Colorado GOP Threatens to Go Rogue If Trump Decision Stands
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
thedailybeast.com
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.
They seem to be rather missing the point. It wouldn't matter if they switch to a caucus, he's banned from running in the state so all they would do is exclude Republicans from having a candidate for president in the general election. This is very much in the "don't threaten me with a good time" territory.
They wouldn't win the state anyway so being removed from the ballot is good for them - it makes challenging the nationwide legitimacy of the election easier.
If Trump loses, it will help him to have Fox News (truthfully!) say that millions of people who wanted to vote for him were prevented from doing so.
I bet if Trump isn't on the ballot in CO, there is a significant subset of his voters who would just not vote, with serious implications for down ballot races, especially in the House of Representatives. Think about how that would affect Lauren Boebert
Boebert is a lost cause. She only won by 500-odd votes, had almost conceded the race that night. After the latest scandal, she's done.
Might be another Republican, but it ain't going to be Traitor Barbie.
I wish that was how elections worked for regressives, or politicians in general. It isn't.
So what. They don't play by the rules. They will lie, cheat, steal, and incite insurrection no matter what rules are or aren't followed.
Trying to pander to these psychos is like trying to play a friendly game of chess with a chimp. You follow the rules, even let the chimp win but no matter what you do the chimp is just gonna throw the board across the room, throw shit at you, and then bite your face off.
Anyway, the court ruled. Just like they did in FL during the Bush v Gore election. Let's let SCOTUS do whatever they're gonna do and go from there.
If the GOP doesn't like it, they can get fucked. Or let them start their CivIL WaR and let's see how it turns out for 'em.
Wish Democratic leadership had your backbone. The GOP went ape-shit crazy in 2006 when Obama took office. Downhill since then.
Democrats have been too fucking dumb to realize they're in a fight, getting their asses kicked and the rules are out the window. Fight back. Lie, cheat and steal. Why don't they have their own propaganda arm like Fox?!
FFS, win for once. Taking the high ground isn't working, and won't when the other side doesn't recognize the rules.
I'll keep voting D, but I'm damned disappointed.
Speaking of high road ...
https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A?si=g0aCeiHjp8KsIovd
The greater concern to Republicans is that there are other issues people vote on when casting their ballot, not the just President. If their voters stay home, they could lose more than just the Presidency.
And?
He’d say that when if he lost and the viewers would still believe him.
I think the point is that a caucus is overseen by the party, not the state. I still don’t know the legality of doing it at this late stage after the primary has been agreed to and will be set on Jan 5, but that’s their thinking.
This is my favorite part though:
A whole week or two to put together a caucus.
You're not understanding. They're complaining about the primary so their solution is essentially to hold their own primary outside of state control, but he wouldn't be able to run in the general election even if he wins their primary so it doesn't matter. As things currently stand there's only two possibilities, Trump loses the primary to someone else in which case things continue as normal, or Trump wins the primary in which case the GOP wouldn't be able to run a presidential candidate in Colorado. Biden (assuming he's the DNC candidate for the general election) would run unopposed in Colorado.
Probably not earth shattering since he would likely win there even if Trump could run there, but if Trump isn't on the ballot a certain percentage of GOP voters won't bother going to the polls which will hurt the GOP in senate and congress races as well as on state votes.
Oh man your last point is important. I'm so low on confidence in the system that I'm nervous to rely on the government a tuallly excluding him from the ballot, but if he really is banned it'd be so awesome to watch gop officials freaking the fuck out as their turn out numbers drop like a meteor
Especially because lauren boebert is in a very competitive down ballot primary race that trump not getting out the voters for will hurt. Her opponents are more centrist, standard Coloradan republicans
I haven’t seen a law stating that the secretary can keep a candidate legally nominated by the party off of the ballot. There may be such a law, but I haven’t seen it mentioned. The only law I’ve seen is the one allowing them to design the primary ballot based on their own determination of eligibility. I’d be happy to read anything you have about the same type of law applying to the general.
That’s assuming that such a nomination would be legal. I’m pretty sure most places have laws that say “you must be eligible for the office in order to stand as a candidate for it.” Colorado Republicans could nominate Justin Bieber, but that wouldn’t make him eligible to be President.
The ruling is that the sec state cannot allow onto the ballot a candidate who is legally disqualified.
Not quite. The law is that the secretary cannot allow someone onto the primary ballot who is, in their opinion, disqualified. The ruling is that CO has the right to use that law to keep Trump off of the primary ballot.
I don’t know whether that law also applies to the general election ballot, but the fact that the republicans think that they can pull it out of the state’s hands and do a run around with a caucus makes me think it’s about the primaries. I don’t think they can legally switch to a caucus mid race for other reasons, but if they do they think it’s a path.
That's the dispute right now. The argument is that the Constitution commands something, and all government officers and courts are sworn to follow it. It's the same as the exclusionary rule. In the Constitution the 4th Amendment says "no unreasonable search and seizure." Doesn't say anything about the legal remedy or what to do when it happens.
The Supreme Court held that the command implies the remedy, and the command must be followed by all officers and courts.
The argument here is whether it's like that, or whether the right is only vitiated if Congress passes a statutory framework to provide a remedy. It's a dumb take and such a rule would effectively makes the Constitution meaningless.
Doesn't matter if it's the primary or general. The secretary of State creates and distributes the ballots, she cannot put Trump's name on it any more than a prosecutor could offer illegally obtained evidence. It is the prosecutor's duty to follow the command of the Fourth Amendment, same as it is the secretary's duty to follow the commands of the Constitution; she could not list someone on the ballot under 35 years of age, she cannot list an insurrectionist.
The argument would be that he's ineligible due to the 14th amendment and therefore they're just enforcing the constitution which would supercede state law anyway. That would of course be a very interesting legal question as the crux of it is is a state allowed to enforce a provision of the constitution that the federal government isn't (which is itself a state of affairs that raises all kinds of questions).
Yes exactly. That’s the argument that has already been discarded in this case. Were Trump to be found guilty of insurrection, he would be legally ineligible under the constitution. What team Trump is hoping to do is to win on the insurrection case or to delay trial until after he wins the presidency, after which he has any number of ways to escape prosecution.
However, if he is found guilty before the general ballots are set (or after, I suppose - I really don’t know that part) he would be ineligible but that would be based on a federal court ruling and not on the judgement of the secretary, I believe.
Technically the 14th amendment doesn't require him to be found guilty at trial, although it would be a much stronger argument if he was. That argument also hasn't been discarded, it's still being argued in court right now. This was just an attempt to use an alternative approach to accomplish the same thing.
Ultimately with the way things are going it's looking increasingly likely Trump won't make it to the general election. He's either going to fail to secure the primary, going to lose an insurrection case and become ineligible under the 14th amendment, or lose one of his many other criminal cases and wind up in jail. It's always possible he could campaign from a jail cell, but his already shaky chances of winning in that case go down drastically.
His strategy right now is around delaying tactics because he's frantically trying to prevent any of his court cases from wrapping up before the general election in the hope that he wins and can effectively become immune from criminal prosecution. The biggest danger to him right now though is actually his own party. On the one hand they know what kind of monster he is and would rather he just disappeared. On the other hand they're absolutely terrified of his fanatic cult members and know that Trump could easily turn them on anyone who too obviously moves against him. If they can find a way to bury Trump that can't be tied back to them they'll absolutely jump at that chance, all while decrying how terrible the situation is, and how unfortunate it is this happened to Trump.
Remember when people who employed fascist rhetoric, incited riots at Capitols, tried to destroy democracy and kill a sitting Vice President were considered terrorists by everyone and weren't to be negotiated with?
Pepperidge Farms does.
The comments in conservative communities are saying “democrats” are fascists and blaming them for shit conservatives did in the past prior to the voting rights act.
Basically flaunting their ignorance of history and the southern strategy while intentionally muddying the waters with projection. It’s gross
*dangerous ftfy
The lack of self awareness is always stupefying to me. I read the comments in the hope of perhaps seeing some room for agreement or to enlighten my understanding of other's views. There's never room and it's never enlightening.
Doubtful. They're probably back to donating money to fascists for a 1% lower tax rate.
What does that mean, they’ll have their own election with blackjack and hookers?
Don't say black in the presence of GOPers.
This has nothing to do with Melanie trump.
They're just going to take their burning cross and go home.
Plot Twist: They've already gone rogue. Right now they're just bullying to get what they want.
They can just go fuck themselves. 🖕
Right? Every threat was something they're already doing.
And from 2000-2015, democrats have been bending over.
I'm glad they're starting to recognize the BS.
Where was Dave on January 6th?
Pretty sure anyone giving comfort to Trump on this matter now is giving comfort to an insurrectionist. Time to clean house.
The goddamn constitution is the one dictating
sounds like threats from terrorists
.. The, "terrorists" From an England perspective, are the Democrats removing a presidential candidate over empty nothings. He hasn't been actually convicted and yet, this is happening.
Slippery slope, etc. etc.
They're following the specific language of the 14th amendment. That's terrorism now? It actually doesn't say he needs to be convicted of any insurrection -- it says that he needs to have participated in an insurrection. And, it provides a specific check and balance (two-thirds vote in congress) if a court is attempting to keep him off the ballot improperly.
It sounds like we have a difference of factual understanding of what happened on January 6th. Where are you getting "empty nothings"? I saw this is why I'm saying it wasn't nothing.
A judge did say he was an insurrectionist.
Not Democrats. Colorado supreme court. The plaintiffs in the case are actually Republican primary voters.
He isn't a presidential candidate yet. He's a candidate for the Republican presidential candidate
Not empty nothings, Congressional investigations show there was an insurrection, and that some groups were specifically planning for this day.
The 14th amendment by design does not require a conviction, as it was made to bar confederates. This clause has only been applied in situations without convictions, actually.
Maybe you need to go read the 14th amendment and also the rulings.
The legal process was followed. The courts decided. Don't like it? Tough shit.
I didn't like it when the SCOTUS said to stop counting and give the election to Bush.
Nice concern trolling, lmao.
That's not an England perspective. It's a moron perspective. I'm betting there are quite a few people in England who are at least a little less idiotic.
From an Australian perspective, yeah, nah.
The Colorado Supreme Court is 'the Democrats' now?
Lol. U mad bro?
Colorado has literally done exactly this before to keep a non-natural born citizen off the ballot, and none other than Judge Gorsuch decided that case. In his ruling he wrote that the state has a right to conduct their elections in a way to ensure their stability and in accordance with their laws. Thomas ruled the same way in Bish v Gore, and the SC ruled the same way while overturning key provisions in the Voting Rights Act.
I wonder what the difference is this time that would make conservatives do a full reverse and say states cannot control their own elections?
If it was nothing how come people went to Jail for Insurrection?
How dumb can you be
He doesn't need to be convicted
do it then. no one's afraid of you. y'all threaten a civil war every time the waiter forgets your ranch. we're done capitulating to threats. do it or shut the fuck up.
So eloquently put by the chairman of the party of Christian family values.
Well, they can do their caucus thing as they like. As long as Trump will not appear on the ballot, I'm fine with it.
The courts decision is a bit wonky, though. I don't consider "being the candidate for party X" an "office, civil or military, of the United States", so banning him from the primaries is (IMHO) unwarranted. On the other hand, the court admits that Trumps actions are valid reasons to invoke A14, so removing him from the ballot papers for November would be justified. And that is the only place that counts.
Luckily for you, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch already ruled on that precise topic when he was a Colorado judge. A foreign born man who had become a US citizen, a person who is ineligible by default, still insisted he should have the right to run for president even if he can't take office.
Gorsuch ruled that the state had a responsibility to prevent anyone who is ineligible for office from even being allowed on the ballot.
His decision was even cited in Trumps ruling.
And that makes sense. If a person can't legally hold the office, it's letting people waste their votes by allowing that person to remain on the ballot.
You might argue that people should know all about who they're voting for, but we all know that's not the case.
He didn't actually rule on this. There was no question of eligibility in that case, it was just whether being ineligible for the position gave the state the right to block him from the ballot. This one will hinge on whether or not the amendment applies to trump. And based on the wording of the amendment, unfortunately, they have multiple ways to reasonably argue it does not, and we all know the conservative majority will rule he is eligible.
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
Can't hold any office. Pretty plain.
If by the 14th he is not eligible for the presidency outside of 2/3rds of Congress voting to waive that, then why the fuck should he be on the ballot? It’s pointless.
That’s like saying I’m banned from a venue but keeping me from getting in line to enter is unfair and unwarranted.
Do you hear yourself? I guess you think you know better than the high courts lmao
If there's one good thing to have come from Trump, it is that he has exposed how terrible at making laws, the politicians have been
that's the part that irks me the most about modern American politics.
30% of the current House and 51% of current Senators have law degrees. these are supposed "experts"; you'd think they would be able to write better laws...
The relevant laws were written hundreds of years ago, by people who probably thought the meaning was obvious.
Because the Republicans should be able to do whatever they want in their candidate selection process, all the way up to and including running a disqualified candidate. It's their club and they can run it however they like.
They should be allowed to choose the candidate but the state shouldn't be forced to put him there. He's disqualified. It should be equivalent to the party dropping out of the race if they pick him...
That's exactly what should happen.
You want to nominate a dog to run for president? You want to nominate a fictional character to run for president? You want to nominate a dead person to run for president?
Go ahead.
The state is not obligated to put that nominee on the ballot because that nominee is 100% ineligible to hold the office of president.
Although thinking about it, it WOULD be hilarious if he was on the ballot while being absolutely for-sure barred from office. At least unless he somehow won, then the evil Republicans would whip up the moronic conservatives and we'd have ourselves an actual civil war...
Yeah, it's more than just a social club electing a leader, though. It's quite literally our nation sorting out our presidential elections. I think some legal boundaries outside the norm are in order for these two particular "clubs."
You go ahead and make Trump the leader of your rotary club, though.
I reluctantly agree with this. If they want to nominate or even elect a candidate that cannot serve, so be it. When the time comes to take office, the person with the most votes that is qualified to serve should take the office.
I love that instead of doing any type of introspection about letting someone that has been channeling Hitler in his campaign rails, and tried to overthrow the US government to remain in power represent your political party, they just want to change the rules basically making the choice for the voters that might want a real candidate.
They WANT the strongman in power. That's the point. They're terrible people who want to do terrible things.
Just seems at this point no matter your drive for bad intentions you would see Trump is poison for anyone in his orbit. Bill Barr (somehow ) and his Generals (that had to stop him from launching missiles into Mexico) seem to be the only ones that held any top positions without being part of an investigation of some sort. The party is full of terrible people, seems like it would be easier to find a Hitler nobody knows/suspects like they did in Congress.
I think they see a useful personality. Hard to build a cult of personality when normally, your best orrators come across like a prudish pastor trying to do calculus while receiving head...
But probably better to find one that can wait to do all the crime AFTER they seize complete control of the government. Right now you have a good chance of being charged if you step into his orbit because he can't stop committing crimes and then doubling down them when confronted (like his defamation case where once he was done he doubled down and set himself up for another).
Yea, but my point is: look what they're working with. Frigging Mike Pence was picked to counter the less scrupulous parts of Trump's character.
It's Trump, because every other Republican is quite literally too stupid, obviously evil, or too boring. Or a mixture of the three in most cases.
That's always the problem with fascists being effective: They're very lame people.
Pence was to get the gullible Christian vote, then quickly after Trump learned it was about being racist, not religion at all, and stopped even pretending to care about religion or Pence.
That's completely wrong. Remember the whole posing with the (upside down) bible in front of the church?
That was years in...
Good luck? He's still not going to be on the ballot or eligible for a write in campaign.
This is only the primary ballot. He'd still appear on the final ballot if nominated by the party.
Really? I don't remember anything like that from the 14th. If he's ineligible he won't appear on any ballot in that state.
It’s apparently what the court ordered. I haven’t read it though.
And if the state Supreme Court agreed they wouldn't have reversed the lower court.
You're setting yourself up to be sorely disappointed when the scotus rules that he is eligible and they can't remove him from the ballot, and the argument will be completely reasonable based on the he stupid wording of the amendment.
Oh? So you buy that line that the President is not an officer of the government?
Yes, it’s a sound and well-reasoned legal argument which has been adopted by the Supreme Court and was relied upon by the Court less than 15 years ago.
Was it "Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)"?
Because we already talked about how that case wasn't about the president in anything more than their supervisory powers over appointees.
Considering the scotus has already ruled that we don't elect officers in the US...yes, I do find that argument to be reasonable.
I'm assuming you have a source for that?
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/#:~:text=Accounting%20Oversight%20Bd.%20(2010),Article%20II%2C%20Section%202%20procedures.
It links to the SCOTUS case.
Alright. That's not how SCOTUS rulings work. They aren't word for word law like a bill. So the observation of what an officer is in regards to presidential supervision is exactly that. The holding was that they could not protect an appointee from being fired by using other appointees as a cut out. But only in that case for reasons of breadth of impact and functionally creating law by regulation. It is not an opinion on whether or not the President is an officer under the 14th amendment.
Which Reason does actually point out; more than I expected from them. But they are right that there will be arguments in front of the court over it if the case is accepted. To say that's required is kind of a duh moment. Nobody goes to the SCOTUS and just shrugs.
Smells like bullshit around here.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/#:~:text=Accounting%20Oversight%20Bd.%20(2010),Article%20II%2C%20Section%202%20procedures.
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...
Pretty clear. Hold any office. He can't hold any office.
Unlikely.
I wish I had your optimism.
So are we just downvoting things we don't want to hear now?
As a non-US citizen I'm curious to know the arguments for both sides...just sticking my fingers in my ears and singing "la la la can't hear you" ain't gonna change the result...no matter which way it goes.
So, for the curious, why is this reply wrong? Do we think a republican weighted Scotus that overturned Roe v Wade would allow their sponsor to get ruled out of the election?
Go ahead, lol. Vote for someone who can't be president.
Colorado GOP: removes trump from ballot. Also Colorado GOP: rages that trump was removed from ballot.
“snowflake” doesn’t even begin to describe the level of self-flagellation the GOP have for themselves.
seek therapy, GOP.
If they try to still put him on the ballot, Colorado should treat it as if he isn't on there and announce the second place Republican as the winner for the state's primary.
The republicans literally can’t put him on the ballot. They don’t print the ballots.
Oh, I'm sure they'd still try something incredibly dumb.
They'll just tell people to write Trump in.
Tldr..
Wtf does that even mean in context of his job position?
Honestly I'm of two minds about it.
One, faith by the electorate in the process of elections is part of democracy. I genuinely don't think it's reasonable to tell 60 million Trump supporters that those of them that live in Colorado aren't allowed to vote for the man. I get that the letter of the law is that he tried to invade the congress and kill the vice president to keep himself in power, which is a crime that in any civilized society would keep him off the ballot not to mention behind bars, but this is actually a rare instance where I think "but they'll get really mad about it" is a viable reason not to do it. Or, at least do it on a national level, since the idea of an election where certain candidates are or aren't on the ballot differently in different states is obviously undemocratic and will clearly lead to retaliation in kind by the GOP which will step us a little further towards a civil war.
Two, fuck it. They're already rogue. They tried to kill the vice president. We're in a fight for the survival of democracy in this country and it's nice to see the boundaries being pushed by the people who aren't the ones kicking out the supporting timbers.
Fuck 'em. The only thing they don't get mad about is fascism winning. A majority of Republicans already believe elections in this country are illegitimate simply because their orange messiah didn't win. We're past the point of sitting down and having a reasonable conversation.
There's a book called How Democracies Die that goes into quite a lot of detail as to how this situation has played out historically.
Basically, it's a nasty situation. The reality of life is, everyone can just get up and do whatever they want to do. A judge can decide he's a Trump supporter and stop prosecuting Trump supporters if they attack people in the streets. A general can decide he will or won't deploy the military against the citizens when the leader orders him to. The military rank and file can obey or not. A lot of "the rules" that constrain people's behavior and keep democracy running are totally made up, and there's a bad, bad problem that happens when people start to abandon the rules.
So, what do you do when the fascists are abandoning the rules? There's an obvious answer: fight back in kind. Add some seats to the supreme court. Kick Trump supporters out of congress. Have the secretary of state decide that a state where polling locations in Democratic areas didn't get enough ballots, should have gone to the Democrats. If the Republican secretaries of state have been doing the same on Trump's side, and the alternative is losing the election, then that's a pretty sensible option.
Except, it's not. As a general rule, if the non-fascist side starts abandoning the rules in kind in order to fight back against the fascist side that is abandoning the rules, then the slippery slope down towards open war accelerates by quite a lot. Generally, the two things that can save a democracy that finds itself in this situation are:
It's a little counterintuitive. But that's what the book says. Now, is kicking Trump off the ballot "breaking the rules"? I honestly don't know. Technically it's 100% legal. But a lot of things are technically legal, including Republican state legislatures turning in vote totals that don't match the will of the voters. Like I say, I'm of two minds about it, but the bottom line is it's not quite as simple as "fuck 'em I don't care." Because "fuck 'em I don't care" energy is what starts civil wars.
I'd argue commentary like yours is a greater hindrance to a reasonable conversation than the republicans are. You're capable of being rational but are willingly refusing to.
And queue the Dems throwing down votes at a someone paying them a compliment and ironically proving my point...
Every time I see/hear someone say this, I am reminded of the phrase, “You cannot reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into”. It also doesn’t help that the republicans in power have shown us, over and over, that they are not acting/arguing in good faith.
Having a reasonable conversation and trying to remain rational when faced with those two factors is very difficult, at best, and puts you at a significant disadvantage, at worst.
That being said, I don’t really have any better ideas other than to stick to my ideals and try to be rational/reasonable.
My comment had almost exactly nothing to do with republicans... I implied they aren't capable of being reasonable/rational, but the point was really about Dems, and their lack of being reasonable/rational not because they can't, but because they just decide not to.
...and I got the downvotes... Didn't sound like a Democrat, so I must be a repub, because that's just how Dems work now.
You seem uncharacteristically reasonable though, so I replied to you just to say that :)
I think a lot of dems have decided it’s time to play the same game the republicans are playing. A sort of “if they won’t play by the rules, why should we?” mentality.
I don’t know if I like or agree with that, but I can certainly understand why someone would make that choice. That’s what I was trying to get at with my previous comment.
Thing is, Dems are playing by the rules. It just feels different because it is different. There's an actual realization we have to fight for this thing and not just fret and tut-tut.
I'm so tired of wrung hands being a badge of honor among Democrats. Show me something more than a different flavor of thoughts and prayers. Tell me what you did (congress person).
You're not getting downvotes because people are irrational or salty, you goon. You're getting downvotes because you're saying dumb shit.
"you're not being polite enough to the mob of wannabe fascists" isn't a reasonable position anymore.
It never was. It's just Liberals LOVE their civility politics. If they couldn't clutch pearls, they might realize the world has enough problems without the imagined ones like naughty words...
I am being rational. I'm just not playing their dumbass civility politics games anymore.
Okay, Neville Chamberlain.
Yes, calling fascists fascists is a much greater hindrance than Republicans saying things like trans people are corrupting the youth or that rich people deserve the most breaks.
I get that you’re saying that it doesn’t feel fair to you, but that’s not how the law works. We might want the law to meet our sense of fair play, but there’s a ton of questions about balancing interests and precedent and so on.
The constitution itself places limitations on who can run for president. Is it fair that Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t run for office even if people want to vote for him? Maybe, but it’s illegal. Of a genius and charismatic 29 year old entrances the country with her brilliant rhetoric and would clear 90% of the popular vote and unite the nation, she also cannot become president. Is that fair to the electorate or our young genius? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s constitutional, and it’s the law.
CO law states that primary candidates must be people eligible for election to the office as judged by the state. This law has already been used to keep someone off the ballot. In a decision decided by Gorsuch himself, it was held that states have the right to make those calls.
In addition, the feds have almost always defaulted to allowing the states to decide how to conduct their elections and have stated that the feds have no constitutional authority to dictate how they conduct elections. This was how Bush v Gore was decided, along with the Boting Rights Act and other cases. Except in the case of violating something like equal protection, the feds stay out of it. Sitting members of the current court decided those cases.
So the Foinding Fathers didn’t think that just anyone should be allowed to run and the people should decide. Case law backs the idea that states can set their own rules. Trump is disqualified in the opinion of Colorado by virtue of having engaged in insurrection, and even the previous ruling, which would allow Trump on the ballot, did not challenge that finding. They just said that the law doesn’t apply to the president of the United States. It was a bad, bad ruling.
The sc can’t even grant a stay without overruling CO election law, which I believe says the ballots must be set by Jan 5, and the self-imposed stay already runs through the 4th.
Love your answer! But I'll argue one thing.
Knowing the judgment would be appealed, no matter what, the lower court found Trump guilty of insurrection as a fact. On appeal, this fact cannot be argued or tested again. It stands.
Brillant legal maneuver. She put Trump in an inescapable box. And here we are.
I'm just joining in to say I'm worried the Supreme Court is going to ignore that fact and make a decision that favors the party. They'll even find a way to spin it that the decision only applies to the GOP
Yeah. Law's not like computer code. The details of all the rules and precedent are a critical side to be aware of, but judges also have to balance the letter of the law against the obvious justice of the situation all the time. If it were just as simple as researching and following the rules to the letter, it'd be a lot simpler profession. But if you've ever been in court for any length of time you'll see (or at least my experience has been) that the judge generally has one eye always firmly fixed on what's actually the right thing to do. Surprisingly so. Exercising, well, judgement on where to draw the line -- not just throwing out the letter of the law based on "eh I don't feel like this outcome is right" but being willing to depart from the letter of the law if something clearly wrong is happening in front of you -- is one of the most critical parts of what your job is as a judge.
I'm not really experienced enough at law to come at it from any standpoint other than "what's the right thing." I'm aware that as a matter of law, she's on completely solid ground. I think though that in the actual practice of how judges are supposed to do their jobs, those two things aren't as widely separate from each other as they might seem.
No. He didn't. Tonnes of us not even in your slowly becoming joke of a country, know that isn't true.
Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!
-Source
-Source
It's common in organized crime to use vague language in order to request crimes to be committed, so that there's no literal statement "I need you my supporters to please kill the vice president for me." Nonetheless, the communication is understood by both the speaker and listener to mean that that's what he wants to be done. Usually it's actually a lot less subtle than that collection of facts. If you don't agree with my interpretation, though, how would you characterize that set of facts? What do you think was what Trump wanted his supporters to do?
Dude your post history follows US politics way too hard for anyone to believe you're not part of said country. Don't talk like you're speaking from a foreigner perspective.
The "my socials" link on his profile also leads to some kind of (Mastodon instance?) server with a banner that alternates between "rape" "gore" "removed" in a kind of "Eat at Joe's" type of rotation. I wouldn't get your hopes up that he's gonna go anywhere beyond "grrr look at me I'm so edgy, I'm saying offensive things! I'm hardcore".
Edit: removed was the N word
My goodness, you say a lot of ignorant things.
Unfortunately, you're completely wrong about that:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/25/trump-expressed-support-hanging-pence-capitol-riot-jan-6-00035117
"Meadows then left the dining room and informed other people nearby that Trump had signaled a positive view of the prospect of hanging the vice president, the panel heard."
I went back and checked, and you've had time to update your profile picture, but not to respond to my comment with anything factual.
I fully anticipate some kind of snarky taking-a-superior-tone response (or silence), that still isn't anything connected to factual reality or directly addressing what I said. Blah blah Sartre anti-semites
Democrats and Republicans have turned every issue into a state issue so only counts in the state that says it
Ununited States of America says if a state says so it goes even if it is against federal law been going this way for a while now
this will be just like cannabis and abortion and insurance both medical auto and otherwise notary laws work this way too if you win the geographic lottery then your state rights are this but if born over there your rights are that America nothing to do with voting some of us are not allowed to even vote because of the state's rights issues so now trump will be legal in these states and not those states and will still be on the ballot depending on your location like abortion and cannabis and insurence and certain jobs
state's rights "trump" all around here even over federal federal law is seen as a guideline by the states and is only used if it favors the state including food environmental work pay/ safety laws you name it
this ruling means nothing anywhere but Colorado and whatever states decide the same will not affect the federal guidelines just like everything else
demopublicans are already rogue and do whatever they please already with no thought to how the citizens vote or feel on matters
You going to provide any evidence to back up this claim?
https://truthout.org/articles/a-federal-court-will-decide-whether-atlanta-voters-could-have-a-say-on-cop-city/
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/12/19/future-of-marijuana-legislation-uncertain-as-both-house-and-senate-wont-reconvene-until-2024/
https://truthout.org/articles/12-journalists-arrested-44-assaulted-across-the-us-this-year/
the list goes on and on for both parties
I see nothing in any of those articles that is an indictment of democrats as a whole, i see an article about general city scummery, a red state doing red state shit, and an article about republicans doing fascism.
You've not made your case.