Trump Kicked Off Colorado’s 2024 Ballot Under 14th Amendment

[UrbanCowboy]

Quite the pickle. I don't like this at all if for no other reason than it opens the door to retaliation. This tit for tat has been getting worse and worse and the end is no where in sight.

That said, how are the Republicans on this board that have clamored for 'states rights' recently in regards to abortion going to turn this into suddenly "well, the federal government should weigh in"?

 

[JTOSU]

Quite the pickle. I don't like this at all if for no other reason than it opens the door to retaliation. This tit for tat has been getting worse and worse and the end is no where in sight.

That said, how are the Republicans on this board that have clamored for 'states rights' recently in regards to abortion going to turn this into suddenly "well, the federal government should weigh in"?

Very fair question. And an interesting debate.

I think states should be able to hold senate/house and presidential votes as they believe best serves their state.

The argument: If the member all Democratic Party Colorado Supreme Court made the order on the CO constitution that would be one thing …, but they made the order based on interpretation of US Constitution. So that seems to truly open the door for SCOTUS to weigh in.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Umm the lawsuit that led to this was filed by Republicans???!!

Colorado GOP Threatens to Go Rogue If Trump Decision Stands

Colorado GOP Threatens to Go Rogue If Trump Decision Stands

The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[PF5]

Trump's legal defeat in Colorado may turn into political gold BBC

 

[steross]

So the party of States rights over Federal power and limited Federal Govt are going to be super upset that a state made a decision they are more than legally qualified to make about their own government and elections in their state?


Seems on par with the recent GOP message...which seems to be ...." I love small Govt and state rights as long as they do what I want them to do"arty of states rights?"

Party of state's rights?
Do you think we are in 1998?

The GOP is for autocratic big meddling government. "State's rights" was a generation ago and not their agenda anymore.

 

[steross]

View attachment 2808

Not at all and fully what I expect him to do. Gorsuch was reported to be this libertarian beacon when he joined the court. He is a political hack and nothing more.

 

[CowboyJD]

Not at all and fully what I expect him to do. Gorsuch was reported to be this libertarian beacon when he joined the court. He is a political hack and nothing more.

I don't agree with this.

Bostock v. Clayton County was wildly unpopular with the types of folks that got him appointed to the Supreme Court.

So was McGirt v. Oklahoma.

If Gorsuch was reported as a libertarian beacon by anyone, it's because they didn't do their research. He is, and always has been a conservative textualist as a judge.....but he is much more than a political hack.

Whether or not you agree with his jurisprudential rulings and theories of interpretations, he definitely follows those standards of interpretation even when he might not personally care for the end result. A political hack first decides the end result and then will alter his jurisprudential principles however necessary to get there. That's not Gorsuch.

I've been reading Gorsuch's opinions for a long time (including his 10th Circuit decisions because that is the Federal District Oklahoma is in....so since 2006 or so). I may not agree with his jurisprudential principles and theories, but I definitely concede that he consistently adheres to those principles and theories even when he personally might not care for where those jurisprudential principles lead.

 

[JTOSU]

Not at all and fully what I expect him to do. Gorsuch was reported to be this libertarian beacon when he joined the court. He is a political hack and nothing more.

He is one of the biggest defenders of tribal rights. You may not agree with his opinions, but Gorsuch, at least IMO, is one of the most pragmatic SC justices. Certainly all have inherent biases, but Gorsuch appears to let the law follow his judicial opinions.

 

[Verbal]

Soo many people upset over this...but Trump can still apply to have write in votes


From the Colorado AG office
If a candidate files the required write-in affidavit by the deadline, then their name will not be printed on the ballot, but a write-in line will be printed under the office they are seeking election where voters can write the candidate’s name.

To cast a vote for a write-in candidate, a voter should write at least a reasonably correct interpretation of the candidates last name on the write-in line

MAGA Plan to 'Write in Trump' in Colorado Has One Major Problem​

But their plan has a major flaw: the court's ruling also bars the Colorado secretary of state from counting any write-in votes for Trump.

MAGA plan to "write in Trump" in Colorado has one major problem

Trump supporters are saying they will cast write-in votes for him after the Colorado Supreme Court removed him from the state's presidential primary ballot.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

Party of state's rights?
Do you think we are in 1998?

The GOP is for autocratic big meddling government. "State's rights" was a generation ago and not their agenda anymore.

Damn your right

The entire GOP argument on abortion was it was a state right ... but was just a ploy and lie to try to get a universal ban after RvW was overturned

There was never an option for the states to take it up ..it went from "let the states decide". Directly to a push for a universal ban within weeks


GOP has abandoned States rights principles .....I'm not sure we can even call the GOP conservative any longer with the spending policies and bills and trade war tariff crap

The GOP has become an Authoritarian, big government control party .....where they control what religion a person must be to enter the US, control who a person can and can not date , marry, love , control what decisions women are allowed to make , jail those who make decisions that are against their personal morality, spend with reckless abandon to give big corporations and the already wealthy additional tax breaks, while also attempting to dismantle social programs designed to help the poor such as social security, SNAP, Medicare etc etc

 

[JTOSU]

Damn your right

The entire GOP argument on abortion was it was a state right ... but was just a ploy and lie to try to get a universal ban after RvW was overturned

There was never an option for the states to take it up ..it went from "let the states decide". Directly to a push for a universal ban within weeks


GOP has abandoned States rights principles .....I'm not sure we can even call the GOP conservative any longer with the spending policies and bills and trade war tariff crap

The GOP has become an Authoritarian, big government control party .....where they control what religion a person must be to enter the US, control who a person can and can not date , marry, love , control what decisions women are allowed to make , jail those who make decisions that are against their personal morality, spend with reckless abandon to give big corporations and the already wealthy additional tax breaks, while also attempting to dismantle social programs designed to help the poor such as social security, SNAP, Medicare etc etc

Political parties do have some odd platforms, but I think some of your “news” sources have broken you. Where is the happening?
1) controlled ”what religion must be to enter the US”
2) control “who a person can or cannot date”
3) ”dismantle Social Security”

And why do you consider it a negative for citizens to keep the money they earned?

 

[Polds4OSU]

Political parties do have some odd platforms, but I think some of your “news” sources have broken you. Where is the happening?
1) controlled ”what religion must be to enter the US”
2) control “who a person can or cannot date”
3) ”dismantle Social Security”

And why do you consider it a negative for citizens to keep the money they earned?

Trump has issued and is still running in a "Muslim ban" platform right now

Murfreesboro TN GOP led city govt passed a bill this summer banning "indecent behavior" in public ...and already had a law from the 70s that defined Homosexuality as a form of indecent behavior...therefore they made it illegal to be gay in public......they removed the homosexuality after back lash and threats of lawsuits...but made it clear their intentions to van homosexuality

A black homosexual Republican was booed and heckled last week at a Trump rally when he was an invited speaker

The GOP was once staunch supporters of providing charity and care for the underprivileged and poor in the US ..and has become the party of "I should keep the money I earn". In your own words

 

[UrbanCowboy]

I don't agree with this.

Bostock v. Clayton County was wildly unpopular with the types of folks that got him appointed to the Supreme Court.

So was McGirt v. Oklahoma.

If Gorsuch was reported as a libertarian beacon by anyone, it's because they didn't do their research. He is, and always has been a conservative textualist as a judge.....but he is much more than a political hack.

Whether or not you agree with his jurisprudential rulings and theories of interpretations, he definitely follows those standards of interpretation even when he might not personally care for the end result. A political hack first decides the end result and then will alter his jurisprudential principles however necessary to get there. That's not Gorsuch.

I've been reading Gorsuch's opinions for a long time (including his 10th Circuit decisions because that is the Federal District Oklahoma is in....so since 2006 or so). I may not agree with his jurisprudential principles and theories, but I definitely concede that he consistently adheres to those principles and theories even when he personally might not care for where those jurisprudential principles lead.

So when this goes before SCOTUS, how do you think he'd rule?

I did a deep dive into this to see what is actually being said and ruled on. It would seem that Trump's team didn't even contest that he incited insurrection: they simply stated he wasn't subject to the 14th amendment since he's running for President and President isn't one of the stated positions in the amendment and he has no duty to uphold the constitution. Is that right??

 

[CowboyJD]

So when this goes before SCOTUS, how do you think he'd rule?

I did a deep dive into this to see what is actually being said and ruled on. It would seem that Trump's team didn't even contest that he incited insurrection: they simply stated he wasn't subject to the 14th amendment since he's running for President and President isn't one of the stated positions in the amendment and he has no duty to uphold the constitution. Is that right??

I don't have any idea how he would rule.

I haven't done a deep dive into the ruling.

There are lot's of conceivable defense or objections that would be available because there is so little case law interpreting Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

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.

1. The position of President doesn't hold "an office" by arguing that those terms apply only to appointed persons not elected officials. That may have some validity because they specifically enumerate Senator or Representative in Congress distinct and separate from the "office language".

2. That someone other than the Colorado Supreme Court gets to decide the "insurrection issue" and someone accused of insurrection has his Due Process rights violated without a full blown trial proving insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. That because Congress can remove such disability, that it impliedly is the only one that determine that such disability exists.

4. That this is a non-judiciable "political question" to be left up to the "people" instead of the courts....a very rare, but not unheard of ruling of the courts.

5. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of as well.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

Trump has issued and is still running in a "Muslim ban" platform right now

The GOP was once staunch supporters of providing charity and care for the underprivileged and poor in the US ..and has become the party of "I should keep the money I earn". In your own words

Hell, he said the immigrants we're getting are 'poisoning our blood". Then when someone said that's really close to Hitler, he just said "well I never read Mein Kampf" as if that's some kind of excuse for espousing the same rhetoric.

 

[milehighpoke]

Quite the pickle. I don't like this at all if for no other reason than it opens the door to retaliation. This tit for tat has been getting worse and worse and the end is no where in sight.

That said, how are the Republicans on this board that have clamored for 'states rights' recently in regards to abortion going to turn this into suddenly "well, the federal government should weigh in"?

I would really hope that if any Democrat (or ANYBODY) tries to overthrow the United States government and subvert the will of the people, they would be thrown off the ballot as well. And then thrown in jail for life. If that's "tit for tat", then so be it. Criminals shouldn't be able to run for president of this country. Not sure why that's controversial, but here we are.

 

[Polds4OSU]

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-rages-against-colorado-ballot-ruling-reposts-judges-pictures-and-courts-address

 

[UrbanCowboy]

I would really hope that if any Democrat (or ANYBODY) tries to overthrow the United States government and subvert the will of the people, they would be thrown off the ballot as well. And then thrown in jail for life. If that's "tit for tat", then so be it. Criminals shouldn't be able to run for president of this country. Not sure why that's controversial, but here we are.

"Subverting the will of the people" to you. "Defending the rights of the people" to others.

There was an unwritten system of code of conduct in place in the Roman Republic that was called mos maiorum, for us that would be roughly the way of the elders. For a people as litigious as the Romans, I always found it interesting that they relied so heavily on an unwritten social code. Half a century before Caesar would rise to power, there was a man by the name of Gaius Marius that realized he could increase his personal sphere of influence by violating this code. His detractors would claim him a tyrant, but he would point out that no actual law was being broken. But once the mos maiorum was broken there was no going back. It was only a matter of time before Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar would use this gap to steamroll the political structure and the Empire was born.

I honest to God couldn't see those same gaps in our system. Our system was specifically built to avoid this type of scenario from playing out. But even with our founding fathers being some of the smartest men in history, they couldn't prepare for all eventualities. Trump has broken our own unwritten code. Things we took for granted now are huge question marks and making the wrong move at this time could lead us down the exact same road the Romans took that caused a century of infighting and bloodshed.

I don't know if taking him off the ballot is the right move. I don't know if allowing him free reign and letting the voters decide is the right move. But I do know that if we continue down our current path the dictator who will fill that power gap of a dysfunctional republic has already been born and is walking among us right now - not Trump, but someone with a similar disposition but more controlled temperament and a thirst for power.

I guess I'm just asking that everyone be mindful of the future unintended consequences of the actions being taken.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

View attachment 2853

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-rages-against-colorado-ballot-ruling-reposts-judges-pictures-and-courts-address

God, this is just such a good example of 'not breaking laws' mos maiorum I was talking about. Just threading that needle. Doesn't say "go get these people", but posts their photos in the hopes of that happening. It's like structuring payments to your bank to avoid federal reporting. It's done in juuuust the right way, but with completely nefarious intent.

 

[milehighpoke]

"Subverting the will of the people" to you. "Defending the rights of the people" to others.

There was an unwritten system of code of conduct in place in the Roman Republic that was called mos maiorum, for us that would be roughly the way of the elders. For a people as litigious as the Romans, I always found it interesting that they relied so heavily on an unwritten social code. Half a century before Caesar would rise to power, there was a man by the name of Gaius Marius that realized he could increase his personal sphere of influence by violating this code. His detractors would claim him a tyrant, but he would point out that no actual law was being broken. But once the mos maiorum was broken there was no going back. It was only a matter of time before Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar would use this gap to steamroll the political structure and the Empire was born.

I honest to God couldn't see those same gaps in our system. Our system was specifically built to avoid this type of scenario from playing out. But even with our founding fathers being some of the smartest men in history, they couldn't prepare for all eventualities. Trump has broken our own unwritten code. Things we took for granted now are huge question marks and making the wrong move at this time could lead us down the exact same road the Romans took that caused a century of infighting and bloodshed.

I don't know if taking him off the ballot is the right move. I don't know if allowing him free reign and letting the voters decide is the right move. But I do know that if we continue down our current path the dictator who will fill that power gap of a dysfunctional republic has already been born and is walking among us right now - not Trump, but someone with a similar disposition but more controlled temperament and a thirst for power.

I guess I'm just asking that everyone be mindful of the future unintended consequences of the actions being taken.

You may be right about a future dictator. Trump has provided the blue print, and has bucked all of the unwritten social codes.

Is the right move to coddle these a-holes? Tell them their feelings are "valid", pretend like they are "defending freedom"? Or is it to punish them all so severely (within the rule of law) that nobody would dare try anything like it again?

FAFO