Trump this.

[TX-Beau]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday disqualified former President Donald Trump from the ballot in the state’s presidential election next year over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters...

MSN

If only it was AZ or MI

 

[TX-Beau]

A top legal expert predicts the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold Tuesday evening’s Colorado Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision that Donald Trump violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by engaging in insurrection and is disqualified from holding public office, including the presidency. As a result, the court ruled, he is disqualified from the Colorado ballot...

MSN

If this is left to stand, it will be because Toad can't win Colorado no matter what happens anyway.

 

[rareboy]

Are there any other states that then might follow?

 

[KaraBulut]

Are there any other states that then might follow?

Election law is the domain of the States but if the Supreme Court upholds Colorado's decision, other States will likely exclude Trump.

The curious thing is that the Constitution says that they can't hold office. It doesn't explicitly say they cannot be on a ballot for office.

If the Supreme Court does uphold Colorado's decision, then the next domino may be MTG, Cruz and all those members of Congress who were texting Mark Meadows after Nov, 2020.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

 

[opinterph]

The curious thing is that the Constitution says that they can't hold office. It doesn't explicitly say they cannot be on a ballot for office.

If an individual is ineligible from holding a particular office, then that person’s name cannot appear on the ballot selecting the person to hold that office.

… Because his is disqualified, if would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

​

[Colorado] Supreme Court Case No. 23SA300​

​

 

[KaraBulut]

If an individual is ineligible from holding a particular office, then that person’s name cannot appear on the ballot selecting the person to hold that office.

​

Keep in mind that SCOTUS has been packed with "Originalists" who claim that only the original text of the Constitution and historical reference can be used for interpreting the Constitution.

If we read the text as written, it says that someone who has violated a previous oath to the Constitution by participating in an insurrection, they cannot take the same oath of office again without Congressional exemption. That implies that they can run for office but that Congress would have to approve the "disability" before they can hold office. That is what happened after the Civil War with former Confederates like General James Longstreet.

It's a weakness that the text doesn't distinguish between elected offices and appointments and it doesn't address the ballot specfically.

It's kind of like that game of "Your exact words" from the Brady Bunch and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Federalist appointees use Originalism to weasel out of ruling to allow the insurrectionists to run for office, which would punt the issue to a later case and to Congress.

 

[opinterph]

someone who has violated a previous oath to the Constitution by participating in an insurrection

Who should decide that someone is guilty of participating in an insurrection?

 

[KaraBulut]

Who should decide that someone is guilty of participating in an insurrection?

That's an interesting question.

So far, members of Congress have said that Trump participated in an insurrection during the second impeachment when they claimed they didn't have the authority to convict him because he was already out of office by then.

Several courts, including the Colorado courts, have found that Trump participated in an insurrection.

The DOJ has convicted other participants in the Jan 6th riot of "seditious conspiracy" under 18 U.S. Code § 2384..

Trump hasn't been charged or convicted of seditious conspiracy.... yet...

 

[rareboy]

^ Watch them all weasel out of it.

The current court likely still sees Trump as their useful tool...he has shaped it.

A Republican Congress would not hesitate to find ways to enable Trump because they want all three branches of government in order to serve their owners.

I am thinking that no other states will take on his exclusion from the ballot until Trump is charged with and found guilty of seditious conspiracy at the federal level.

At the moment I am holding my breath while the question of immunity from prosecution is heard by the SC. If the majority decides that Trump, as President, is protected by immunity, the American experiment is over and done with.

 

[smokeshadow]

here's another expert's opinion

US Supreme Court Will Uphold Trump Disqualification Predicts Top Legal Expert

A top legal expert predicts the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold Tuesday evening’s Colorado Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision that Donald Trump violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by engaging in insurrection and is disqualified from holding public office, including the...

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

 

[KaraBulut]

here's another expert's opinion

US Supreme Court Will Uphold Trump Disqualification Predicts Top Legal Expert

A top legal expert predicts the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold Tuesday evening’s Colorado Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision that Donald Trump violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by engaging in insurrection and is disqualified from holding public office, including the...

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

Neal Katyal, liberal former acting Solicitor General, Lawrence Tribe Harvard Constitutional law professor and Michael Luttig, conservative retired judge, are of the opinion that the 14th amendment prevents Trump from running again.

Worth noting- some of these suits winding their way through the State Courts are being initiated by Republicans who don't want Trump to be on the ballot again.

Everyone seems to agree that Trump is guilty of insurrection. Everyone seems to agree that SCOTUS is going to take the case.

Personally, I have that same uncertainty that I had when SCOTUS took up Bush v Gore. Who knows what those politicians with lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court will come up with on this one.

 

[TX-Beau]

If they are going to step in and quibble, it won't be over a 'Pubby guaranteed loss like Colorado. They'll step in somewhere like Michigan, that actually would deny Toad the Electoral College outright.

 

[TX-Beau]

Are there any other states that then might follow?

Yes, there are several other places where this is in the courts.

 

[TX-Beau]

Who should decide that someone is guilty of participating in an insurrection?

Depends on who you are.

 

[TX-Beau]

If they are going to step in and quibble, it won't be over a 'Pubby guaranteed loss like Colorado. They'll step in somewhere like Michigan, that actually would deny Toad the Electoral College outright.

Let's not forget that precedent means nothing in this court, they will apply the law one way in Colorado, another way in Arizona, and yet another way in Michigan.

Just because they say one thing now, they don't seem to feel any necessity to think that tomorrow.

 

[rareboy]

Let's not forget that precedent means nothing in this court, they will apply the law one way in Colorado, another way in Arizona, and yet another way in Michigan.

Just because they say one thing now, they don't seem to feel any necessity to think that tomorrow.

Which is also why I am uncertain as to how a Republican court will rule...but I suspect they will be looking in each case at some nuance in the wording that allows them to punt.

It is a good point that some of the suits are being brought by Republicans...but unless it is at least one key swing state...it is likely too late for them to get Trump out of the way in order to let another candidate emerge who can win.

So at some point, they will prefer to do whatever is necessary to get the White House.

And the Roberts Court is there to rule the way their anti-democratic corporate and institutional owners tell them to rule

 

[TX-Beau]

...In more than 30 challenges across the country, plaintiffs have argued that Trump should be barred from holding office under the 14th Amendment. It prohibits those who have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution — which Trump did when he was first inaugurated — from serving in office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the US...

MSN

That's active litigation to disqualify Toad in 16 states that include AZ, MI, and WI - any one of which would cost Toad the Electoral College.

 

[rareboy]

The moment that one of these costs him the college...or any collectively that cost him the college...then the GQP will wake the fuck up...but it is too late unless they really think they can win with Chris Christie....

It is now for all intents and purposes...2024.

 

[TX-Beau]

They aren't going to wake up, they don't plan to let the vote matter.

 

[KaraBulut]

The moment that one of these costs him the college...or any collectively that cost him the college...then the GQP will wake the fuck up...but it is too late unless they really think they can win with Chris Christie....

It is now for all intents and purposes...2024.

No, they will wake up when the money faucet dries up.

The RNC re-elected Ronna McDaniel as chair because she brings in big donor money. Ronna has been trying to walk a tightrope because she's afraid that Trump will start a third party which would mean that she has money but not enough voters to win national races.

If Trump is taken off the ballot, it bails Ronna out. They will then scramble to try to get Haley as the candidate because that is who some of the big donors are already lining up behind.