KillingtonZone.com

Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from state's 2024 ballot
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.” The ruling was 4-3 and will be placed on hold pending appeal until January 4.

1 down, 49 to go.

It's a big deal and not what I expected. This will certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

From a purely legal standpoint, the Supreme Court should decline to take this up, as qualifications for office are pretty much the purview of each individual state, and each individual state has a lot of latitude in determining the rules for elections. At least, that's been the consistent case law of the Supreme Court up until now. Of course, this Supreme Court doesn't seem to care much about precedent, so I have my doubts that this ruling will stand.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Dec 20th, '23, 09:03 It's a big deal and not what I expected. This will certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

From a purely legal standpoint, the Supreme Court should decline to take this up, as qualifications for office are pretty much the purview of each individual state, and each individual state has a lot of latitude in determining the rules for elections. At least, that's been the consistent case law of the Supreme Court up until now. Of course, this Supreme Court doesn't seem to care much about precedent, so I have my doubts that this ruling will stand.

I think they will be forced to as the Colorado court cited the US Constitution. I believe SCOTUS will have to weigh in.

IANAL but agree SCOTUS will need to hear this case.

How will SCOTUS overturn Colorado's ruling that he's ineligible for office due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?

Section 3 doesn't say an officer of the gov't must convicted for insurrection or rebellion to apply. Will SCOTUS have to assert Trump's actions do not constitute insurrection? If they don't, when would Section 3 actually be enforced? Only when officers are convicted under a charge of insurrection / 18 U.S. Code 2383?

Dickc wrote: ↑Dec 20th, '23, 11:58 I think they will be forced to as the Colorado court cited the US Constitution. I believe SCOTUS will have to weigh in.

SCOTUS can decline to take up the case if they so choose - they can let the lower court decision stand and refuse to hear the case. I don't think they will, mind you, but they don't have to weigh in just because it involves a Constitutional issue.

SCOTUS could take a number of paths to overturn this. I would imagine they would do some combination of narrowing the legal definitions and determining that the facts found by the lower court were insufficient to meet their arbitrary standard. E.g., find that insurrection means taking up arms, and Trump didn't actually do that or help people do it. Or find that the section 3 requires participation in an actual war, like the civil war, and Jan 6 was not in that category. etc.

If you want my best guess, I think SCOTUS overturns the lower court's decision based on a hyper-technical and somewhat questionable analysis and that will end all of these attempts to judicially disqualify Trump.

We’ve been saying it, but now he’s saying it.

It’s not about policy …. it’s about revenge.

Michigan's top court decided that Trump can stay on the ballot. The decision is based on the theory that the question of who is on the ballot is a nonjusticiable political question. Under that doctrine, matters that are considered "political issues" are ones the Court should not weigh in on, particularly if the issue is something that is normally committed solely to the province of another branch of government.

The complicating factor is, if the court can't decide the issue, who does? Because in both Michigan and Colorado, the elected officials in charge of elections are the ones who decided Trump should not be on the ballot. If it's a nonjusticiable political issue, how can the court be telling that official who can and can't be on the ballot?

Here, the Michigan court decided that whether Trump was disqualified because of his participation in insurrection was a nonjusticiable political question, but then ruled that the elected official didn't have authority to exclude Trump from the ballot. Seems like a poorly reasoned decision. If they really were relying on the political question doctrine, the outcome should have been, "we can't interfere, so whatever the duly elected official in charge here says is what is going to happen." Here, they got around that issue by holding that the Michigan official here didn't have any statutory authority to decide who was on the ballot, and he had to put on the ballot whoever the GOP said he had to put on the ballot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/us/m ... allot.html

XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Dec 26th, '23, 23:09 We’ve been saying it, but now he’s saying it.

It’s not about policy …. it’s about revenge.

IMG_3310.jpeg

You do realize this was originally posted by the Daily Mail? DJT simply shared to Truth social to highlight the hypocrisy of the left and the gaslighting they spew on a daily basis. Notice how all the words in the poster match almost identically to the buzz words used in the mainstream media. If there was ever a need for a RICO investigation it should be based on the relationship between the DNC and the media.

Fancypants wrote: ↑Dec 27th, '23, 22:07 You do realize this was originally posted by the Daily Mail? DJT simply shared to Truth social to highlight the hypocrisy of the left and the gaslighting they spew on a daily basis.

How does it do that exactly? Because to me it looks like an endorsement.

So ... GOP is moving on from that whole Law and Order schtick, finally?

No man is above the law, not the police, and not the President.

The notion of total immunity being necessary for a president to be effective is so much bullsh!t. SCOTUS has held that Presidents do not enjoy total immunity since Nixon, and they reaffirmed it under Clinton. Yet somehow the Presidency has still managed to function all these years.

DeSantis drops out; “sort of” endorses Trump saying he’s preferable to Haley or Biden. I guess he’s trying to have it both ways; giving Haley a chance to take Trump on one on one, thus increasing the odds Trump can be stopped, but not wanting to alienate Trump voters in anticipation of another run in 2028.

Edit: Upon further review and seeing more news, he actually endorsed Trump, saying Haley represents the “corporatism” of the past.

Axios opinion says it's a parting shot against Haley:

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/22/desant ... shot-haley

Bubba wrote: ↑Jan 21st, '24, 15:23I guess he’s trying to have it both ways; giving Haley a chance to take Trump on one on one, thus increasing the odds Trump can be stopped, but not wanting to alienate Trump voters in anticipation of another run in 2028.

These folks will put their career ahead of the country. He should have read the room, realize he's not really likable on the national stage, ripped Trump, and continued as Gov of FL.