Too bad Colorado is not a border state!

[gimmethesimplelife]

Actually there are a number of other states where similar cases are working their way through the system.

And hopefully Colorado's decision will embolden other states to do the right thing and kick DJT to the curb legally. America has a chance to strike back against - legally - and cripple - also legally - the Trump Campaign - is the United States to play victim to Trump or victor over Trump? Tune in these next few months, I don't read the future nor do I any longer make predictions. But there is hope. Colorado doing away with qualified immunity for police officers and now this Colorado Supreme Court decision - there is a little hope. Rob

[Rogar]

Can a voter just do a write-in for trump?

That's an interesting question I've not seen an answer to. I'm just guessing that he would not be considered a qualified candidate to hold office and the write in would not be counted. Morning news said that some republicans are concocting a work around, but they did not elaborate.

[Alan]

DoesThe 14th amendment contain a ‘conviction clause’ that I’m not aware of?

No, it doesn't. But Section 3 does charge the Congress with responsibility for administration and enforcement, and the latest legislation from the 1940's requires due process and successful conviction or impeachment.

[Rogar]

...and the latest legislation from the 1940's requires due process and successful conviction or impeachment.

I wonder if the Colorado Supreme Court is aware of this?

[Alan]

I wonder if the Colorado Supreme Court is aware of this?

According to their dissenting opinions, at least 3 of the 7 democrat justices are fully aware.

I feel pretty confident that all 9 of the US Supreme Court justices are as well.

[Rogar]

If there is a legislation that clearly requires successful conviction or impeachment, I can't imagine the majority even putting the issue froward. But, it will be interesting to hear the ruling of the Supreme Court and I suspect you are right but for different reasons. For the record, all of the justices were appointed by Democratic governors. The chief justice is a Republican, three claim to be unaffiliated, and the remaining Democrats. Local Public Radio highlighted comments from the majority and the dissent. One of the minority cited lack of due process and the other two seemed to hedge around what I interpreted as legal complexities, without being specific or it was left out of the article.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/12/20/how-c...-trump-ruling/

[jp1]

Considering that none of the dissenting justices disagreed with the trial court's finding that trump did engage in insurrection and that Neil Gorsuch, in a case when he was still an appelate judge ruled that the state's courts had the right to determine eligibility for the ballot since that is a state function, not the federal courts, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[LDAHL]

I’m waiting for someone to bring up the Amnesty Act of 1872.

[Rogar]

I’m waiting for someone to bring up the Amnesty Act of 1872.

I suspect that maybe among the "legal complications" cited by the minority? I will be interesting not only what the Supreme Court rules, but why. Among the soothsayers I've seen in the media, some say if this goes through it will be the end of Trump.

This is what wiki says about the act...

"The Amnesty Act of 1872 states that all political disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment "are hereby removed," but does not explicitly mention whether future disabilities under the same amendment are also to be considered removed. Although Section 3 was applicable to Berger (1920), it does not appear that the Amnesty Act of 1872 was considered. Thus, it is not entirely clear whether this Act also automatically removes political disability for subsequent actions that violate Section 3."

[Rogar]

I listened to the Supreme Court arguments and with their official final determination it was pretty obvious from their questioning that Trump will be on the Colorado ballot. I didn't detect any political favoritism by the justices, they were all skeptical if not hostile. It will be interesting to see how they wordsmith their conclusion, but I gather this is not a state right and that was the crux of the argument. They didn't get into the a discussion of what an insurrection is.