@no1marauder saidSCOTUS will have to overturn it. It is obviously unconstitutional. I am shocked CO SCOTUS did it. They are embarrassing themselves. You cannot take a major candidate off the ballot for a crime he was never convicted of.
Well on this day the Colorado Supreme Court kicked Trump off the ballot effective January 4, 2024 unless the SCOTUS intervenes by then.
I think it is interesting how partisan bias makes people do stupid things though.
The CO SCOTUS is going to be a laughing stock of the world for doing this. It will never stand. There is no legal conviction. Any SCOTUS should know better.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidThe Amendment does not specify that a conviction is necessary to invoke the ban. The CO state judge and CO Supreme Court found that Trump met the criteria.
Who was convicted of insurrection?
1 edit
@shavixmir saidAww hoo hoo hoo a goobermint building.
Uhuh... in an official government building, after entering illegally.
And funny how you don't comment on the other meanderers you yak on about.
You really are a tool, aren't you?
I have about 100 times more respect for private property than property funded through force and threats of force.
My money is on shatmixir being a state tit sucking parasite the way he gives such reverence to an, (and I quote) 'official GOOBERMINT building'.
Even more than a picture of some bloke making fun of shag doodys religion by putting his feet on a desk. Shag points out that the meanderers were wandering property they'd paid for.
The building was paid for by the meanderers. nice point doody for brains.
@metal-brain saidit’s the colorado supreme court, not scotus
SCOTUS will have to overturn it. It is obviously unconstitutional. I am shocked CO SCOTUS did it. They are embarrassing themselves. You cannot take a major candidate off the ballot for a crime he was never convicted of.
I think it is interesting how partisan bias makes people do stupid things though.
The CO SCOTUS is going to be a laughing stock of the world for doing this. It will never stand. There is no legal conviction. Any SCOTUS should know better.
@moonbus saidIt is not up to the CO SC to decide if a crime has been committed. It was decided based on their own opinions of whether a crime was committed or not.
The Amendment does not specify that a conviction is necessary to invoke the ban. The CO state judge and CO Supreme Court found that Trump met the criteria.
Is it your belief that a state SC can decide to ban Biden from the state ballot because he attempted to start WW3?
This like the "we don't need no stinking badges" comment from some movie.
We don't need no stinking convictions. Just ban them from running because of opinions. It is my opinion that Rudy Giuliani is corrupt and accepts bribes. I don't need no stinking conviction.
That is why the decision will never stand. It would have to be an obviously corrupt ruling which would just make Trump more popular than ever. Maybe that is the goal here too.
@shavixmir saidTrump did not enter an official government building illegally.
Uhuh... in an official government building, after entering illegally.
And funny how you don't comment on the other meanderers you yak on about.
You really are a tool, aren't you?
@wajoma saidYou really are a dumb fukk, aren't you?
Aww hoo hoo hoo a goobermint building.
I have about 100 times more respect for private property than property funded through force and threats of force.
My money is on shatmixir being a state tit sucking parasite the way he gives such reverence to an, (and I quote) 'official GOOBERMINT building'.
Even more than a picture of some bloke making fun of shag doodys ...[text shortened]... operty they'd paid for.
The building was paid for by the meanderers. nice point doody for brains.
Jesus Christ. It's like an elephant ate too many sprouts, shat and out you flooped.
@metal-brain saidEnrique Tarrio was convicted of engaging in insurrection although he also did not enter the building. Incitement to insurrection is what the CO judge found relevant in Trump's case, relevant enough to invoke the 14th Amendment ban, although Trump did not enter the building.
Trump did not enter an official government building illegally.
@shavixmir
Trump did not enter an official government building illegally.
He didn't even tell anyone to enter an official government building and the Capitol police let many people into the capitol building.
Aren't the Capitol police guilty of insurrection? They opened the door to let some of them in. It is hard to believe if Trump himself was at the CB opening the door for protesters you would think that was acceptable, but you think the CP doing it is.
@moonbus saidNo, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, not insurrection.
Enrique Tarrio was convicted of engaging in insurrection although he also did not enter the building. Incitement to insurrection is what the CO judge found relevant in Trump's case, relevant enough to invoke the 14th Amendment ban, although Trump did not enter the building.
@wajoma saidIf you allowed the words of convicted felons to mean 💩 we could empty the jails and then put their victims in jail 🙄 your so effing dumb it’s painful
Have you heard Dominic Pezzola's side of the story, in his own words? Was he planning to prevent Pence from performing his sacred state rituals and bowings and scrapings? Did he know where to go and what to do? This is what I was replying to:
[i]"Trump knew that his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to ‘stop the steal’ including physically preventing Vice P ...[text shortened]... You should not be allowed to cross borders freely anymore than any other robber or violent criminal.
@metal-brain saidExcept the Framers of the 14th Amendment didn't say a person had to be convicted of insurrection, instead saying only they had to have engaged in one.
SCOTUS will have to overturn it. It is obviously unconstitutional. I am shocked CO SCOTUS did it. They are embarrassing themselves. You cannot take a major candidate off the ballot for a crime he was never convicted of.
I think it is interesting how partisan bias makes people do stupid things though.
The CO SCOTUS is going to be a laughing stock of the world for doing this. It will never stand. There is no legal conviction. Any SCOTUS should know better.
By your logic, Jefferson Davis and all high ranking CSA officials and generals would have been allowed to hold high ranking positions in the US government despite Section 3 of the 14th Amendment since none were convicted of "insurrection". Surely that is not what the Framers of that Section intended.
2 edits
@metal-brain saida) You're quibbling over terminology. b) Entering the building is not the relevant issue. The CO judge found Trump guilty enough to state that he "engaged in" what the 14th Amendment bans, however you want to call it, the higher court in CO concurred and invoked the ban (which the lower court judge apparently did not feel she had the authority to do).
No, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, not insurrection.
5 edits
Unless this happens in actual possible tipping point states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or a state to the right of tipping point states, this, unfortunately, is excellent for the Trump candidacy.
First, it makes the popular vote unmeasurable. If SCOTUS allows this several blue states are likely to follow suit and the popular vote become irrelevant since Trump won't be on the ballot in many blue states. so, there goes the "but he lost the popular vote" argument.
Second, no Trump voter in another state will ever be convinced not to vote for Trump because another state threw him off the ballot. On the contrary, it will galvanize his base like nothing else ever would. It feeds right into his victim argument.
Polls do seem to show that actually being convicted would hurt him. But punished without being convicted is unlikely to hurt him.
From a legal and constitutional standpoint, the arguments on both sides of this issue are very interesting. I did a video presentation on this a few months ago in case anyone is interested.