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

[Inactive 698]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:15 AM, Ladle Ghoulash said:

This point about who constitutes an “officer” is exactly what I’ve been saying. Thank you for finding SCOTUS precedent on the issue!

.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,965]

15 minutes ago, LilMissThang said:

 

You clearly have no idea how the courts work or the lack of relevance of the passages you quoted, and I’d love to see your reaction when the republican majority Supreme Court rules against that argument. Again, the Supreme Court has debated this and in the past not defined the President as and Officer OF the United States. It was argued by justice John Roberts I’m free enterprise in 2010 that people DON’T VOTE for an officer of the United States. I’m not sure what’s not clicking, but you can’t argue the president is an officer to meet full criteria outlined in the amendment. We get the president is an OFFICER, an ELECTED OFFICIAL. Also, I think it’s stupid to be celebrating barring a viable candidate from the ballot so he can’t win. His supporters are going to be MORE radicalized. I’m sure you’d be yass girling for Tanya when Nancy Kerrigan got whacked too. 

One establishes the president as an officer. So he is an officer. The other expands him to be an officer OF the United States as he is already established as an officer now and he meets the criteria set in the second case. What's funny to me is that you were whining about political bias from the democrats and now you're holding your argument on the basis that the Supreme Court is made up of a Republican majority. 

You can think it's stupid to celebrate all you want, you're allowed to have your own opinion. And I don't care that his supporters will be more radicalized. I want him barred because somebody that incites a riot against our government bodies is a terrorist and should not be able to hold office. He's never had the best interests of anybody in mind and tries to manipulate idiots into believing he's right when he's really just scamming the country. He's had 0 accountability for all the unethical and illegal things he's done and he still won't be held accountable if he's allowed to become president again. He'll never win the popular vote to represent the majority of the people, and that only benefits the honky tonk towns in the middle of the yeehaw mountains. Although not really because they're voting against their own interests. Setting the precedent of excluding terrorists is only a bad idea to everyone because they believe it undermines democracy. And even if that were true, does it undermine democracy more than when a sitting president tries to stop a peaceful transition of power because they don't like the results of an election? Because that's what Trump did. This whole "radicalize" the left vs the right and the woke arguments and everything else that has polarized the country is a result of his actions and his actions alone. The two sides had been ugly to each other before but the fact that we've continuously talked about a civil war coming of all of this since he's been in office is his doing. I hate the Republican party but even the establishment sees that he's dangerous. And it goes beyond their own ratty survival. 

[Shadow 6,697]

Hypothetically, even if this Colorado SC succeeds to exclude Trump from the ballot, Colorado only has 10 electors.  Now if other states like California, with their 55 electors, tried something like this and succeeded... 

[Inactive 698]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:10 PM, TortureMeOnReplay said:

One establishes the president as an officer. So he is an officer. The other expands him to be an officer OF the United States as he is already established as an officer now and he meets the criteria set in the second case. What's funny to me is that you were whining about political bias from the democrats and now you're holding your argument on the basis that the Supreme Court is made up of a Republican majority. 

You can think it's stupid to celebrate all you want, you're allowed to have your own opinion. And I don't care that his supporters will be more radicalized. I want him barred because somebody that incites a riot against our government bodies is a terrorist and should not be able to hold office. He's never had the best interests of anybody in mind and tries to manipulate idiots into believing he's right when he's really just scamming the country. He's had 0 accountability for all the unethical and illegal things he's done and he still won't be held accountable if he's allowed to become president again. He'll never win the popular vote to represent the majority of the people, and that only benefits the honky tonk towns in the middle of the yeehaw mountains. Although not really because they're voting against their own interests. Setting the precedent of excluding terrorists is only a bad idea to everyone because they believe it undermines democracy. And even if that were true, does it undermine democracy more than when a sitting president tries to stop a peaceful transition of power because they don't like the results of an election? Because that's what Trump did. This whole "radicalize" the left vs the right and the woke arguments and everything else that has polarized the country is a result of his actions and his actions alone. The two sides had been ugly to each other before but the fact that we've continuously talked about a civil war coming of all of this since he's been in office is his doing. I hate the Republican party but even the establishment sees that he's dangerous. And it goes beyond their own ratty survival. 

.

[MOT 3,608]

44 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Hypothetically, even if this Colorado SC succeeds to exclude Trump from the ballot, Colorado only has 10 electors.  Now if other states like California, with their 55 electors, tried something like this and succeeded... 

California isn't a swing state though, is it ? Knocking someone off the ballot would only really matter if it happened in swing states, or am I missing a trick here ? 

[Shadow 6,697]

2 hours ago, MOT said:

California isn't a swing state though, is it ? Knocking someone off the ballot would only really matter if it happened in swing states, or am I missing a trick here ? 

You're right, California isn't a swing state, nor is Colorado. According to Spectrum news, swing states include Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, and maybe Pennsylvania and Michigan...

So maybe this decision won't matter by election day.

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/06/30/expert--4-states-are-labeled-as--toss-up--for-2024-election

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,910]

7 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

 

You clearly have no idea how the courts work or the lack of relevance of the passages you quoted, and I’d love to see your reaction when the republican majority Supreme Court rules against that argument. Again, the Supreme Court has debated this and in the past not defined the President as and Officer OF the United States. It was argued by justice John Roberts I’m free enterprise in 2010 that people DON’T VOTE for an officer of the United States. I’m not sure what’s not clicking, but you can’t argue the president is an officer to meet full criteria outlined in the amendment. We get the president is an OFFICER, an ELECTED OFFICIAL. Also, I think it’s stupid to be celebrating barring a viable candidate from the ballot so he can’t win. His supporters are going to be MORE radicalized. I’m sure you’d be yass girling for Tanya when Nancy Kerrigan got whacked too. 

First the word you objected to was “officer,” now it’s “of”  How is constitutional precedent regarding interpretations of Article II’s usage of the term “officer”’not relevant to how the term “officer” should be understood in the 14th amendment? You’re out here accusing someone else of not understanding the court system and judicial review when you don’t even understand the relevance/significance of constitutional precedent. 

[ALGAYDO 35,111]

I can’t believe there’s people here taking Trump’s side lmao we’re so fuucked as a country 

[Inactive 698]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:24 PM, Ladle Ghoulash said:

First the word you objected to was “officer,” now it’s “of”  How is constitutional precedent regarding interpretations of Article II’s usage of the term “officer”’not relevant to how the term “officer” should be understood in the 14th amendment? You’re out here accusing someone else of not understanding the court system and judicial review when you don’t even understand the relevance/significance of constitutional precedent. 

.

[Inactive 698]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:48 PM, ALGAYDO said:

I can’t believe there’s people here taking Trump’s side lmao we’re so fuucked as a country 

.

[River 127,441]

28 minutes ago, LilMissThang said:

Never mind let’s just get rid of democracy and prevent voters from electing who they want and detoriate our democracy to the point individuals can be barred from the presidency with accusations of supporting rioters so that republicans can retaliate by barring Kamala from office for bailing out rioters who destroyed government buildings  slippery slope.

We also need to protect democracy from people like Trump and he's voters. what he did was simply illegal and risked the democracy and the safety of every single person in the US.

 

[Future Lovers 7,564]

This isn't going to stand up in the supreme court, but I certainly appreciate the effort. If it does stick though, let's see those swing states throw their hat in. 

[Future Lovers 7,564]

1 hour ago, LilMissThang said:

Never mind let’s just get rid of democracy and prevent voters from electing who they want and detoriate our democracy to the point individuals can be barred from the presidency with accusations of supporting rioters so that republicans can retaliate by barring Kamala from office for bailing out rioters who destroyed government buildings  slippery slope.

"Accusations" as if there isn't video footage of him whipping them up into a frenzy? 

You don't need to've said explicitly "go start this riot" to be held responsible for doing so. As a matter of fact, in most cases you won't ever find someone saying explicitly what they'd like for their enraged followers to do. Insurrections and coups are not just something discussed publicly in explicit language. It comes from leaders and speakers who know how to get a crowd fired up. 

There is no question about what a sitting President stepping out onto a stage and publicly accusing the recent election of having been rigged against him was meant to achieve, especially with the knowledge of who that crowd in front of him was. 

You're really not living in this plane of existence if you think Trump was not the orchestrator of January 6 and as such, under the terms of this resolution in Colorado, is absolutely eligible to barred from the ballot. 

[ALGAYDO 35,111]

2 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

Never mind let’s just get rid of democracy and prevent voters from electing who they want and detoriate our democracy to the point individuals can be barred from the presidency with accusations of supporting rioters so that republicans can retaliate by barring Kamala from office for bailing out rioters who destroyed government buildings  slippery slope.

What’s wrong with barring Kamala if she did do that? Prevent her from holding office as well if she did support anti-democratic riots. Make her step down from her VP role if she does anything against the voters’ will. Let’s ban anyone who went against democracy from holding office. 

[MOT 3,608]

5 hours ago, LilMissThang said:

Never mind let’s just get rid of democracy and prevent voters from electing who they want and detoriate our democracy to the point individuals can be barred from the presidency with accusations of supporting rioters so that republicans can retaliate by barring Kamala from office for bailing out rioters who destroyed government buildings  slippery slope.

This is not about getting rid of democracy imo. Before you can vote for a candidate that candidate has to be eligible. So if 100m people are poised and ready to vote for Billie Eilish or Hercule Poirot or Lady Gaga's dog Gustav, they can't. Billie Eilish is under 35, Poirot doesn't exist and Lady Gaga's dog Gustav is a dog called Gustav. And if someone has engaged in insurrection etc etc they are not eligible so you can't vote for them. How do you decide if someone has engaged in insurrection etc etc ? It's up to the courts. They make the call. That's their job. If they decide that Trump is ineligible then he's ineligible, and if someone makes the same case against Harris and the courts find against her then she should be told to pack her bags immediately.

I don't like the Colorado verdict. My layman's view of it is that they are disqualifying someone for committing a crime of which he has not been convicted, and I just don't get that. But it's a technical legal question at the end of the day and it's above my paygrade. Politically speaking, I'm struggling to see how the Dems can benefit from this.