Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state’s 2024 ballot
Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state’s 2024 ballot
State’s highest court declares former president ineligible for White House under the US constitution’s insurrection clause
You're viewing a single thread.
Reposting my comment from another thread. Remember to bee nice:
Personally, I don't think Trump should be on any ballot because he has a history of undermining democracy. It's self-defeating for a democracy to allow non-democratic actors to participate.
That said, I also agree with the dissenting opinion. Without a conviction of insurrection, a court shouldn't be able to limit democratic participation. That would be denying a person due process. I suspect the supreme court will see it that way too.
If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you'll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.
This choice about stripping him or due process or not was made before our time. The 14th amendment says “… engaged in insurrection.” It does not say found guilty of or after a trial. The bar isn’t has lofty as you’re making it seem and it’s been there since 1868, so I’m not sure why it’s suddenly concerning to you.
I mentioned in another comment but I think conviction should be the bar. During reconstruction, we bypassed due process on this because it obviously applied to anybody holding office in one of the seceding states. Now that we're in territory the amendment wasn't directly written for, it's appropriate to review the interpretation.
One of the arguments of the defense was that the specific wording of the amendment meant it didn't apply to the President. If we go with the specific wording of the amendment, we get pretty far from the intended effect of the amendment. The court agreed that the amendment applied to the president despite some discrepancies, but disagreed on whether due process would be violated by limiting the ballot.
I disagree. The language obviously applies to the president and that take you’re citing essentially says “yes the president can attempt a coup it’s fine” which is just nuts. If you want to move the bar to conviction you need an amendment.
The take is nuts. The amendment clearly applies to all state and federal politicians, judges, and beurocracts. It seems silly that it wouldn't apply to the highest position as well, even if a literal interpretation wouldn't include the president. The court agreed with that interpretation.
During the civil war, the president was Lincoln. Obviously he's not involved in insurrection. As a result, the amendment didn't clearly include the president. After the civil war, the government officials of the Confederacy was a matter of public record. So you obviously didn't require them all to stand trial before barring them from office. The amendment was written to keep confederate officials from regaining power. It was general enough to include any insurrection. Now we're in territory the amendment wasn't directly written for so it makes sense to interpret it with the original intent in mind. The standard for insurrection isn't clearly defined so the courts are exercising their ability to interpret it. If they didn't have this ability, any gun control legislation would require an amendment.
In all of the indictments Trump has received relating to the election, he hasn't been indicted for insurrection. Which tells me the prosecutors don't feel they can prove it in a criminal court. I believe even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law should trump political ideals.
You're still not acknowledging the fact that the amendment doesn’t say if you’re convicted in a court of law, which we’ve seen is too slow anyway, it says if you engaged in insurrection. Which has nothing to do with being convicted especially when anyone that is reasonable can see the goal of J6 was to keep Trump in power. You cannot tolerate that behavior and keep a republic. I’m not saying to toss Trump in jail I’m just saying he shouldn’t be allowed to hold office because he clearly meets the standard set in the constitution by the voters.
How did Trump “engage in insurrection” though? He said some firey stuff to a rally, then didn’t stop it when it was happening, but that’s all I know about.
Prior to the election, Donald Trump incited the Proud Boys specifically and other militant groups to insurrection with his 'stand back and stand by' comments. These were taken by many observers and the Proud Boys themselves as calls to seditious conspiracy. Members of the Proud Boys then planned the 6 January attack, including planting bombs around Washington DC, and were involved in the attack on the Capitol. Many have been convicted of this conspiracy, so there's no legal question as to whether it happened. I don't know if incitement to an insurrection counts as insurrection in and of itself. It might do, but I'm not a lawyer.
Having lost the election, Trump knowingly engaged in a conspiracy to undermine a free and fair election, which he knew he had lost, in order to keep himself in power. Some aspects of that conspiracy have gone to trial and defendants have been found guilty. So, there remain some legal questions as to the extent of the conspiracy, but it is quite clear that people involved broke the law in the pursuit of the conspiracy. The conspiracy constitutes an attempted insurrection in itself.
When his conspiracy failed, he then incited a violent attempt to overthrow the election (the 'fiery stuff to a rally') and allowed it to continue as people were violently attacked. This also constitutes an attempted insurrection.
He gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists by delaying sending in additional police, by calling them good people while they were beating cops to death, by targeting Mike Pence with his rhetoric while the capitol is being stormed, by telling them he loved them, by telling them he’ll pardon them if re-elected. This played out in real time, on TV and on Twitter. These facts are not in dispute by any objective observer.
Now re-read the 14th amendment. Might also be a good idea to read the Jan 6 Commission report.
Pretty fucking cut and dry.
it's probably worth noting that even the court whose verdict this overturned agreed with the basic premise that Trump engaged in conduct that constitutes an insurrection--their ruling was merely that, on a technicality, he did not qualify as an officer of the United States (a legal term with a specific, vague meaning in the Constitution). there really is not a dispute that what he did was unlawful conduct, only whether that carries the penalty in question (being unable to legally run for office in a number of states)
I live in Australia, and even I saw what was happening in the buildup.
Months before he was already starting with rhetoric claiming the election was rigged and it was blatantly obvious he was planning to try to overthrow the election
Read Seth Abramson.
If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you’ll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.
I disagree with the notion that, if we do it, it gives them permission to do it too. The GOP clown car will do anything, they do not need permission or any excuses or anything. For example, the Biden impeachment... zero evidence, no specific crime identified. Or say when you are being nominated to the SC you are asked if you will respect precedent i.e. Roe... and guess what, nope. Or creating a rule that no one can nominate a SC Justice too soon before an election. And they followed their own rule, um, nope. Or the respect they pay to the principle of a peaceful transfer of power.
the Biden impeachment... zero evidence, no specific crime identified.
Biden has not been impeached. There is an upcoming inquiry which is tasked with investigating Biden's potential business dealings with foreign nations. The purpose is to gather evidence and identify crime if appropriate. Hot take: if there is evidence of a crime, he should be impeached. I think the inquiry is largely political but if they do find evidence of a crime, it should be publicly known.
Overall, I don't think we should be fighting fire with fire. Then we're just sinking to their level. If my political opponent is doing illegal things, let them stand trial. Trump has a ton of indictments meant to bring about justice. I just think the legal process is too slow for the left to feel satisfied right now. Give it time.
impeached
I am well aware of the impeachment inquiry. And my point, they are not following precedent. Just another example of many. They don't need someone to give them permission.
If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you’ll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.
Well if they can get a judge to go along with it, they can do that and they don't need any precedent to do so. The former prez had how many lawsuits attempting to overturn the election and what evidence... oh that's right, none, nothing but lies.
In this case, an initial suit was brought. The judge wrote an extensive judgement saying that it is clear he was involved in insurrection and the only thing they were not sure of it is the president is an officer of the US. (really?). And then a lawyer repressing the former prez got up and said interesting things like "we're just making this up as we go" and "It would be fine if Obama ran for a 3rd term."
We have a 14th amendment and for just the purpose it is being used now. But we're not going to even try to use it because we are scared the GOP wont play fair next time? They never play fair, they can't even distinguish truth from their deranged fantasies or they willfully ignore it. Anyway, just the way I see it. I am sure Comer and Jordan will bring up that smoking gun evidence against Biden any day now just like the former prez did in all of those lawsuits he brought.
So I haven't been following this lawsuit at all, so this is a genuine question. If the lawsuit is about barring trump from the ballot due to starting an insurrection, I would assume part of the trial was to argue for and against the claim that he started or otherwise participated in an insurrection, no? If that's not the case, then I'd agree with you. If that is the case, however, then I don't see how this trial wasn't the due process you're talking about
There were witnesses who testified. I am unclear if there was a jury or not, but according to president scotus won’t disagree with that he engaged in insurrection.
For sure they presented and debated evidence about whether Trump actually participated in an insurrection, and to what extent. But this court wasn't deciding whether Trump is guilty of a crime. It was deciding if the state can limit Trump's ability to appear on the ballot. A criminal conviction would require a trial and a focused scope. This is not the due process for that conviction.
Anderson v Griswold (this case) is a civil lawsuit that started Oct 30 in CO district court under judge Sarah B. Wallace. This case involved opposing arguments over whether or not Trump engaged 8n insurrection. There was no jury.
Judge Wallace ruled (and CO supreme court later upheld) that Trump engaged in insurrection. The standard for burden of proof in this ruling was "clear and convincing," (see supreme court ruling) which is somewhere between "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the standard for criminal cases) and a "preponderance of the evidence" (>50% chance of the accused being responsible). Clear and convincing evidence is typically used in discrimination and fraud lawsuits.