Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[fantome profane]

No. You’re not making any sense. The Supremes are the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. Do you deny that?

Even they need to acknowledge what the words mean. They can't interpret the first amendment to mean that all Americans must worship them as gods, and make them popcorn when every they want. They can't interpret the second amendment to mean that the only Justices can have guns and the police are allowed to throw pies at people.

Interpreting the constitution does not mean ignoring what it says and just making stuff up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Opinion | The Supreme Court Should Overturn the Colorado Ruling Unanimously

Barring Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot would be a mistake.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion: U.S. Supreme Court likely to overturn Colorado ruling that Trump can’t be on ballot

The pressure is now on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, on which the Colorado court relied, truly does block Trump from the ballot.

www.denverpost.com

Will Supreme Court save Donald Trump? Legal experts give predictions

Trump's campaign is in "major jeopardy" after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that he should be kept off the state's ballot

www.newsweek.com

Now what? Did that magically change your mind?

The first article is behind a paywall for me, so I can't read it. The other two don't really agree with you, so no - they don't convince me that you're right.

The Denver Post article came the closest, but it argued that it's politically expedient for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, not that the Constitution supports overturning it.

Doubt it, which is why I didn’t post any links to begin with.

Your case would be stronger if you found some links that actually agreed with you and gave good reasons for it.

Ya’ll are so convinced you’re right you put your head in the sand.

Are you aware that other states have refused to apply the 14th in this manner?

This sounds like some creative interpretation on your part.

Some of the challenges have been dismissed based on standing - the courts didn't get far enough to consider the merits of the complaints. A number are pending - there hasn't been a ruling yet.

Of the few that have actually been heard and dismissed for reasons other than standing, the complaints relied on a range of arguments. Which ones do you think are directly relevant to the Colorado decision?

 

[Copernicus]

Some people argue that Trump cannot be disqualified unless he has been convicted of some form of insurrection, but the 14th amendment was passed after President Andrew Johnson had already pardoned former Confederacy officeholders of their criminal participation in rebellion. The problem was that Southern voters were electing to office those who had rebelled against Constitutional law. These were mainly, like President Johnson, Democrats. The Democratic Party was more sympathetic to the Confederate cause, so their candidates were more likely to have been popular supporters of the rebellion. The 14th amendment nevertheless disqualified them from running for public office.

Ironically, the party most threatened by 14th amendment restrictions today is the Republican Party--the same party that promoted adoption of the 14th amendment. It is pretty clear that the original intent of the framers of the amendment was to disqualify candidates who had violated their oath to support the Constitution. Donald Trump had very clearly violated his oath of office, being the first President to mount a resistance to the peaceful transfer of power to the winner of a presidential election. However, that doesn't mean that the Republican-dominated Supreme Court is going to deny him a mulligan on taking that oath of office again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You’re not making any sense. The Supremes are the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. Do you deny that?

They can be. But very often they will look at a case and just say "That is a state matter" and send it back down without a comment. If one can show that one's basic Constitutional rights have been violated then they will often intervene. But where in the Constitution does it say that one has the right to be on a Presidential ballot? I can show you where in the Constitution it says that states are in charge of the ballots in their state.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It proves my point. Do you even get the point? I suspect not.

No, you had not point. Don't blame others when you cannot support your own claims properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Opinion | The Supreme Court Should Overturn the Colorado Ruling Unanimously

Barring Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot would be a mistake.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion: U.S. Supreme Court likely to overturn Colorado ruling that Trump can’t be on ballot

The pressure is now on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, on which the Colorado court relied, truly does block Trump from the ballot.

www.denverpost.com

Will Supreme Court save Donald Trump? Legal experts give predictions

Trump's campaign is in "major jeopardy" after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that he should be kept off the state's ballot

www.newsweek.com

Now what? Did that magically change your mind? Doubt it, which is why I didn’t post any links to begin with. Ya’ll are so convinced you’re right you put your head in the sand.

Are you aware that other states have refused to apply the 14th in this manner?

It is almost as if you do not listen to those arguing against you. If you read the Newsweek one it implies very strongly that the decision will be overturned for political reasons and not Constitutional ones:

"Given the makeup of the Supreme Court and the legal and political considerations, I think the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling will be overturned, even though Trump did engage in an insurrection," Rahmani said.

Your source points out the he did engage in an insurrection but that the court will likely find some lame excuse for not removing him.

Personally I could see how the USSC conservative judges might be able to see how Trump is like a millstone around the neck of the Republican party and that it is time to dump Trump.

 

[Watchmen]

Even they need to acknowledge what the words mean. They can't interpret the first amendment to mean that all Americans must worship them as gods, and make them popcorn when every they want. They can't interpret the second amendment to mean that the only Justices can have guns and the police are allowed to throw pies at people.

Interpreting the constitution does not mean ignoring what it says and just making stuff up.

And nowhere did I suggest what you’re saying.

 

[Watchmen]

They can be. But very often they will look at a case and just say "That is a state matter" and send it back down without a comment. If one can show that one's basic Constitutional rights have been violated then they will often intervene. But where in the Constitution does it say that one has the right to be on a Presidential ballot? I can show you where in the Constitution it says that states are in charge of the ballots in their state.

And, here, they will likely decide what “insurrection” means and how the 14th is applied.

 

[Watchmen]

No, you had not point. Don't blame others when you cannot support your own claims properly.

I’ve been around long enough to know this is your tactic when you’ve lost the argument. I talked about due process. I pointed out there are no elements to prove an “insurrection” under the 14th. I’ve shared that many legal scholars believe Colorado was wrong and will be reversed. What have you done? Nothing productive here.

 

[Watchmen]

The first article is behind a paywall for me, so I can't read it. The other two don't really agree with you, so no - they don't convince me that you're right.

The Denver Post article came the closest, but it argued that it's politically expedient for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision, not that the Constitution supports overturning it.



Your case would be stronger if you found some links that actually agreed with you and gave good reasons for it.



This sounds like some creative interpretation on your part.

Some of the challenges have been dismissed based on standing - the courts didn't get far enough to consider the merits of the complaints. A number are pending - there hasn't been a ruling yet.

Of the few that have actually been heard and dismissed for reasons other than standing, the complaints relied on a range of arguments. Which ones do you think are directly relevant to the Colorado decision?

They do agree with me. The Newsweek article, for example, gathered legal opinions that agree with me. I can’t help it if you don’t understand.

 

[Watchmen]

It is almost as if you do not listen to those arguing against you. If you read the Newsweek one it implies very strongly that the decision will be overturned for political reasons and not Constitutional ones:

"Given the makeup of the Supreme Court and the legal and political considerations, I think the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling will be overturned, even though Trump did engage in an insurrection," Rahmani said.

Your source points out the he did engage in an insurrection but that the court will likely find some lame excuse for not removing him.

Personally I could see how the USSC conservative judges might be able to see how Trump is like a millstone around the neck of the Republican party and that it is time to dump Trump.

Yes. That is as one person’s opinion among the experts Newsweek gathered. There were others too but you cherry picked and ignored the rest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve been around long enough to know this is your tactic when you’ve lost the argument. I talked about due process. I pointed out there are no elements to prove an “insurrection” under the 14th. I’ve shared that many legal scholars believe Colorado was wrong and will be reversed. What have you done? Nothing productive here.

Have you looked at those that I use that tactic on? You are no different. Due process was followed. You just do not understand it. You want an extra unneeded step. There does not have to be a conviction. There does not have to be a trial. Why have you never addressed the precedents that I posted?

Due process was followed even if you do not understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They do agree with me. The Newsweek article, for example, gathered legal opinions that agree with me. I can’t help it if you don’t understand.

No, they do not "agree with you". At least not the third one. I quoted from it, did you not understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. That is as one person’s opinion among the experts Newsweek gathered. There were others too but you cherry picked and ignored the rest.

That was the main one that they quoted. I did not check out your others. One was behind a paywall. I am not sure of the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And, here, they will likely decide what “insurrection” means and how the 14th is applied.

Well they do have precedent on whether or not Trump was involved with a insurrection. Every judge in Colorado said that he was. Including those that voted against keeping him off the ballot. That is one lower level judge and seven Colorado Supreme Court judge. The USSC will have a lot of explaining to do. I think that the odds are that they will recognize that he was involved in the insurrection, but they will find another excuse to allow him to stay on the ballot.

By the way, did you know that even if Trump gets convicted on all charges that does not automatically ban him from the ballot. He can still run from prison and he will not be the first candidate to do so.

 

[Watchmen]

Have you looked at those that I use that tactic on? You are no different. Due process was followed. You just do not understand it. You want an extra unneeded step. There does not have to be a conviction. There does not have to be a trial. Why have you never addressed the precedents that I posted?

Due process was followed even if you do not understand it.

Due process was not followed. You literally admitted earlier you have not read the dissents, which would be beneficial to you.

What’s your legal training?

 

[Watchmen]

No, they do not "agree with you". At least not the third one. I quoted from it, did you not understand that?

Can’t help it if you don’t understand legalese. Why do you refuse to read the dissents?

 

[Watchmen]

That was the main one that they quoted. I did not check out your others. One was behind a paywall. I am not sure of the other.

There was no “main one.” It was a gathering of opinions.

 

[Watchmen]

Well they do have precedent on whether or not Trump was involved with a insurrection. Every judge in Colorado said that he was. Including those that voted against keeping him off the ballot. That is one lower level judge and seven Colorado Supreme Court judge. The USSC will have a lot of explaining to do. I think that the odds are that they will recognize that he was involved in the insurrection, but they will find another excuse to allow him to stay on the ballot.

By the way, did you know that even if Trump gets convicted on all charges that does not automatically ban him from the ballot. He can still run from prison and he will not be the first candidate to do so.

What Colorado said isn’t binding precedent. Those darn legal terms you don’t understand keep getting in the way.

Every judge in Colorado said Trump engaged in insurrection? Seems like you haven’t read the dissents. Which you admitted.

As to your second paragraph, of course I knew that. It’s also irrelevant to the instant discussion.

 

[Watchmen]

Here’s an article from a Harvard legal scholar who hates Trump but strongly believes the Supremes should unanimously reverse Colorado.

The Supreme Court Must Unanimously Strike Down Trump’s Ballot Removal

Excluding him, wrongfully, by a close vote of the Supreme Court could well trigger the next Civil War.

slate.com