The ruling would be better if they disqualified him like they were supposed to.
Yeah on what planet could this possibly be the worst outcome?
The judge made up a completely bullshit reason to give him a pass.
Without persecution and martyrdom, they'll lose support. Trump has to be strong, but constantly under attack so that they can keep the mob foaming at the mouth and ready to attack anyone they want.
If you don't punish people accoriding to the law because you "fear retaliation" means the law isn't really worth the ink that it's written with or the paper that it was written on. As well as showing there is no punishment for intimidating judges or for insurrection.
my dude you've rationalized yourself into believing anyone with insane rabid fans should get to break the rules. This is a bad precedent to establish.
Literally read the amendment... It's far from established fact that the president is an "officer" of the United States.
“Commander in Chief” certainly sounds like an officer’s title.
The 14th amendment even says civil or military office. And the president is quite literally both the highest civil and the highest military office at the same time. There's no one it should apply to more than someone running for president.
Why is it an "oath of office" then? The argument is absurd.
I have no idea what you're saying because words have no meaning. I don't even know what I'm writing. Probably just gibberish, but who can say, really? What even is meaning?
The second amendment doesn't explicitly say AR15. CHECKMATE!
Gutless judge refused to follow the Consitution of the United States.
Read the Constitution yourself... It's pretty clearly not a gutless decision. The writers of the 14th amendment let us down.
The Judge stated quite clearly Trump was involved in an insurrection and the 14th Amendment applies, but she would not enforce it.
Because he's not running for president yet.
He's running for the private nomination of a private party. If he wins, he will be running for president. But states will still need to wait until he files to be on the ballot, because that's what needs to be blocked.
I don't like it either, but it's not actually crazy. Yet.
I actually buy that argument. That was a different judge in a different case in Minnesota that used that argument though. The judge in this case (Colorado) found he did engage in insurrection, and should be removed from the ballot, except bizarrely they decided the president was not a civil or military office so the 14th amendment didn't apply. It's mind boggling.
There is hope though. The finding of fact he engaged in insurrection isn't easily appealable. So we just need an appeals judge to point out that president is obviously a civil or military office (both actually).
Thanks for the clarification. It's hard to keep up with all of his cases.
Still kinda insane though considering how little time there is between the final primary and the national election, and how long it takes for lawsuits to process, and that the overall endgame is the presidency, not just being a GOP figurehead.
Agreed, but this is one of the problems with our election system - there's a long, informal wind up, during which we let these private entities use the election systems owned by the states, and then a pretty short official period.
The state by state filing deadlines spread from now-ish all the way to march.
I’m exhausted by it already and it’s not even primary season yet.
edit: the truly crazy part is that supposedly this long process is to allow voters to thoroughly vet candidates, and somehow George Santos still got through.
"Yeah he's an insurrectionist traitor, but maybe that's what Colorado wants out of a president?"
Wouldn't make a difference, because that part would still go to appeals.
The point of the article is that the one thing he can't really appeal went against him.
The ruling would be better if they disqualified him like they were supposed to.
Yeah on what planet could this possibly be the worst outcome?
The judge made up a completely bullshit reason to give him a pass.
Without persecution and martyrdom, they'll lose support. Trump has to be strong, but constantly under attack so that they can keep the mob foaming at the mouth and ready to attack anyone they want.
If you don't punish people accoriding to the law because you "fear retaliation" means the law isn't really worth the ink that it's written with or the paper that it was written on. As well as showing there is no punishment for intimidating judges or for insurrection.
my dude you've rationalized yourself into believing anyone with insane rabid fans should get to break the rules. This is a bad precedent to establish.
Literally read the amendment... It's far from established fact that the president is an "officer" of the United States.
“Commander in Chief” certainly sounds like an officer’s title.
The 14th amendment even says civil or military office. And the president is quite literally both the highest civil and the highest military office at the same time. There's no one it should apply to more than someone running for president.
Why is it an "oath of office" then? The argument is absurd.
I have no idea what you're saying because words have no meaning. I don't even know what I'm writing. Probably just gibberish, but who can say, really? What even is meaning?
The second amendment doesn't explicitly say AR15. CHECKMATE!
Get a dictionary
Gutless judge refused to follow the Consitution of the United States.
Read the Constitution yourself... It's pretty clearly not a gutless decision. The writers of the 14th amendment let us down.
The Judge stated quite clearly Trump was involved in an insurrection and the 14th Amendment applies, but she would not enforce it.
Because he's not running for president yet.
He's running for the private nomination of a private party. If he wins, he will be running for president. But states will still need to wait until he files to be on the ballot, because that's what needs to be blocked.
I don't like it either, but it's not actually crazy. Yet.
I actually buy that argument. That was a different judge in a different case in Minnesota that used that argument though. The judge in this case (Colorado) found he did engage in insurrection, and should be removed from the ballot, except bizarrely they decided the president was not a civil or military office so the 14th amendment didn't apply. It's mind boggling.
There is hope though. The finding of fact he engaged in insurrection isn't easily appealable. So we just need an appeals judge to point out that president is obviously a civil or military office (both actually).
Thanks for the clarification. It's hard to keep up with all of his cases.
Still kinda insane though considering how little time there is between the final primary and the national election, and how long it takes for lawsuits to process, and that the overall endgame is the presidency, not just being a GOP figurehead.
Agreed, but this is one of the problems with our election system - there's a long, informal wind up, during which we let these private entities use the election systems owned by the states, and then a pretty short official period.
The state by state filing deadlines spread from now-ish all the way to march.
I’m exhausted by it already and it’s not even primary season yet.
edit: the truly crazy part is that supposedly this long process is to allow voters to thoroughly vet candidates, and somehow George Santos still got through.
"Yeah he's an insurrectionist traitor, but maybe that's what Colorado wants out of a president?"
Wouldn't make a difference, because that part would still go to appeals.
The point of the article is that the one thing he can't really appeal went against him.