• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump Not Allowed on Colorado, Maine Ballots

Ball State Deac

Ball State Deac

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,486
Reaction score
1,323
Figured this deserved its own thread. I’m looking forward to reading the opinion. I about fell out of my chair when I saw the headline.

www.cbsnews.com

Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot

The decision marks the first time a court has found former President Donald Trump to be ineligible to return to the White House due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
It's a nothing burger even though it should be a something burger.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
I tend to agree, but I’m curious to see how they get there. Some of the arguments from the dissents won’t work because they are Colorado state law issues that the Colorado Supreme Court has final say on.

A way to get there without creating real precedent for the future seems to be hold that what Trump did wasn’t engaging in an insurrection for purposes of Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment (not sure exactly how that plays out - do they say a person need to be convicted of an insurrection to be disqualified or do they say that this wasn’t an insurrection and leave it at that (query: if this wasn’t, then what the hell is)?).

I don’t think SCOTUS is going to want to hold that Sec 3 doesn’t apply to POTUS (that seems like a really shitty argument to me - how can POTUS not be an officer under the United States?) or that the POTUS oath isn’t an oath to support the constitution (though this actually seems like at least a non-frivolous legal argument - probably not to the layperson, but rules of construction, etc.) or that Sec 3 isn’t self-executing, unlike virtually all of the other parts of the reconstruction amendments.
Click to expand...
My response on another thread to a comment that there’s a 0.0% chance SCOTUS lets this decision stand. Would be curious to hear what others think.
 
PhDeac said:
It's a nothing burger even though it should be a something burger.
Click to expand...
Agreed. For one thing, I don't see any way that the 6 GOP Supremes allow this ruling to stand. They'll come up with some excuse to overturn it. And even if it is allowed to stand, only solid blue states like CO would be likely to remove Trump from the ballot, which might hurt his national popular vote but would make no difference in the all-important electoral vote. At any rate I don't see a highly partisan, GOP-dominated Supreme Court (with 3 justices appointed by Dear Leader, no less) letting this ruling stand.
 
It would be difficult for the Supremes to make a ruling that keeps Trump off the Colorado ballot but allows him on other state ballots. If the Colorado court ruling is upheld, look for 52 more lawsuits very quickly, if it doesn't apply nationwide.
 
Their ruling all depends on whether they value immediate expediency or their reputation in history books.

I am sure there are some billionaires offering a lot to get a decision they like.
 
awaken said:
Their ruling all depends on whether they value immediate expediency or their reputation in history books.

I am sure there are some billionaires offering a lot to get a decision they like.
Click to expand...

I would guess Chief Justice Roberts values his reputation over expediency. The question will be whether he can get at least four others to go along with him.

The easiest sidestep would be to determine that the Colorado court finding that Trump engaged in insurrection was improper and send it back with instructions on how to properly determine insurrection participation. The instructions could be written such that Trump may not have "participated in insurrection." Or, the recycle may drag out the issue past election day, with Trump on the ballot pending resolution of the issue.
 
Regardless of the time table (and I agree delay is the goal), they will not make a decisive decision. Just muddy the waters.
 
Clarence has vacations with his very best friends coming up, court business will have to wait
 
rawarr said:
Clarence has vacations with his very best friends coming up, court business will have to wait
Click to expand...
Absolutely! They've known him the entire time he's been on the suspreme court!!
 
Deaconblue said:
I would guess Chief Justice Roberts values his reputation over expediency. The question will be whether he can get at least four others to go along with him.

The easiest sidestep would be to determine that the Colorado court finding that Trump engaged in insurrection was improper and send it back with instructions on how to properly determine insurrection participation. The instructions could be written such that Trump may not have "participated in insurrection." Or, the recycle may drag out the issue past election day, with Trump on the ballot pending resolution of the issue.
Click to expand...
What if he values his reputation among the MAGAts?
 
Deaconblue said:
I don't see Roberts giving away totally and forever all courts jurisdiction over any and all presidents.
Click to expand...
Not to worry, they can rule on it and say it applies only to this one specific case and no other cases, no matter how similar, like Bush v. Gore.
 
Deaconblue said:
I don't see Roberts giving away totally and forever all courts jurisdiction over any and all presidents.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how that square making insurrectionists eligible to run for President but not 32 year olds or naturalized citizens or two term presidents. The Constitution is clear about this.

Will they say it was only about that one insurrection that one time and it doesn’t apply to other insurrections?
 
PhDeac said:
It will be interesting to see how that square making insurrectionists eligible to run for President but not 32 year olds or naturalized citizens or two term presidents. The Constitution is clear about this.

Will they say it was only about that one insurrection that one time and it doesn’t apply to other insurrections?
Click to expand...
Fascism apologists will argue the 14th Amendment isn't self-executing, but Article II, Section 1 is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top