many sitting congress members

He's a traitor to the nation, therefore Colorado decided "nah, no traitors on the ballot".

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,957]

2 hours ago, kurtz said:

“Trump is a threat to democracy” but then “Why let the inmates run the asylum?”  So are we all in favor of democracy until our candidate is losing?  
 

Biden wins and it’s “The people have spoken!”  Trump wins and it’s “The inmates are running the asylum!”

We either support democracy or we don’t. 

So you’re not gonna quote me while responding to my comment and you’re going to misrepresent what I said and turn it into a straw man argument? Lmao. 

[PartySick 172,541]

1 hour ago, kurtz said:

I think it would be really interesting to investigate why so many Americans are supporting Trump despite all these reasons not to. Not just interview the flag-draped nutcases who are waiting 10 hours to get into one of his rallies. Talk to sane, thoughtful people who are backing him, even now many who voted for Biden last time. 

I know Trump voters who are rational, ordinary people, including women, minorities and immigrants. Why don’t we listen to them?  

There are no reasonable Trump voters. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Not a single one

They're either hate mongers or out of touch with reality and EVERY argument for supporting him is deeply flawed in ways that should be obvious to any sane person.

The entire right wing in this country has lost their minds. They're either a bunch of conspiracy riddled fools who don't know any better or a bunch of twisted bigots who get off the being cruel to others.

You're asking us to find reason in the people that "innocently" share anti-vaxxer sentiments, agree with anti-immigrant ideals, support book bans, support banning LGBT topics in public schools, support stripping women of their body autonomy, and they jerk off to the idea of the US having the strongest military in history.

These people don't just have differing opinions, they're quite literally wrong, misinformed, and/or crazy lmao.

Source: I live in Florida and I'm surrounded by these f*cking idiots.

[PartySick 172,541]

While they're at it why don't they remove that airhead Lauren Boebert before she cooperates in the 2024 Jan 6th remix

[MOT 3,608]

17 minutes ago, LilMissThang said:

Hunter Biden, this has been a big news story this year and since the first Trump impeachment when he was impeached for pressuring the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter's business deals. Hunter failed to file taxes for 2017 (and other years too) for $2.4 mil from primarily Chinese and Ukrainian sources. Then his laptop was hacked revealing Joe Biden had in fact corresponded with Hunter about his business deals, which Joe Biden had denied. Then Biden called the laptop a hoax, FBI sources pressured Twitter to ban the sharing of articles about it (which Twitter did) right before the 2020 election. Then this year FBI docs leak claiming a Ukrainian businessman allegedly paid Joe and Hunter $5 mil each to "deal with Shokin"  (Washington Post) - meaning help a foreign actor with political influence for a bribe. A plea deal fell apart with the government. Hunter was indicted on tax charges by a federal grand jury in California this month.

 

This article is available to me not sure if it is everywhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/11/hunter-biden-life-indictments-charges/

or you can google Hunter Biden Ukraine.

Yeah, thanks for all that, I know it's a big story, but all I asked you for was the name, and it turns out it was Hunter Biden, but you just said Biden when you made the comment originally. If you just say Biden, people will assume you mean Joe Biden, e.g. you used Biden twice more in the comment and you did mean Joe Biden, and I see you've edited the line I asked about so it now says Hunter Biden.

[MOT 3,608]

15 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Source: I live in Florida and I'm surrounded by these f*cking idiots.

Just to turn off the politics for a second ... that's a magnificent line. Take a bow.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,965]

6 hours ago, Okinawa said:

Of course, it is arbitrary. It even is extremely arbitrary:

- 49 of 50 states did not arrive at this conclusion (nearly all Dem and all Rep states)

- it would be least arbitrary if either all or none included him

- It was a 4:3 decision in Colorado

- All seven Coloarado judges are Dem-appointed and three said there is no legal basis to exclude Trump

- Previously, Sarah Wallace, Colorado judge appointed by a Dem, ruled that Trump is eligible and that section 3 of am. 14. does not apply to presidents

- Even CNN (and they hate Trump so much) writes that this section 3 is vague and that one can neither conclude nor not conclude without a bias that it includes presidents, describing it as unexpected and surprising

But this isn't the question. The questions are:

- Does it apply to presidents? Some people say no, that it does not apply to presidents like  Dem-appointed Sarah Wallace and the majority of the other states until now, otherwise they would have mentioned the most important political figure and not less important figures instead. Some people say yes, because they interpret officer as meaning also presidents, while others say officers are below president. There is no consensus on this, which makes it arbitrary. I see it like CNN, it is too vague too tell clearly.

- Is Colorado SC actually entitled to decide on this? (see post of MOT)

The process must happen on a legal basis, otherwise it is not constitutional.

One cannot if one follows rule of law and this is why 49 of 50 states and 3 of the 7 judges so far have not disqualified him. I agree with you, it is just too vague. I agree also with some others and think that SCOTUS might or might not take it and it might be left to the federal states because SCOTUS has acted like this several times before, we cannot predict its decision.

The Colorado decision already now is 'causing furore in the world and has caused damage to America's reputation as a democracy.

The decision is even bad for Colorado residents themselves, because if it stays like this Biden will now take his victory as granted and not make any efforts to please Colorado, he likely would have won there anyway but this is not 100% sure, he would have had at least real competition, therefore he will focus his attention on other states and will not feel the need to make any promises to Colorado. In four years, Colorado residents will complain that they feel neglected and other states got more improvement. They can thank their SC for that.

Colorado's Supreme Court 100% has the right to decide. States are charged with choosing their electors and their own methods of how they are chosen. Which means that they have the say over how the statewide election is conducted. This whole premise is essentially what allowed Bush v Gore to be in Bush's favor btw. So the hypocrisy is funny. If you find Sarah Wallace to be a legitimate authority, she found that he did engage in an insurrection. So your argument regarding Trump having not engaged on a legal basis actually goes out the window. Also, the whole lawsuit that triggered this was brought forth by a left leaning group on behalf of a group of Republicans. 

 

Lastly, I'm not sure if you've ever been out of the country. But most of Europe already thought the US wasn't much of a democracy and saw it as a joke after 2016. The disenfranchisement of voters through racist legislation and our prison system already solidified that. The fact that Trump never won the popular vote made it pretty obvious. And all of his statements regarding refusing to concede AND the January 6th insurrection that this entire case rests on pretty much sealed the deal for the world. 

4 hours ago, Okinawa said:

Indeed, we have to wait for the final say of the remaining states and possibly SCOTUS (which might stay passive). It can still change. My answer only applies for right now and so far, I cannot judge what hasn't happened until now. Though, as long as not the majority or 66,7%+ of federal states share the same view, it can be considered as (very) arbitrary.

Hmhm, it's quite complicated because sec 3 of amd. 14 has multiple conditions attached to it. There is evidence that there have been times and instances where the president was and is not considered an officer, while others point out to instances where he was considered as such, and the oath also matters. If it wasn't arbitrary, lawyers and judges wouldn't spend countless hours and hundreds of pages discussing it and its details, then it would be simply clear. The sec 3 is BADLY WORDED - if people in the past had phrased it clearer, it would have avoided confusion, chaos and misunderstanding.

I put into spoiler a contrary view:

  Reveal hidden contents

Section 3’s jurisdictional element applies to exactly four defined categories of state and federal positions. President Trump clearly does not fit into three of these categories. Trump never swore an oath as a “member of Congress,” “a member of any state legislature,” or an “executive or judicial officer of any state.” Indeed, Trump was the only President in American history to have never held prior state or federal, civilian or military, public office. Therefore, the only way for Section 3’s jurisdictional element to cover President Trump would be if he falls into the fourth category: he took an oath to support the Constitution as an “officer of the United States.” Trump only swore one constitutional oath: as President of the United States. In short, for President Trump to be subject to Section 3 disqualification, he must have violated the offense element and fit within the jurisdictional element. And in order to fit within the jurisdictional element, the President must be an “officer of the United States” for purposes of Section 3.

The House’s impeachment article, however, did not address this threshold issue. It stated:

[S]ection 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office . . . under the United States.”

In fact, Section 3 does not apply to “any person” or even “any person” who committed the conduct provided for in the offense element. Here, the House seemed to assume that the phrase “officer of the United States” was equivalent to the phrase “any person.” Perhaps the House assumed that a President is an “officer of the United States.” Still, the House’s position was not entirely clear.

After the Senate trial, Trump was not convicted. Therefore, he could not be disqualified from holding future office pursuant to the Impeachment Disqualification Clause. But even after Trump’s acquittal, efforts to disqualify the former President based on Section 3 continue. For example, there is a pending concurrent resolution that would find “President Donald J. Trump ‘as an officer of the United States . . . engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or g[ave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,’ making him ineligible for future office . . . .” This resolution assumed that the President is an “officer of the United States.”

We disagree. There is some good reason to think the President is not an “officer of the United States.” President Trump, who swore only one constitutional oath, does not fall within Section 3’s jurisdictional element. Therefore, he cannot be disqualified pursuant to this provision.

This article will proceed in six parts. Part I will contend that the phrases “officer of the United States” and “office . . . under the United States” in Section 3 refer to different categories of positions. Part II will analyze the phrase “officer of the United States,” which is used in the Constitution of 1788 and in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Part III will show that the meaning of the phrase “officer of the United States” did not drift from 1788 through 1868. In both eras, there is substantial evidence that the President was not considered an “officer of the United States.” Part IV will recount longstanding Executive Branch opinions, which affirmed that elected officials like the President are not “officers of the United States.”

https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-post-four-2kpz7-7czmg-6fbsx-l9llc-btrht-lkg3w

Full article:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f6103f36b5eee6bf0ab2c1d/t/61bfe1e7f415793ae6492815/1639965161489/15.1_Blackman_Final+12.16.21.pdf

 

In European media, in the comments, they already label Colorado as The New Russia of America.

Yes, but BBC writes that it might start a chain domino reaction where others states might follow suit and then another Republican could narrowly beat Trump. It may not seem likely as of now but fairness matters and things may turn out different than expected.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67770912

I love how you say this whole thing is arbitrary because it's only one state out of 50, but then set it up to be a "domino reaction" and make it seem like it's an affront to democracy if other states follow. One state will always need to be first. What's happening now is the establishment of legal precedent and I expect other states will follow when the precedent is established by the SC.

I would love to see where anyone outside the US is calling Colorado the new Russia.  

3 hours ago, kurtz said:

The Constitution is the foundation of US government but it is subject to interpretation. The US Supreme Court has final say and I would guess that most justices will be extremely reluctant to dramatically affect a presidential election without an ironclad case. 

The Court got involved in the 2000 election in Bush v Gore and I think recently passed justice O’Connor regretted that it happened. 
 

Trump hasn’t been even charged with insurrection. Trying to derail his candidacy thru legal means is starting to sound like desperation by Democrats who are deathly afraid he’s going to win. 
 

 

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Republicans. 

3 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

The constitution is vague and archaic + it's interpretation is constantly debated and changed by courts. The U.S. really wasn't a democracy until the 1900s, and if you think we should solely follow the constitution to uphold democracy you'd probably be displeased to learn about the many amendments that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, allowed those who didn't own property to vote, and ended slaves counting as three/fifths a person for political representation. As much as I dislike Trump, the left's attempt to get him off polls is likely going to backfire. Especially when there is selective enforcement of laws (Trump is -rightfully- impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden family but Hunter Biden has faced little to no consequences so far for taking hundreds of thousands from Ukraine without reporting it as income and paying taxes: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/hunter-bidens-foreign-dealings-spell-more-trouble-ahead-19e3a465 ) Just like the gun issue, the constitution can be interpreted in many ways legally (i.e. whether arms can include any type of firearm invented since, whether individuals or militias have the right to bear arms, etc, etc). If the left continues to selectively prosecute their political rivals while giving their side get-out-of-jail free cards, it's only going to strengthen "drain the swamp" and "liberal elite political corruption" rhetoric which may backfire whether the candidate is Trump or Ron DeSantis vs Biden. Given the economy, wars, Biden's age, etc, it's just giving the right more fuel for their fire.

(https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/09/scholars-warn-of-danger-in-an-outdated-constitution-democracy-tyranny-of-the-minority/) 

Again, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of Republican voters. 

[PartySick 172,541]

15 minutes ago, MOT said:

Just to turn off the politics for a second ... that's a magnificent line. Take a bow.

At least my suffering has meaning

I see at least three or four pickup trucks with some variation of "LET'S GO BRANDON" in huge letters across the tailgate, doors, or hood EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Asking me to find reason in these lunatics is like...well, I can't think of an example that's more extreme than thinking there's an iota of legitimate reasoning underneath a MAGA hat