Since the Constitution gives management and oversight of elections to the States, does that not mean that the Colorado Supreme Court is the highest court which has jurisdiction on this case?
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
34 points (100.0% liked)
News
76 readers
2 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
That is why I am hoping that the appeal to the Supreme Court results in them saying "we have to respect the state's decision" but my realistic brain knows that's not going to be the case
I thought that as well, and expected that the only way it could be moved to the federal system is if the actions/decision is believed to violate federal law (similar to gerrymandering cases violating the voting rights act).
But I’m not a lawyer or a judge, so I know shit, apparently.
This is a huge political treat for Trump.
He lost Colorado in a landslide last time. Never even stood a chance of winning it in 2024. But now he's been handed on a silver platter the ability to claim that the system is rigged against him.
I get that we do not want a traitorous wannabee dictator on the ballot. But even more important is not letting him take the oval office, either by election or force, and I fear this helps him more than it hinders him.
This is a bad take.
It overvalues the republican narrative machine. What's the alternative? Rolling over and letting him do whatever because we're afraid of whatever lie he'll choose to tell? Hard pass.
If several blue states do the same, he will lose the nomination or the RNC will have to change the rules to put him in as the nominee. There are more republicans living in California than there are in Texas, and if they can't vote for Trump, they'll have to vote for another clown, which gives one of them a fighting chance of beating Trump. Regressives are selfish - they won't be able to resist infighting.
I'm sure this will boost his fundraising. That's guaranteed to happen anytime he's held to account. But the alternative is to not hold him to account for his many publicly committed crimes. I fear that much more.
the system is rigged against him
Also known as, the Constitution of the United States of America.
But since he nor his idiot supporters will ever understand logic, reason, the common good, and the rule of law, I would agree that they’ll spin this just like they spin everything else.
But that doesn’t mean these steps shouldn’t be taken.
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.
14th Amendment Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. It's preposterous to allow that traitorous criminal to run for any office. While it may cause individuals to rise up in rebellion again, for which they would pay a heavy price, the damage would be much worse should he get into office.
This is not actually setting a precedent... This determination was made numerous times before without convictions, mostly in the aftermath of the Civil War. The precedent of a conviction or even a formal charge being unnecessary is long-standing.
Notably, it's part of the matter of fact ruling of the CO courts that Trump committed sedition. It would be VERY uncommon for federal courts to change those matters of fact -- they would instead rule on matters of law.
There's a lot to be said about the flaws in this disqualification. Is the 14th self-enforcing such that courts even have the authority to make a ruling to disqualify? Was there full due process? Why didn't the 14th specifically name POTUS if it named electors of the POTUS as subjects of disqualification? Will the SCOTUS just step in and be a political & lawmaking body because they feel like it as usual?
But it would be VERY weird for the courts to rule "not seditionist". That would surprise even the most cynical legal scholars, I think.