View Full Version : Too bad Colorado is not a border state!
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-23, 8:17pm
Today the Supreme Court in the blessed State of Colorado gave Trump a very well deserved middle finger salute by stating that Donald Trump's name may not appear on the 2024 ballot in the state primary or general election. Apparently this is due to Amendment 14 and Trump's involvement in the cheap and tawdry affair of January 6th, 2021. Colorado really IS becoming a Human Rights Mecca. Both this AND removing qualified immunity from police officers in the state. I must say I AM impressed. And Denver does have a great Art Museum and climate. Rob
I can't picture this getting past the Supreme Court, but it is rather satisfying that they are making the attempt. Trump's legal expenses must be enormous, at least by us commoner's perspective.
We’ve reached a pass where “saving our democracy” means striking names from the ballot.
My perspective is that we're keeping criminals out of the political system, although that's up for the courts to determine. A long as we are threatened with conservative authoritarianism, it good to have some autonomy left to the states. I hear Ramaswamy is threatening to withdraw from the state primary. Oh, no!
A lot of people seem to want to live here, and I think at least part of it is the liberal nature of things. Legal abortion and marijuana, but not the stye that Oregon seems to have become. Housing is pricey most places and traffic gets obnoxious. I was born and raised here and that is something of a rarity anymore.
catherine
12-20-23, 11:01am
We’ve reached a pass where “saving our democracy” means striking names from the ballot.
The ruling suggests that they were keeping an insurrectionist off the ballot, so unless our freedoms include the freedom to try to overthrow the government, I'd say they were just doing their job.
My perspective is that we're keeping criminals out of the political system, although that's up for the courts to determine.
We're certainly living in interesting times when our citizens are comfortable with using the courts and legislative bodies to remove politicians from office or to dis-allow people from running for office absent convictions for any crimes at all. Are we now at the point where we must gleefully destroy democracy in order to save it?
The ruling suggests that they were keeping an insurrectionist off the ballot, so unless our freedoms include the freedom to try to overthrow the government, I'd say they were just doing their job.
Are the other 49 states not doing their job? Maybe a state that tries to prosecute people for not decorating cakes could be considered an outlier.
We're certainly living in interesting times when our citizens are comfortable with using the courts and legislative bodies to remove politicians from office or to dis-allow people from running for office absent convictions for any crimes at all. Are we now at the point where we must gleefully destroy democracy in order to save it?
Although it seems a little ancient now, Amendment 14 was passed by officials duly elected by citizens. The courts did not make the law. I seems to clearly want to keep insurrectionists out of office. I see the courts as fulfilling their responsibility to the citizens.
Although it seems a little ancient now, Amendment 14 was passed by officials duly elected by citizens. The courts did not make the law. I seems to clearly want to keep insurrectionists out of office. I see the courts as fulfilling their responsibility to the citizens.
Has anyone involved been convicted, or even charged with insurrection? If not, what is the basis for the ruling other than to keep someone the court doesn't approve of off the ballot?
iris lilies
12-20-23, 12:42pm
Has anyone involved been convicted, or even charged with insurrection? If not, what is the basis for the ruling other than to keep someone the court doesn't approve of off the ballot?
as much as we would all like to see Trump off the ballot, yeah, I think it’s an inconvenient fact that he’s not been convicted of any “insurrection. “
Has anyone involved been convicted, or even charged with insurrection? If not, what is the basis for the ruling other than to keep someone the court doesn't approve of off the ballot?
It would seem to me that the state of Colorado Supreme Court is charging Trump with insurrection as we speak. The Supreme court can now determine if that is a state's right or if it happens to be the case? I would hope the courts would protect us from other similar legal violations of the constitution, whether they personally approve of it or not.
This is a quip from supposed legal experts:
“The Colorado Supreme Court has the final say on all state law questions, meaning that its interpretation of the Colorado election code is now the law in Colorado,” said Holland and Hart litigation partner Jessica Smith. “This includes its conclusions that the election code allows electors to challenge whether a candidate is qualified to appear on Colorado ballots and that courts have the power to hear those challenges.”
Are the other 49 states not doing their job? Maybe a state that tries to prosecute people for not decorating cakes could be considered an outlier.
At the moment it seems like a state issue and each state can decide the case based on their unique election laws and their electorate. They are not necessarily wrong.
Can a voter just do a write-in for trump?
At the moment it seems like a state issue and each state can decide the case based on their unique election laws and their electorate. They are not necessarily wrong.
The 14th Amendment is not a unique state election law, but rather a state’s unique interpretation of federal law. To me, it’s a toss up of whether the Trump campaign will appeal the decision or let it stand as “evidence” of how they’re being unfairly persecuted. Given the low probability Colorado would go for him anyway and the availability of write-ins, the stakes wouldn’t seem to be that high.
I admit to some confusion on where the authority of the state ends and where Federal law takes precedence in national elections. For example, how Trump is being charged at the state level in Georgia for interference in a national election rather than the federal level. I sort of doubt this will get past the Supreme Court, but it could otherwise set precedence for other states or in national elections after the primaries. Rumor I saw is that California may follow suit.
Too bad Colorado is not a border state!
Today the Supreme Court in the blessed State of Colorado gave Trump a very well deserved middle finger salute by stating that Donald Trump's name may not appear on the 2024 ballot in the state primary or general election. Apparently this is due to Amendment 14 and Trump's involvement in the cheap and tawdry affair of January 6th, 2021. Colorado really IS becomming a Human Rights Mecca. Both this AND removing qualified immunity from police officers in the state. I must say I AM impressed. And Denver does have a great Art Museum and climate. Rob
Just out of curiosity, what does your thread heading have to do with the content of your post? I don't get it. :help:
We're certainly living in interesting times when our citizens are comfortable with using the courts and legislative bodies to remove politicians from office or to dis-allow people from running for office absent convictions for any crimes at all. Are we now at the point where we must gleefully destroy democracy in order to save it?
Does
The 14th amendment contain a ‘conviction clause’ that I’m not aware of?
Are the other 49 states not doing their job? Maybe a state that tries to prosecute people for not decorating cakes could be considered an outlier.
Actually there are a number of other states where similar cases are working their way through the system.
gimmethesimplelife
12-21-23, 10:45am
Just out of curiosity, what does your thread heading have to do with the content of your post? I don't get it. :help:Alan, at this late date it can't be news to you that I offshore all I can to Mexico for economic, moral, and ethical reasons. I am beyond grateful for the existence of Mexico and the fact that I am only three hours away from it. As to your question, I wish Colorado were on the border - not only has Colorado done away with qualified immunity for police officers so that we can go after their assets as it should have always been, but now Colorado is has upped the human rights ante with this decision from the Colorado Supreme Court.
For an American state, Colorado truly is a beacon of basic human rights and hope. Does that answer your question? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-21-23, 10:49am
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
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.
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.
...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?
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.
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-colorados-supreme-court-justices-divided-on-trump-ruling/
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.
I’m waiting for someone to bring up the Amnesty Act of 1872.
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."
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.
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.
I had the same impression; but CNN’s takeaway was that “Conservative Justices were seeking ways to side with Trump”.
Personal opinion is that this isn't a originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but a revisionist off ramp to avoid some sort of civil unrest and a broken cog in the voting process. It was hardly unexpected, but I'm surprised that the conservative justices resorted to such a liberal interpretation. But, I'm no expert of the matter. It not the last day in court for Trump.
Personal opinion is that this isn't a originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but a revisionist off ramp to avoid some sort of civil unrest and a broken cog in the voting process. It was hardly unexpected, but I'm surprised that the conservative justices resorted to such a liberal interpretation. But, I'm no expert of the matter. It not the last day in court for Trump.
There seemed to be multiple arguments, including whether the office of president is covered at all, whether individual states can define “insurrection”, etc. Kagan and Jackson seemed to be among those raising issues.
A friend sent me a photo of his republican primary ballot. In Colorado if you declare as an independent they send a primary ballot for both parties, but you can only vote and return one or the other. Friend is about as blue as the sky, but his plan is to vote against Trump, i.e. Haley. Since he is most obviously not a conservative with any allegiance to the Republic party, I questioned whether it is deceptive and not the intention in the voting process, or if it's fair game in politics.
iris lilies
2-16-24, 4:23pm
A friend sent me a photo of his republican primary ballot. In Colorado if you declare as an independent they send a primary ballot for both parties, but you can only vote and return one or the other. Friend is about as blue as the sky, but his plan is to vote against Trump, i.e. Haley. Since he is most obviously not a conservative with any allegiance to the Republic party, I questioned whether it is deceptive and not the intention in the voting process, or if it's fair game in politics.
I have been back and forth about this in my own mind, but have currently settled on this: it is ok to vote strategically to keep whoever you want off the ballot…
edited to add: even more so if you want to keep someone off the ballot in order to keep them out of office. I am less tolerant of supporting a stalking horse situation.
I have been back and forth about this in my own mind, but have currently settled on this: it is ok to vote strategically to keep whoever you want off the ballot…
.
Been there. Made the same decision.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.