We see that the secretary of state in Colorado has certified the 2024 deplorable ballot.
Trump is on the ballot.

 

Trump is on the ballot in CO for the time being...

"The Colorado Supreme Court concluded in a divided, 4-3 decision on Dec. 19 that Trump is disqualified from serving as president because of his conduct related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and barred him from being listed on the state's primary ballot. But the state's high court paused its decision to allow the former president and the Colorado GOP time to appeal. "

Now we wait for the SCOTUS. "Should be wild"

 

Trump should not be allowed to run because of the stench he gives off when his diapers are not changed.

 

So Haba says Kavanaugh is in the bag for Trump. I wonder how Justice Kavanaugh feels about that? Will he prove her right? One thing for sure all eyes are on him now.



Jamie Raskin Blasts Alina Habba’s Odd Comments About Brett Kavanaugh: ‘This Is the Way New York Mobsters Think’
Michael LucianoJan 5th, 2024, 11:05 pm
637 comments

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) did not mince words when addressing some highly unusual comments by a lawyer representing former President Donald Trump.

Appearing on Fox News on Thursday, Trump attorney Alina Habba predicted that the Supreme Court would restore her client’s name on presidential ballots in states that removed it. Officials and Colorado and Maine cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from office those who have engaged in “insurrection” against the U.S. Those states concluded that Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election – which culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot – meet the criteria.

At one point, Habba oddly name-checked Justice Brett Kavanaugh and claimed he would “step up” for Trump.


“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court,” Habba said. “I have faith in them. You know, people like [Brett] Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up. Those people will step up.”

Raskin addressed her comments Friday night on MSNBC, just hours after the Supreme Court said it would hear Trump’s case.

“Well, this is the way that New York mobsters think about judges,” he said. “Yeah, we own that one. We own that one. Get in that court. That guy’s in our pocket. And for fascists and authoritarian parties and movements, the law is really not what you know, but it’s who you know. And it’s always better for them to know the judge than to know the law. But to know the law here is to understand that Donald Trump is disqualified.”


Raskin added that disqualification due to insurrection is no different from constitutional disqualifications on other grounds.

“And there’s nothing undemocratic about it, which is why I keep hearing from the far precincts of the right,” he continued. “It’s no more undemocratic than saying that you’ve gotta be 35 years old to be president, which means that there are a lot of qualified Democrats and Republicans and independents who simply can’t run because they’re not qualified under the Constitution – just like a lot of people born abroad don’t meet the native birth qualification. ”

Watch above via MSNBC.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jamie-r...augh-this-is-the-way-new-york-mobsters-think/

 

Oh, this is rich.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The difference between disqualifying Trump and disqualifying, say, Ocasio Cortez is that in Cortez's case, she is self admittedly not 35 years of age or older. Disqulifying Trump on the other hand requires a leap from accusation to guilty without benefit of court proceeding, grand jury proceeding, trial, conviction et al.

In other words, the only way Raskin's stupid analogy carries any validity is if they declared Biden couldn't run because he isn't 35 years old or older.

So, lie.

Which is exactly what they've been doing since Trump came down the escalator.

 

Trump's 'fatuous' SCOTUS argument tantamount to admitting defeat: conservative ex-judge

Kathleen Culliton
February 5, 2024 7:57PM ET



Retired judge and and informal advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, J. Michael Luttig, testifies during the third hearing of the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the US Capitol. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)




Former federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig was stunned by a "cynical" defense filed by former President Donald Trump in the Supreme Court case challenging his eligibility to appear on Colorado's ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban.

Luttig, a Republican who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, took to the social media site "X" on Monday evening to explain his shock at the arguments made by the former president's attorneys, which he argued were tantamount to admitting defeat.

"I would not have made the revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical, concluding argument that the former president and his lawyers made to the Supreme Court in their Reply Brief today," Luttig wrote.

Read Also: Why Donald Trump should absolutely fear the 14th Amendment

"I would consider this argument tantamount to an acknowledgment that the former president and his lawyers have all but concluded that their arguments have become so weakened by the briefing of respondents and their supporting amici that they believe the Supreme Court is likely to hold the former president is disqualified."

Luttig likened the argument that not even the Supreme Court has the authority to disqualify Trump to an "eleventh-hour, Hail Mary."

"[N]either the Colorado Supreme Court nor this Court can declare a candidate ineligible for the presidency now based on a prediction of what Congress may or may not do in the future," the argument reads. "Nor can a court deprive a presidential candidate of the opportunity to petition Congress."

Lawfare journalist Roger Parloff was surprised to see Trump argue he could not be disqualified until after Jan. 20, 2029.

Parloff quoted attorney Richard Bernstein, who wrote an amicus brief for Luttig, saying, "It reminds one of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass: "Jam tomorrow and jam yesterday--but never jam today."

Vocal Trump critic George Conway was also among those not impressed.

"Bizarre," he wrote. "And a sign of weakness."



https://www.rawstory.com/michael-luttig-trump-supreme-court/

 

Appeals court hinted Trump may be disqualified under 14th Amendment: conservative ex-judge

Sarah K. Burris
February 6, 2024 7:12PM ET



Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump addresses a campaign rally in the basement ballroom of The Margate Resort on January 22, 2024 in Laconia, New Hampshire (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)




Retired former Judge Michael Luttig, a conservative, has advocated that Donald Trump is ineligible to serve as president based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. But now he thinks he has the encouragement of the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals behind him.

Speaking to MSNBC's Ali Velshi on Tuesday, the two referred to the recent decision to strike down Trump's argument for "presidential immunity" from criminal prosecution. In that decision, Luttig said, is a hint that refers back to the 14th Amendment case.

Unlike former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, Luttig thinks the Supreme Court will take up the case from the D.C. circuit.

ALSO READ: 0-for-1,668: Senators extend their streak of never punishing other senators

He and other legal colleagues penned an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing against the idea of absolute immunity for any president. If the Supreme Court does weigh in, Luttig says that the one place such immunity cannot be applied is in the attempt to block the transfer of power.

"But if there's one single instance in which he or she is not immune, it is where, as here, with the former president, he or she attempted to remain in power in violation of the Executive Vesting Clause of the Constitution preventing the peaceful transfer of power and denying his successor, in this instance President Joe Biden, the powers of the presidency to which he had rightfully become entitled," said Luttig.

That's where the argument before the court over the Colorado general election ballot comes into play.

"My colleagues and I made the same argument as to our point that the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States when he attempted to remain in power beyond his four-year term, depriving his successor of the rightful powers of the presidency," Luttig explained. "So, today's decision by the D.C. Circuit did not hold that the president is arguably disqualified from the presidency under the 14th Amendment, but it did speak very pointedly to the argument that he might be disqualified under the 14th Amendment."

Parsing the distinction, Luttig explained that the D.C. court didn't weigh in on the 14th Amendment case, rather they spoke to what Trump is alleged to have done that would violate Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

And they did so "in the context of its opinion that no president would ever be immune from prosecution for that. Now it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the former president's insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States when he attempted to remain in power beyond his four-year term and deprive his successor Joe Biden of the powers of the presidency or attempted to — whether that is an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment."

Luttig's amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment makes the case that it is, and they do so using several arguments, one of which is the "originalist" and "textual" way that judges like Samuel Alito prefer. Historians filed their own brief as well, walking through the history of the arguments from the founding fathers in Section 3.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the Colorado case on Thursday, determining whether Trump can appear on the ballot.

Read the brief from Luttig, et. al at the Supreme Court site here.

See the interview with him below or at the link here.




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

 

Is anyone else listening to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on section 3 of the 14th amendment. Now I know you can never try to predict how individual justices might vote. In fact it seems sometimes their questions are misdirection of what they really think and will decide. But its still really fascinating to get right down in the Constitutional weeds including sometimes debating the meaning of a single word.

I am listening to it on MSNBC but I am sure many other networks are carrying it.

 

Most legal experts and Supreme Court observers are saying there are at least five and maybe nine justices that are going to rule against Colorado. It will be interesting to see what kind of pretzel logic they come up with so they don't have to deal with the real issue of Trump inciting an insurrection but they sure shot a bunch of big holes in Colorado's arguments.

 

Do you hear that sound ?
It's the Never Trumpers heads exploding

 

I think Norma Anderson is the best thing I've seen come out of the Colorado ballot case. We have always been on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But have the same view and I would say love for the United States of America and reverence for our Constitution. But that will not be enough to save her case. And I am not sure a better lawyer that presented a better case for Colorado would have helped all that much either. Everyone seems to agree the Colorado attorney Jason Murray put on a really bad case and the Trump lawyer was really good. But even if those were reversed there seemed to be an almost unanimous opinion by the justices hey Colorado you are not throwing this hot potato in our laps.

On a side note I actually have the Colorado Supreme Court decisions finding Trump was disqualified because he engaged in insurrection bookmarked because I thought it was so good. And while listing to Murray I began to wonder is it possible I've read the Colorado Supreme court decision but Murray hasn't? Why isn't he arguing the points they made? Why isn't he using it to battle back against the justices' questions? And then after the oral arguments and the pundits started coming out I found I wasn't the only one. In fact I was one of very many that were stunned about all the things that were not presented.

But again I am not sure any of that would have made any difference. It seemed to be the liberal justices that were asking the toughest questions and Colorado did not have answers for them.





'I remember Hitler,' says 91-year-old Republican behind Trump eligibility case

Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams
February 8, 2024 2:08PM ET



A demonstrator holds a placard showing a picture of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump modified to add a swastika and an Adolf Hitler-style mustache during a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in London November 9, 2016. (Photo: Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images)




The 91-year-old Colorado Republican who challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to be on the state's primary ballot referenced the existential threat to democracy and invoked Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler when explaining why she got involved in the case that came before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments on Thursday.

"You have to remember, as old as I am, I was born in the Great Depression," Norma Anderson, who previously led the Colorado Senate and House of Representatives, told NPR. "I lived through World War II. I remember Hitler."
1
"I remember my cousin was with [then-U.S. President Dwight] Eisenhower when they opened up the concentration camps," Anderson continued. "I mean, I understand protecting democracy."

Recalling when she watched on her home television as Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, she added, "They're trying to overthrow the government is what I was thinking."

Listen to oral arguments for Trump v. Anderson:






Backed by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Anderson in September joined five other GOP and Indepedent Colorado voters in filing a lawsuit to keep Trump off the state's ballot, citing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution "as an officer of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection" from holding any civil or military office, unless two-thirds of each chamber of Congress votes to allow them to do so.

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified the Republican presidential front-runner from the state's primary ballot in December, agreeing with the voters that Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss that culminated in the Capitol attack during the certification of the election results amounted to engaging in insurrection.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last month, at the urging of both the Colorado voters and Trump. The court has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—plus Justice Clarence Thomas, whose activist wife Ginni Thomas was involved with the GOP's 2020 election interference effort. None of them recused.

"On the merits, this is an open-and-shut case," Take Back the Court Action Fund president Sarah Lipton-Lubet said in a Thursday statement about Trump v. Anderson. "The 14th Amendment plainly states that insurrectionists are barred from holding office."

"Of course, the Republicans on the Supreme Court have shown they have no problem ignoring the obvious meaning of laws that conflict with their party's political interests," she added. "Donald Trump anticipated a moment like this one when he installed his right-wing supermajority. He thinks that these are his justices, on the court to do his bidding. Soon, we'll see if—and to what degree—he's right."


James Hohmann
@jameshohmann
·
Follow
Colorado lawyer Jason Murray calls the 14th Amendment "a democratic safety valve." "The reason we're here is because Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million people," he says, adding that Trump shouldn't get another chance to do so again.


Common Cause was among various groups that submitted an amicus brief to the high court in support of removing the twice-impeached former president from the ballot.

"American democracy has never meant unchecked mob rule," Colorado Common Cause executive director Aly Belknap said Thursday. "Donald Trump sent an armed mob to the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of an election."

"His ongoing incitement has led to an unprecedented rise in attacks and death threats against election workers, judges, and other public servants," Belknap asserted. "There must be consequences for political violence—the Supreme Court must hold the former president accountable to the people and to the Constitution."

The presidential primary season is already underway. Trump has won the GOP's Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary by significant margins, setting him up to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November, unless he is barred from the contest.

The case before the country's highest court is "of extraordinary importance to our democracy," Campaign Legal Center senior vice president Paul Smith stressed Thursday. "It is vital that, one way or another, the court returns a clear ruling as quickly as possible to avoid any potential confusion in the upcoming presidential election. However the court decides, election officials deserve time to properly prepare for the upcoming election, and voters deserve time to make an informed decision."

As Roll Callreported Wednesday:

Several arguments made in the case offer the Supreme Court an opportunity to defer the dispute to a different branch of government, said Derek T. Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who focuses on election law.

"All of them are ways for the court to shift responsibility to another branch and to say, 'We're not going to deal with it now,'" Muller said. "And it leaves open questions for resolution, or maybe indeterminacy, in the weeks and months ahead."

During arguments, Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern said on social media that questions from Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Kavanaugh and Thomas "suggest to me that a consensus off-ramp is emerging: the notion that individual states cannot enforce Section 3's disqualification provision against federal candidates, or at least against the president."

"The problem is that Jonathan Mitchell's atrocious briefing and argument failed to put meat on the bones of this idea, so SCOTUS will have to improvise a justification," Stern added, referring to the Trump attorney who argued the case.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also expressed "deep skepticism that a single state should be able to decide who can 'be president,'" he noted. "In my view this argument is as good as over. A majority will hold that individual states can't enforce Section 3 against the president, at least without congressional approval."

Currently, Republicans have a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, while Democrats narrowly control the Senate, though the November elections could change that.









Harry Litman
@harrylitman
·
Follow
Just out from attending the oral argument. As in the pieces I wrote, I think the court will definitely vote to reverse. Not clear there’s even a vote to affirm, possibly Sotomayor.
10:42 AM · Feb 8, 2024


While voters and groups in several other states have launched similar legal battles to disqualify Trump, the only other successful one so far was in Maine, where Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, cited statute and the evidence of Trump's conduct to determine his name should not be on the ballot. Trump appealed the Maine disqualification, but a state judge in January deferred a decision in the case, citing the looming Supreme Court ruling.

"People from across the political spectrum and from all walks of life—from former members of Congress to constitutional scholars to everyday Americans—have come together in this exceptional and fragile moment in the history of American democracy to reinforce the Constitution's very purpose in safeguarding our democracy from insurrectionists," CREW president Noah Bookbinder said in a statement after the hearing.

Anderson, also weighing in post-arguments, said that "we stand here today not just as voters, but as defenders of the principles that define our democracy."

"Our fight to uphold the integrity of our electoral process is not about partisan politics; it's about preserving the very ideals for which our forefathers fought," she added. "Donald Trump's actions on January 6th stand in direct opposition to those sacred ideals and today, we stand before the Supreme Court seeking justice to ensure that no one, regardless of their party or popularity, is above accountability."

https://www.rawstory.com/i-remember...old-republican-behind-trump-eligibility-case/

 

Whatever it takes, eh?
No indictment.
No trial.
No conviction.
Guilty as ........ uh .......... not charged.

 

Ok so just to be clear here if the Supreme Court rules Colorado cannot keep Trump off the ballot Colorado governor
Jared Polis and Secretary of State Jena Griswold can just say they disagree with the Supreme Court and keep Trump off the ballot anyway can't they?

 

Foul ad escalates claims that Donald Trump ‘smells’
The Independent, December 28, 2023

The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump PAC, released a foul ad doubling down on allegations that former president Donald Trump smells.

Claims around the former president’s alleged odour erupted earlier this week when former Illinois Republican representative Adam Kinzinger tweeted, “I’m genuinely surprised how people close to Trump haven’t talked about the odor. It’s truly something to behold. Wear a mask if you can.”...

The Lincoln Project seized upon the resulting social media firestorm with a video advertisement on Saturday, with the caption: “Is that you Donald? #TrumpSmells.”

The ad begins with scenes of dumps, waste, and dung — with flies swarming around it — and is punctuated by a chorus of coughs, sniffles, and vomiting.

 

It's funny that you didn't know that it was actually Republicans that brought the challenge, not Democrats.

 

Yes, mstrman.
They really are that stupid.

 

Thats a lie.
Shooters hand is nowhere near your ass, genius.
And never will be.
You can stop wishing.

 

Msman is shooters parrot afterall. And Trumtards calling others stupid is hysterical. Trumptards believe Trump's all the time. Trumtards fell for his big election fraud lie, hook line and sinker, eh