https://www.google.com/search?q=col...IMBGJECGLEDGIAEGIoF&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp

 

Here ya go:

 

Clarisse is right! And everyone else is always wrong!

 

The US Supreme court gets the last word on this.
Not that it matters much. Trump couldn't win colorado any more than he could win california.

But we do see how panicked and desperate despicables are to stop trump no matter what it takes.

They've come to realize their man(woman) can't beat trump.
Or just about any deplorable for that matter. 3 MILLION ILLEGAL MIGRANTS and inflation are the main reasons why.

 

Yes Clarise is quite the emphatic expert on shit she doesn't even know.

I started out as skeptical as anyone about the 14th amendment provision. Especially since Trump has not been charged with insurrection. But then I started seeing lots of Constitutional and legal scholars explain that it does not require being indicted and/or convicted of insurrection. All it requires is a showing that someone engaged in insurrection to the point of violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

"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."

Now certainly there are many unanswered questions and no telling how the Supreme Court might rule but it already presents a problem for the conservatives on the court that claim to be "originalists." Meaning they believe the Constitution can only be interpreted by the original text. The current majority has already made several decisions based on originalism such as second amendment cases. So they will be hard pressed to come up with a rationale that the second amendment means exactly what it says but the 14th amendment doesn't. And the Constitutional and legal scholars have been saying that from the beginning. No matter how a state that is forced to take up the question rules it will end up in front of the Supreme Court and the orginalists are already cornered by their own past decisions.

And it also represents a problem for Trump as the immunity case and now this land in the Supreme Court's lap. Several different courts have now found Trump did engage in insurrection. And the Court is going to have to also look at those decisions and either concur which is the most often case or come up with some creative arguments of why they are wrong. Which they don't like to do because it makes their partisanship to obvious.

This is a lot bigger deal than know it all treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans trying to dismiss it as just left wing politics.

 

It's a boogie man! Everyone run and hide! Trump the boogie man has arrived on his chariot of fire!

 

That is so funny! Republicans only agree with the constitution when it fits their needs. Much like the bible that they interpret to fit their agenda!
This probably won't hold, but don't expect Scotus to overrule. This is state level

 

The Colorado Supreme Court decision is very carefully written straight at the Supreme Court and this is just one example. And I will try to find some more because they quoted the history of the 14th Amercement, aimed at the "originalists" on the court. But more importantly also include the evidence of how they reached the conclusion Trump engaged in insurrection. Citing Trump's statements, actions, and inactions going clear back to months before J6 and all the way up to his speech and what he did and did not do during the attack on the Capitol.

So for the Supreme Court to rule in Trump's favor they will not only have to bend over backwards they will also have to go against their own past decisions. Which will make it just glaring obvious they are nothing but right wing political hacks in the tank for Trump.




Colorado decision written to maximize pressure on Trump-appointed judges: analysis

Travis Gettys
December 20, 2023 9:39AM ET



FILE PHOTO: U.S. Supreme Court nominee judge Neil Gorsuch listens to a question as he testifies during the third day of his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 22, 2017. REUTERS/Jim Bourg/File Photo


The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the state's presidential ballot in a ruling that appears intended to put pressure on the justices he appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court ruled 4-3 that Trump is ineligible under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to run for office due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection, and the majority quoted Trump-nominated justice Neil Gorsuch in its decision – which could make things awkward when the time comes to hear that case, reported Newsweek.

"Of course the Supreme Court is going to weigh in and likely overturn the Colorado state Supreme Court's interpretation of Colorado state law," said Elie Mystal, an attorney and justice correspondent for The Nation.

"I would like to point out that they [the Colorado Supreme Court's justices] were so aware of what SCOTUS was about to do in terms of bending over backwards, that they literally quote Neil Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch when he was sitting in the federal circuit in Colorado," Mystal told MSNBC on Tuesday evening. "They quote Gorsuch for the opinion that Colorado gets to decide its own rules about who's qualified or not for ballot in Colorado."

In a case involving a naturalized American citizen who wanted to run for president, Gorsuch found that Colorado could exclude him because he did not meet the Constitution's natural-born citizen requirement.

"A state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office," Gorsuch wrote in the ruling quoted by the state Supreme Court.

That reference was included to maximize the pressure on Gorsuch and the Supreme Court's other two Trump-appointed justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, to uphold the Colorado ruling and keep the former president off the ballot, according to Mystal.

"That's a Gorsuch opinion that they quote in the thing, so if Gorsuch had any logical consistency he would likely uphold the Colorado state court's opinion, but what we're about to see if just how again hypocritical and unserious this Supreme Court is when it comes to protecting their partisan sugar daddies like Donald Trump," Mystal said.

Watch the video below or at this link.









All In with Chris Hayes
@allinwithchris
·
Follow
WATCH: @ElieNYC on why it was no accident the Colorado Supreme Court directly quoted Justice Neil Gorsuch in their decision to disqualify Trump from the 2024 ballot.












6:30 PM · Dec 19, 2023




https://www.rawstory.com/colorado-ballot-trump/

 

The despicables, from high up on their moral high ground, twirl and spew their joy at the Colorado decision keeping Trump from the ballot in Colorado for the 2024 primaries.
Only it doesn't.
Careful up there, despicables, double check your safety ropes.
It is a very long way down and your slope is slippery.

 

That's a lie.

 

No it isn't. The right loves to tell us they're all about states rights, and voting is a state controlled venture. So here you are asking the tree Federal Court's step in http a states rights issue, and thus you are not for state rights...

 

Beware of those who just make things up arguing things that have never been said. Because they cannot deal with that. So instead they just make things up that they can deal with.

The most important thing is the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump engaged in insurrection. Which other courts have also found. Trump committed crimes in his efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. And the next most important thing is this will force the Supreme Court to make the call.

Those spouting complete ignorance and right wing false propaganda don't have a clue what they are talking about. That has always been the case since the discussion Trump being barred from office under the 14th amendment first came up. There is a glitch in our Constitution and state election laws. Anyone in any state can sue to keep someone off the ballot under the 14th amendment or sue to keep someone on the ballot. Then no matter how the state court rules the parties can appeal that. Which makes it a question only the Supreme Court can settle. What does the 14th amendment really mean?


The Colorado Supreme Court decision actually has no effect at all. They stayed their decision and as it stands right now Trump will be on the Colorado primary ballot at the very least. The rest will be up to the Supreme Court.

This is one of the people who swayed my opinion on whether barring Trump from holding office under the 14th amendment is a valid argument. No one can accuse Judge Michael Luttig of being a left wing activist or even a never Trumper. His opinion is based solely on the Constitution and the overwhelming evidence Trump engaged in insurrection.


'No question' Trump 'engaged in insurrection' and should be disqualified: ex-judge

Travis Gettys
December 20, 2023 10:46AM ET



MSNBC screengrab


A former judge on Wednesday praised the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump from holding political office.

Michael Luttig, a conservative former appeals court judge, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the state's court had correctly decided the issue on its constitutional merits, and he said the U.S. Supreme Court should affirm the ruling based on the evidence against the former president.

"This is not a political question, the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court is not a political decision," Luttig said. "This is a question, and a profoundly important question, of constitutional law."

Earlier in the program, conservative attorney George Conway pointed out that special counsel Jack Smith had not charged Trump with insurrection in his election subversion case, but both he and Luttig agreed that should not matter to the U.S. Supreme Court based on the Colorado court's reading of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

"As to the discussion about the implications of [Tuesday's decision] for Jack Smith's prosecution, these matters are entirely separate," Luttig said. "If the Supreme Court decides to take this case or another under the 14th Amendment question, it's the court's resolution of that decision, that will have nothing whatsoever to do with Jack Smith's prosecution of the former president."

"You know, George Conway is a brilliant lawyer in his own right, and so I don't need to comment on his comments to you earlier this morning, but, yes, George was surprised, but I was not surprised at all," Luttig continued.

"Based upon the objective law in this instance, the 14th Amendment and Section 3, I never had any doubt in the world that when the first court to address the issue, and that is this court [Tuesday] in Colorado, that court would hold that the former president had engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States. To the court's decision [Tuesday] affirming the lower court decision, it was methodical, it was meticulous, and it was comprehensive."


"There is no question whatsoever that the Supreme Court of the United States ought to affirm that conclusion, that the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States," he added.

Watch the video below or at this link.








https://www.rawstory.com/14th-amendment-trump/

 

My hope is that Trump will not be allowed to run for re election, and that in 2024 he will be splitting rocks in a prison yard somewhere.

 

I am not sure about this poll but the results are interesting.


NEW POLL: 54% of Americans Approve of Colorado Kicking Trump Off Ballot — Including a Quarter of Republicans!
Isaac SchorrDec 20th, 2023, 3:41 pm
2236 comments



AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez

A new poll conducted by YouGov America found that 54% of Americans — and even 24% of Republicans — approved of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to kick former President Donald Trump off of its 2024 presidential primary ballot.

The court released its opinion holding that Trump was ineligible to reprise his role as president because of the 14th Amendment’s clause barring insurrectionists from holding office on Tuesday evening, concluding that the evidence brought to it “established that President Trump engaged in insurrection” by attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

While some anti-Trump stalwarts have praised the decision, many have criticized it as an attack on democracy and act of political gamesmanship. But early polling shows that a majority of Americans support the opinion. According to the YouGov survey of 3,492 respondents, 54% of the country approve of the Court’s conclusion and 38% strongly approve of it. A combined 35%, meanwhile, either strongly or somewhat disapprove of it.











Predictably, the vast majority of Democrats (84%) support Trump’s removal from the ballot. But so does a plurality of independents (48%), and even a decent proportion of Republicans (24%).

The precise wording of the question posed to participants is as follows:

Do you approve or disapprove of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump can’t appear on the state’s 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021 takeover of the Capitol amount to insurrection or rebellion against the United States?

The question is now poised to go to the United States Supreme Court, which will need to quickly rule on the issue. Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley has predicted that the decision will be overturned and even expressed hope that all nine justices might vote in lockstep, while former federal judge Michael Luttig has argued that the Coloradan jurists came to the correct decision.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-p...ff-ballot-including-a-quarter-of-republicans/

 

What is so strange from an outsider looking in to this whole affair is the judges and especially the Supreme Court judges seem to be biased to a political party...that is so wrong.

Isn't Justice supposed to be blind?.

 

First of all genius, SCOTUS can and does "step in" on states issues all the time. That does not mean they, or Shooter, are against states rights. Second, the issue is both a state and a Federal voting issue, isn't it? The state is relying on the interpretation of the 14th amendment, which falls squarely within the SCOTUS role, and it involves state law concerning the process for primaries.

Shooter knows this is all a bit sophisticated for you to absorb, so you might ask an adult to explain it further for you.

 

Oh, you're gonna source that for us aren't you american hater?

You see, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the District Court's finding that there was an insurrection and that Trump participated in it, without examining the foundation for that finding.

In fact the three dissenting votes in the case all dissented in large part because there has not been a legal finding that a) An insurrection took place, or that b) Trump participated in it.
It's called due process. Which means a COURT finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that a law violation occurred and that the defendant (Trump) was guilty of participating in the crime.
Neither Colorado's district court, the Colorado Supreme Court, or any other court of law has ruled that way.

So American hater, you are incorrect.

In point of fact, the only time Trump has been tried for insurrection was his second impeachment. You know, the second impeachment where he wasn't convicted? Which, in legal terms, means he wasn't proven guilty of engaging in insurrection?

And Minnesota already said without a LEGAL finding of an insurrection having taken place, and Trump participating in it, he couldn't be prohibited from running in that state's primary.

No matter. Get Trump is what matters, eh?

But anyone interested in following this latest attempt to get Trump can go here
Trump Disqualification Tracker | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)
And see what the states are doing about Trump being on the ballot.

 

This is a lot of what Shooter heard in New Zealand; the hell are you people doing up there?
Well, the short answer is; playing politics, the American way.

The political pundits love to raise political party when courts rule contrary to their wishes. They point out that Trump appointed so n so and of course he was going to rule in Trump's favor. Or that Obama appointed so n so and that explains why Obama got his way. Even politicians who know better play that game; IE Trump claiming he got Roe V Wade tossed.

Shooter thinks there isn't a lot of political bias when judges rule. Yes, there's some, a great example is Engeron just now.
But that's why we have such a string of appeal options in court rulings. One judge might be biased, intentionally or stupidly, but appeals courts not so much and by the time we get to SCOTUS its virtually impossible to say they issue rulings based on political agendas.

 

Yeah wouldn't want to rely on your childish response.

 

Lt. Gov. Patrick: ‘Maybe We Should Take Joe Biden Off the Ballot in Texas’


Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle” that considering the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump did not qualify their state presidential ballot, Texas should consider taking President Joe Biden off their ballot.

Discussing a new Texas law that allows police to arrest migrants who cross the border illegally, anchor Laura Ingraham asked, “The White House said today this law won’t make communities safer your response?”

Patrick said, “So, we spent a lot of time writing this bill along with the governor and we believe we have a bill that will survive any type of Supreme Court challenge because we are being invaded. Arizona tried this about 10 years ago but our law is different. it simply says that our law enforcement can arrest anyone, take them in, do a background which can photograph, do fingerprints. If they saw them cross the border illegally, we can do that or if they happen to reveal in the arrest stop that they crossed illegally. Then the magistrate will send them back and will escort them to the border. They have a choice, they go to jail or they can go back. And if they go back and dry to come back again and rearrest them again, the penalty gets even higher. We are fed up.”

He added, “Seeing what happened in Colorado makes me think — except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he’s been president disrupting our state for more than anything anyone else has done in recent history. And so so this is so outrageous. 10,000, 12,000, 14,000 people a day crossing the border. 8 million since we have been in office. It’s enough to be the 12th largest state it’s incredible.”