Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from serving as president

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/RealMacReport/status/1737548284296929667

[Bigun]

Thank you @mrclose

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,520183.msg2951954/topicseen.html#msg2951954

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1737546822237708307

[Hoodat]

A primary vote isn't a vote that puts someone in office.  A primary vote is for nomination only.  The Colorado Supreme Court is dead wrong on this.

[libertybele]

Thank you @mrclose

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,520183.msg2951954/topicseen.html#msg2951954

However, there is another deadline that needs to be per the CO Supreme Court:

The 4-3 ruling will be placed on hold until January 4, pending Trump’s appeal to the US Supreme Court, which could settle the matter for the nation.

The state Supreme Court decision only applies to Colorado, but the historic ruling will roil the 2024 presidential campaign. Colorado election officials have said the matter needs to be settled by January 5, which is the statutory deadline to set the list of candidates for the GOP primary scheduled for March 5.

[libertybele]

A primary vote isn't a vote that puts someone in office.  A primary vote is for nomination only.  The Colorado Supreme Court is dead wrong on this.

Yes there is no doubt that the CO Supreme Courts is wrong -- the only chance of this being rectified is through SCOTUS -- will they hear the case in time (By Jan 5 as mandated by the CO election officials)? I think that the liberal justices will side with CO and the wild card here is Justice Roberts.  I don't see him siding with Trump.  Just my opinion.

[Hoodat]

Yes there is no doubt that the CO Supreme Courts is wrong -- the only chance of this being rectified is through SCOTUS -- will they hear the case in time (By Jan 5 as mandated by the CO election officials)?

Another way to rectify it is for Colorado Republicans to return to the caucus system they had in place before.  Republicans statewide can gather together, discuss and debate, and select whomever they damn well please.  And the Colorado court can't do a damn thing to stop it.

[Polly Ticks]

Yes there is no doubt that the CO Supreme Courts is wrong -- the only chance of this being rectified is through SCOTUS -- will they hear the case in time (By Jan 5 as mandated by the CO election officials)? I think that the liberal justices will side with CO and the wild card here is Justice Roberts.  I don't see him siding with Trump.  Just my opinion.

I have to think even "It's a Tax" Roberts won't let this travesty stand.

[libertybele]

Another way to rectify it is for Colorado Republicans to return to the caucus system they had in place before.  Republicans statewide can gather together, discuss and debate, and select whomever they damn well please.  And the Colorado court can't do a damn thing to stop it.

As I understand the process, the CO election officials would still have to approve of putting his name on the ballot, which the CO Supreme Court has already ruled against and Trump has until Jan 5 to resolve the issue per CO election rules.

Perhaps people are thinking that they could write him in on the ballot, but he also has to qualify as a 'write in candidate' which I doubt would be approved.  All write-in votes for Trump would nullify the entire ballot. Granted I am going by what I've been told under FL law awhile back, but CO so far is obviously trying to keep him off the ballot.

[libertybele]

I have to think even "It's a Tax" Roberts won't let this travesty stand.

Well, SCOTUS shrugged their duties after J6 and wouldn't even hear cases, so, I am not very optimistic that SCOTUS and justices will do the right thing. Hopefully, I am wrong. This would destroy our electoral system.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yes there is no doubt that the CO Supreme Courts is wrong -- the only chance of this being rectified is through SCOTUS -- will they hear the case in time (By Jan 5 as mandated by the CO election officials)? I think that the liberal justices will side with CO and the wild card here is Justice Roberts.  I don't see him siding with Trump.  Just my opinion.

Roberts still only gives the progressives 4 votes.

The decision will be overturned, but the question is on what grounds.   The most pro-Trump thing they could say is that it wasn't an insurrection because he wasn't convicted of it.   They could also overturn it on the grounds that the language doesn't apply to candidates for president, which would be a more narrow interpretation and look less like a vindication for Trump.

Roberts is likely to push for whichever view can get the most votes.  He'd rather have 9-0 on the more limited ground.  Depends on how the 3 Democrat appointees come down.

But I would bet a whole lot of money right now that the decision will be reversed on some ground or another, and that Trump won't be stricken off any ballots for either the primary or general election.

[mystery-ak]

James Woods
@RealJamesWoods
·
11m
And just like that everybody stopped talking about Crooked Joe’s bag man kid and the decades in prison he’s facing!

Nice play, Colorado!

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1737508371236888845

[mystery-ak]

POLITICO
@politico
·
1h
Coons: Colorado ruling on Trump is ‘a plain reading of the text of the 14th amendment’

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1737583473223778711

[Hoodat]

POLITICO
@politico
·
1h
Coons: Colorado ruling on Trump is ‘a plain reading of the text of the 14th amendment’

Conspicuously absent from that plain text reading is the word 'president'.

[libertybele]

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1737508371236888845

There you have it -- they at all costs will do anything and everything to keep Trump from running. I believe everyone is expecting that the SCOTUS will overturn the CO Supreme Court decision as they should. I am not so confident. IMHO SCOTUS kept us from a free and fair election in 2020. I have little faith in our SCOTUS these days.


I couldn't help but note the clarity of this video in comparison to other videos in the past 6 mos.  I found that interesting. I'm sure it's just me.

[berdie]

Conspicuously absent from that plain text reading is the word 'president'.

Sounds like the bastardination of the 14th that allows illegals children to become citizens at birth.

[Bigun]

Sounds like the bastardination of the 14th that allows illegals children to become citizens at birth.

  

[mountaineer]

Seems like the Colorado court lacked an actual definition of "insurrection."

DC_Draino
@DC_Draino
Kamala helped bail out BLM & Antifa rioters who were burning down buildings across America, murdering dozens, and causing historic levels of racial division. She was allowed on the ballot in Colorado.
9:51 AM · Dec 20, 2023

[Fishrrman]

Fishrrman fearless prediction:

This isn't going to hurt Mr. Trump.

Au contraire -- he's going to gain strength and popularity from this "ruling".
His numbers will shoot up even higher.
Perhaps more amongst "independents" than even among Republicans.

[Fishrrman]

bele wrote:
"From my understanding each state has their own laws regarding elections and as long as they are in compliance with federal laws the states cannot be overruled "

I disagree.

The Constitution specifies the "qualifications" of who can serve as president.
They are limited, but explicitly stated.

By its ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court has created "out of thin air" ANOTHER "qualification" (or, more accurately, a "DISqualification") of its own. And having created such disqualification, it then decides that because of same, Mr. Trump is "ineligible" to appear on the state primary ballot.

If I was on Mr. Trump's legal team, this is the approach I'd take.

A state court has no right to impose new qualifications for a presidential candidate above and beyond those already existing in the Constitution.

By doing so, that court's ruling is of and by itself, UNconstitutional.

[libertybele]

Again, each states has different election laws, and they ALL must comply with federal law. As @Bigun pointed out;
 
Article II of the federal constitution (Supreme law of the land) lays out clearly who is entitled to run for president. Any state who ignores that is in violation of federal law.

[Fishrrman]

RE RinVa's post:


Like another ol' Joe once said, it's not who votes, it's who COUNTS the votes, that matters.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1737597427321065605