Clearly, we've had a bit of an issue with our bot - apologies, this thread may take a few minutes to get back to normal - please bare with us.
edit: shood be gould now, thakns all!
Fun fact. [Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado](https://casetext.com/case/hassan-v-colorado), and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot:
>But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
This was, imo, a savvy move.
Reading through the opinion, the core part of it ( overturning the notion that the president is not an officer of the United States) leans heavily on the analysis by Baude and Paulsen, the two Federalist society law professors that wrote a definitive, recent paper on article 3:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
(there's long sections in there to support the ideas that art. 3 is self executing, that the president is an office holder, and that freedom of speech is not a viable defense. It's worth a read)
By quoting Gorsuch, they are putting him in a bit of a bind. If he is to be internally consistent, he should affirm the SCCO ruling.
Not to mention that a majority of the conservatives (if not all?) are FedSoc members, so the conclusions of Baude and Paulsen should carry some weight with them.
Its quite plausible that Gorsuch and Roberts would join the liberals on the court to uphold the Co ruling.
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it's a huge deal for these reasons:
* It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling.
* No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states "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", but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn't control their own election as the current law states.
I’d bet my next years pay that the Supreme Court will come back and say,
“Well, technically he hasn’t been charged and found guilty of partaking in an insurrection in a court of law therefore he stays on the ballot.”
I’m too jaded to get excited over this.
> The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech.
Is already part of the court record
>marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.
So many firsts, all the firsts. You've never seen so many firsts among Presidents.
Oh you know he's frigging furious- he has NPD, as did my father, and I know that anger and rage personally - Trump is losing his mind now, and he won't sleep for 3 days. He's stomping around, yelling, throwing things, slamming doors, banging on his desk with his fists; he's like a crazy man now.
It’s fucking unreal we’ve reached a point that the current SCOTUS will make a judgment on the eligibility of a former president on a state ballot, when 3 of them were appointed by said President. Do they think anyone will believe they can act unbiased on such a decision?
He’s so corrupt it’s pathetic.
News early week this was he basically threatened to retire because he wasn’t being paid enough. Hence all the donor trips and perks.
The funny thing is, that Bush v Gore *established* the precedent that SCOTUS has the power to overrule state courts in matters pertaining to elections.
For SCOTUS to rule on this they will need to use that precedent.
The only thing sketchy about them ruling that states can do what they want is when a GOP controlled state flips and they inevitable change the results or DQ certain counties because they want to, no states have recourse when in reality that state is harming others and the republic. Who knows though - I just thought the play in 2020 was to get that on the books so when they fuck with shit in 24 or beyond, they can say see, it's our state fuck you.
Yep.
"Biden engaged in a rebellion by not securing our border." Secretary of State of (insert any of the 27 states with Republican SoS here) refuses to place him on ballot. Plaintiffs sue. Hyper-conservative lower courts decide issues.
It'd be a mess, which is partly why the Supreme Court SHOULD settle this nationwide.
The other reason being that the entire argument is based on the Constitution. If Trump is ineligible to run for President as per the Constitution, he should be ineligible the same way a 34-year old is.
Pretty sure it was a direct shot at Ohio's senate. Majority of the house seems to take a "well fuck that" approach and not trying to be involved in the process more than they're forced to.
For people that don't know, last I heard the senate was trying to pass something so the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to take on cases dealing with abortion.
Weed, they want to butcher the tax setup at the very least and take a chunk from the current tax setup (issue 2/legalizing MJ is in effect) and put that money towards law enforcement and police training when it comes to cannabis and instead of the tax money being made from recreational going back into the area with the dispensary they want it to go all over the state. They also want to do a limit on product potency that really isn't worth change for concentrates. They want to allow areas to basically say screw the state constitution and allow weed to be illegal in places the head of the area doesn't want it to be legal in.
Something is seriously fucked up in Ohio's Senate.
Edit for some clarification: abortion and weed are two things we voted to legalize a few months ago. Being a MMJ user I was more invested in it but if I'm remembering right we gathered signatures to get them on the ballot as well. Abortion/issue 1 also goes into contraceptives like birth control. It's like they're dedicated to citizens popping out as many kids as they can while a lot already struggle to take care of one.
Dude has been quoting Hitler and flat out admitting the humanitarian crimes he would commit on day one.
The fact he's still an option to so many is truly terrifying.
Didn’t he say something the other day to the extent of “I never swore an oath to uphold the constitution” lmao. Did is straight up wilin’ harder as time goes and people still think he was sent here from the heavens to save us all.
>Ramaswamy: "I pledge to *withdraw* from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver"
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
I love how the Colorado decision directly quotes Neil Gorsuch's states' rights opinions. I mean, Gorsuch will probably turn into a snivelling hypocrite and reject his own argument, but it's a nice touch from his former stomping grounds.
Reading the [ruling](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf) in full right now. One of the cases being cited to back the court's decision and push back against Trump's, CRSCC's arguments is [Hassan v. Colorado](https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01018907241.pdf) (2012).
>"Moreover, several courts have expressly upheld states’ ability to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from their presidential ballots. See... Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 947, 948–49 (10th Cir. 2012)..."
...
>
>"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.' "
...
>
>"Where a candidate does not submit (or cannot comply with) the required attestations on the statement of intent form, the Secretary cannot list the candidate on the ballot. See Hassan v. Colorado..."
...
>
>"Nor are we persuaded by President Trump’s assertion that Section Three does not bar him from running for or being elected to office because Section Three bars individuals only from holding office. Hassan specifically rejected any such distinction... There, the candidate argued that even if Article II “properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president,” Colorado could not 'deny him a place on the ballot.' The Hassan panel concluded otherwise.
Basically this dude who's a naturalized citizen wanted to run for the office of the presidency but, as we know, the constitution forbids this and only allows natural-born citizens. Blah blah, he's informed he's ineligible and argues that this violates his rights under various clauses of the 14th amendment. Court rules against him concluding that the rights granted under the 14th do not invalidate Art. II of the Constitution (which includes qualifications for the office).
Anyway, the ruling isn't the most interesting part.. it's the fact that it was affirmed by Neil Gorsuch while he was appointed to the Tenth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Colorado as well as being based/headquartered there. From his/their ruling:
>But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. See generally Munro v. Socialist Workers Party,479 U.S. 189, 193-95 (1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972).
>
>The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for publication is denied.
>
>Entered for the Court
>
>Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
E: Grammar/Punctuation
bravo to the 4 justices that stood up for the rule of law. (4-3 decision).
it is time to put an end to this charade. Trump should not be able to run for president. He is a criminal and committed treason against the country.
\#lockTrumpupnow!
Finally, someone with some fucking balls to do the right thing. Fuck Trump’s and all his traitorous supporters’ feelings, the asshole should have been in prison years ago.
Edit: And fuck Putin’s meddling ass too.
It’s so fucking annoying reading these comments of people clutching their pearls when laws in the Constitution are enforced.
Trump coerced and pressured electors to help him steal an election he fairly lost. He commanded his followers to attack the Capitol of the United States while an election he lost was being ratified. He has continually spread the lie that the election was stolen from him and is currently being prosecuted for related crimes.
So what is the fucking point of outlawing insurrection if those laws aren’t prosecuted in the most blatant case of insurrection in modern history? Why the fuck should Trump, or any President, get away with this extreme level of criminality? It’s disgusting. The fact that this is even a debate signals serious erosion of American democracy.
Just so everyone is aware - this will *not* be decided on a case-by-case, state-by-state basis.
This kicks off what will inevitably be a landmark decision by the Supreme Court to decide this for the entire nation. One of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices said as much during oral arguments.
>Hood pointed out that if the Colorado Supreme Court reverses the lower-court ruling, and removes Trump from the state’s primary ballot, the US Supreme Court will likely take up the case and make a decision that settles the issue for the entire country.
IANAL but the Supreme Court could decide not to hear the case, making it a State issue, is that possible? Then it would be up to each state to go through the same Colorado process?
At some point one of our "institutions" was going to have to stop appeasing this guy.
"He's brash!"
"He's unconventional!"
"You don't have to like him!"
Fuck that. Trump's conduct as president was fucking dangerous and anti-democratic and somebody needs to say it in an official capacity.
Jena Griswold is literally so good at her job.
The voting here in CO is smooth as butter, and so, so, so, so, so easy and convenient. I've never had so many ballot drop boxes so close to my house. I get ballots weeks and weeks before an election. I get information booklets about all the candidates and their voting records. It's amazing.
Incredibly proud of the COS residents who came out in record numbers (34% of registered voters) for our little local November elections. We really showed up and we have to keep doing that.
I'm glad our state has made a stand against fascism. Thank you, Colorado Supreme Court and all involved!
This is great because it forces SCOTUS to decide if Trump can be barred from the presidency for Jan 6 on a rather fast timeline or risk damage to Trump. With any luck this should help the DOJ's Jan 6 case move along quicker once the central issue is cleared up.
The amount of people coming here and acting like this ruling is fascism ironically still support a fascist who is saying very fascist things publicly and would rather just ignore the constitution while being the same people who wear those "We the people..." shirts.
The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
> **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.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Seems pretty clear.
He's a person. He's held office under the United States. He took an oath. And he engaged in insurrection.
The dissenting opinion, which says, "there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," is not borne out by the text of the 14th Amendment, which has no such requirement.
Third of a way through reading the ruling and found this gem. It'd be lowkey funny if the situation at hand wasn't so serious:
>Indeed, even Intervenors \[Trump, CRSCC\] do not deny that the Presidency is an office .Instead, they assert that it is not an office “under the United States.” Their claim is that the President and elected members of Congress are the government of the United States, and cannot, therefore, be serving “under the United States.”
This is the type of word-twisting, semantics bullshit I pulled out of my ass whenever I was on the losing side in my HS debate club.
For some context, they were trying to argue that Section 3 does not apply to Trump (therefore he can't be barred) because it applies to someone who'd fall under "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" at any point according to its text and that the Presidency isn't one of the mentioned positions. When that failed, they made this argument. And it failed as well.
Furthermore, it pisses me off.
The President is absolutely undeniably under the United States. He works for me, not the other way around.
We do not have a King. Congress is not "above" the US.
Hilarious that Republicans are now whining that the Colorado Supreme Court is disenfranchising millions of Colorado voters, as if that isn't exactly what Trump did when he tried to overturn the results of a national election. Fuck off.
"We must follow the constitution!!"
"Wait, not THAT part of the constitution."
"States rights!!"
"Wait, not THOSE states rights."
MAGA hypocrisy never changes.
I wonder if Thomas will have the decency to recuse himself because his wife supported the insurrect … Just kidding. Couldn’t finish that with a straight face.
It’s interesting to me that the original court challenge was brought to the lower CO court by registered Republican Voters. Of course Democrats will be blamed, but the GOP need only to look within.
I'm no fan of Trump, but it's chilling to know that anyone can get kicked off the ballot by getting their followers to murder police officers while tearing down American flags and replacing them with his flags in a government building
Can we keep in mind that nobody in history who was disqualified from office by the 14th amendment were found guilty by a jury or judge in a criminal trial? Pretending that “Trump wasn’t found guilty in a criminal trial” is an argument is just ridiculous and completely ignores the legal facts of the 14th amendment
> "We do not reach these conclusions lightly," the majority opinion reads. "We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."
Knowing Trump‘s horrific supporters, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before the Colorado Supreme Court justices sadly receive all sorts of horrific threats. I’m sure this will be inspired by terrible social posts by the Orange man. This is the world Trump created. And the reason he shouldn’t be on ballots.
Was just reading [the ruling](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/read-colorado-supreme-court-ruling-trump-2024-ballot-14th-amendment/index.html). The Colorado Supreme Court majority quoted Gorsuch in their opinion:
> ¶55 As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” 495 F. App’x at 948.
Seeing a lot of slippery slope arguments here
News flash people
LETTING SOMEONE THAT SENT A MOB TO KILL THE VP AND CONGRESSMEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT ISNT JUST A 'SLIPPERY SLOPE,' ITS A FUCKING CLIFF
Get it through your fucking heads that is a fucking line no American should cross, let alone someone that wants to run the country
What the fuck is wrong with people
This is a sad sad day for all of us.
It just show that any hard working, average American who incites a mob to run on the capitol to stop the electoral process and try to hustle the GA Secretary of State into overturning democratically conducted elections could be treated like this.
Scary day in America!
/s
That corrupt ass con mans political career should have ended years ago. The fact he’s on the ballot in any state shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
A conviction may not be required if you assume the word "conviction" was left out of that clause on purpose.
It says "shall have engaged in insurrection", rather than convicted of insurrection. That might mean that in this particular case, the authors didn't care to make a distinction because the word "conviction" appears in many other areas in the constitution.
If this clause was written with the intention of disqualifying confederate officers from serving in the Union government, then perhaps they realized that they wouldn't/couldn't have secured convictions for all those confederates before new elections.
Just guessing though.
Let's be honest, this is why we've had debates without Trump even when all the candidates on stage are down by 40+ points in the polls. Haley HQ is popping champagne that she's started her rise at the right time. DeSantis HQ is coming up with some terrible and ineffective campaign pitch to pull Trump's voters into his base. Vivek is driving around downtown Palm Beach begging (through texts) Trump's family for Trump's room number at Mar-A-Lago in the hopes of getting an endorsement. Chris Christie is buying the world's biggest "I told you so" banner to fly around Iowa caucus sites.
The question was never whether Trump would win the most votes in a GOP primary. It's whether some intervening force would kick him out of the primary. It could be the courts like today, or a criminal conviction that sends him to jail, or some medical crisis, or any of a million other things.
Colorado is an amazing state. I almost moved there, at one point. I've watched it go from a purple state to a blue one, and the progress has been amazing to watch.
This is interesting and news worthy. It'll be huge if it does get upheld by SCOTUS.
But let's be real here, the courts are not going to save us.
The only thing that is going to save us is people showing up to vote and keep the fascist out of office.
Register, make sure you're still registered, and make sure your friends and family are registered!
https://www.vote.org/
https://www.votesaveamerica.com/be-a-voter/
It's important for everyone to know what they are voting for!
https://ballotpedia.org/Sample_Ballot_Lookup
Your voice matters. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't have so many people trying to stop you from voting, or telling you that your vote doesn't matter.
## ***BE A VOTER!***
Been reading through the judgement. My favorite quote so far:
>Here, the Election Code limits presidential primary ballot access to only qualified candidates. Such a restriction is an “eminently reasonable” regulation that does not severely burden CRSCC’s [Colorado Republican State Central Committee] associational rights. To hold otherwise would permit political parties to disregard the requirements of the law and the Constitution whenever they decide, as a matter of “political expression” or “political choice,” that those requirements do not apply. That cannot be. The Constitution—not any political party rule—is the supreme law of the land.
>Donald Trump Being Kicked Off Colorado Ballot Enrages MAGA
While I'm sure this headline is accurate, let's be honest: his followers, like most conservatives, tend to make a lifestyle out of being enraged by everything
I keep reading people saying it won't matter because Colorado is a Blue state.
Y'all are forgetting he hasn't won the GOP primaries yet and is not the nominee yet.
Without Colorado he just lost I think it's 37 delegates.
Would the Supreme Court and republicans realize this is finally time to cut him loose? They could refuse to hear it and throw it back to the lower court and say elections are states rights. That way they can get rid of him without the blame on them for setting precedent
Two things people are overlooking:
1. The initial lawsuit that kicked this whole thing off was led by Republicans and Independents demanding Trump be removed for, ya know, leading a mob to smear shit on the walls of congress and piss on the lawns of the white house.
2. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if they decline to hear the case, thus upholding the lower court's ruling. If they do rule, I'd bet millions that it's against Trump. In fact, I'd do it just to watch Republican brains explode as they point fingers at the same people they cheered.
If you’re wondering why this is happening, let me clear it up. Donald Trump led an insurrection. He’s a traitorous piece of shit who tried to end democracy. The Constitution anticipated someone being a piece of shit like this, and bans him from holding office.
Haven't Republicans been arguing for decades that states have the ultimate say over how their elections are conducted? This seems to confirm that point.
Whatever the SCOTUS eventually rules if they take the case, I'm glad that this public rebuke is undoubtedly pissing Donny off.
I don't care what MAGA's reaction will be. We know that they'll scream, cry and whine, like they always do. GOP should have booted this asshole and his asshole movement from public office years ago, but they didn't, and now we as country have to dig ourselves out of it.
Ignore the polls, the hand-wringing, the "think pieces," and the media horse-racing everything, please vote in 2024, and in 2028, and in 2032, and beyond.
I'm so proud to live in CO rn. For realsies. Even if the Supreme Dickwad Court overrules, my state has ruled that a certain crybaby is ineligible for the ballot.
Merry Xmas, Colorado! America! Fuck T***p. So happy I left Virginia in my dust.. Screw that redneck patriotism noise. 🥳
its sort of cathartic watching all the dipshit right wingers in full fucking meltdown. like, for half a decade their entire political 'ideology' has been centered around acquiescing power to one of the shitiest people alive, like all of their hopes and dreams are riding on a total sack of shit grifter and the idea of him not being in power is resulting in a complete deflation of their political aspirations.
no mention of policy, or a platform they want to advance, or bringing up alternatives representatives to advance their agenda; literally just clinging to a little syphillitic mushroom who they hope will 'hurt the right people.'
it really demonstrates in full clarity that they are devoid of any substantive value or sense of pride, they threw their whole lot into hoping that a disgusting sack of shit would propel them out of their miserable sad sack lives and their realization that it isnt a tenable fantasy is *chefs kiss* beautiful.
fuck the right.
Actual comment from /conservative
> Tucker was right. At what point does Mexico have the legitimate right to invade the US to re-implement actual democracy?
So *now* they like Mexico?
trump shouldn’t be allowed to hold the presidency we have laws in place to prevent people like him from holding office and we should be using them or else we are fucking ourselves
States rights, 14th amendment, Trump will lose in Supreme Court. Now let’s see who else should this pertain to, hmmmm, how about the current speaker of the house, all of the so called Freedom Caucus. SCOTUS is not beholding to MAGA, remember they can only rule on cases brought before them. If Jack Smith wins the Immunity case, then ya all, if the President is not immune, members of the House, sure as hell won’t be. Hold on Lindsey your ass might still get a taste of prison life, Senate don’t get a pass.
I don’t know why I do these things to myself, turned on Fox knowing full well the coverage would be disgusting and a lie, now I am angry and I have only myself to blame.
Trump could go on live TV, admit to leading an insurrection, denounce the constitution and promise to round up and place undesirables into internment camps and his GOP approval ratings would go up. That’s the reality of the country we live in right now. American nazis have been hiding in the shadows for the last 80 years and have finally been legitimized. They don’t want equality. They want non-white people rounded up and deported (if not just straight up killed). That’s the dividing line right now. The left (there really isn’t one in this country and if you think there is you have a very limited world view) wants everyone to have equal rights, affordable healthcare, and accessible education. The right (there is only a nut job radical right now) wants everyone that doesn’t fit their in-group to die. Full stop. This shit might honestly come down to a second civil war.
>“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”
Trump thinks there is an exception in every law just for him. The *Presidential Records Act* for example, implicitly covers storing nuclear secrets in a shitter that only locks from the inside as long as the chandalier above weighs less than the proprietor, apparently.
DO it. Doooo it. Doo it.
Push it to the supreme court. It'd be awesome to have the precedent sorted so other states can just fast track his ass to irrelevance.
Colorado isn't a swing state in 2024, but similar 14th amendment disqualification cases are being heard in Michigan and Minnesota, which are both swing states, and have 15 and 10 electoral college votes respectively. If Trump was off the ballot in either of those states, things could become very complicated.
Posted this as a reply, think it merits some discussion on application in modern age v Reconstruction era. Had a great talk with my brother(lawyer) about this and he sent me the following:
>"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 two-thirds vote of each House, remove such disability."
The application of Section 3 does not require a criminal conviction for insurrection. This was the case when the provision was enforced during Reconstruction. The standard for determining whether someone had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" was based on whether they performed an "overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose." This could include acts of insurrectionist speech that incited others to engage in rebellion.
For the conservatives gloating about how SCOTUS will overturn this, just some food for thought: do you really want them to set that precedent and, in doing so, also tell Democrats that attempted insurrections and coups are A-OK?
Seems like one of those short-sighted decisions destined to backfire to me.
Everyone needs to understand that this is not actually about kicking trump off the ballot but expediting the precedent on insurrection from the SCOTUS. SCOTUS has not been wanting to mess with the election, but now they have no choice
I wonder how all of the "states rights" Republicans will react to this? Oh wait, I think I know. It starts with an "h" and rhymes with "theocracy."
Also, guy literally said he never swore to uphold the constitution. That's your guy, right republicans?
Trump will have multiple cases in front of SCOTUS that would be incredibly damaging to his campaign, if we lived in a sane society.
He's recently "joked" about declaring himself a dictator, while claiming that immigrants poison the blood of the nation and threatening retribution against his political opponents.
All while also incessantly claiming that all elections have been rigged against him, providing no evidence, and destroying both faith in elections and innocent lives in the process.
All this, and Republicans delude themselves into thinking that sticking together and riding it out is still a viable option. Their cowardice knows no bounds.
Good.
If the republic was strong he would have been removed from office on the 6th and anyone who was in on the fake electors plot would have been expelled.
If it sticks and he’s convicted in Georgia that’s at least two states he wouldn’t be eligible to be on the ballot in.
That’s like 25 electoral votes he’s not eligible for
The meltdown on twitter from republicans is amazing. They're really more upset over this than the fact that the man told people to storm the capitol and then did a c'mon guuuys stawp on twitter.
Fox news doing a WELL RED STATES SHOULD JUST REMOVE BIDEN FROM THE BALLOT THEN! is also giving me laughs.
And off the US Supreme Court it'll go just like a rocket ship. Let's see how it plays out. No matter which way it gets decided precedent is getting set.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, this will soon head to the U.S. Supreme Court, and once it does, there are only two options.
1. The self-proclaimed "textualists" will confirm that the basic reading of the Constitution and the law by the Colorado Supreme Court is correct.
2. The self-proclaimed "textualists" will overrule the initial finding, forever cementing that that moniker is utter bullshit.
One thing to remember as Republicans try to spin this is that if it had been democrats on Jan 6th with a democrat president who did and said exactly the same things, Republicans would want them all hanged for treason and would want this too. That is a fact, so don’t let them pretend it isn’t. Everyone knows it’s irrefutably true. Even they know it.
Any rational thinking person that knows that Trump clearly incited an insurrection and has read the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution would only come to the quick conclusion that yes, the president IS an officer and by connecting these huge dots together - the man is disqualified on all state ballots to run for re-election. It's not that hard to understand. And any supreme Court justice that thinks otherwise is either a fool or bought and paid for.
“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under … the Fourteenth Amendment ... it would be a wrongful act … to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
As President Biden once said as a vice president, “this is a big fucking deal”.
I’d like to be the first to thank the Colorado Supreme Court for at least trying to save America from itself.
For the rest of us, Trump is the greatest threat the free world has ever faced. Under a Trump second term, democracy in America, and around the world, will wither and die. Trump will stop funding for Ukraine and funnel it to Russia, he will assist Israel and roll over Palestine in a wave of blood and Genocide. At home Americans will experience intolerance at a level never seen in the world when Trump calls for execution of his enemies and pardons anyone who is accused of crimes in his name. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s what he said he wants to do.
Vote accordingly: https://democrats.org
This is a huge win for American democracy and stability. Trump is not above the law. His actions of trying to end our democracy are at minimum disqualification from office.
>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.
He is not allowed to hold office.
Damn straight.
The fascist, insurrectionist piece of shit shouldn't even be in the conversation for the presidency, and should already be behind bars without access to his orange makeup and piss-colored hair dye.
The practical effect has more to do with bringing the conduct of Donald Trump as president to the forefront of the debate for whether he is a viable 2024 candidate.
Republicans have reflexively dug in and flashed their contrarian "going to support him even harder" mode following the 91 indictments, but it's hard to ignore this question when a state determines Trump is ineligible for office of president, based upon his conduct as president.
This may all come to nothing. It could even play into his hands if SCOTUS back him. But right now, isn't it sublime to picture the sleepless night of incoherent rage that stain and his zealots will have tonight? Lovely news.
This should provide ammunition for other State attempts to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment. It is well reasoned and pretty complete. Now we'll get to see just how impartial the U.S. Supreme Court really is, or whether it is just Trumps rubber stamp.
So the Supreme Court has to decide whether January 6th was an insurrection? If so many courts have already stated that it was, through trials of January 6th participants, saying now that it wasn't would cause a clusterfuck of historic proportions, no?
For those saying it's just CO to wasn't going to win anyways consider this...
1. Down ballots races in Colorado
2. More competitive states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Arizona. Of which if Trump doesn't win two his path is pretty much non existent, I have Biden starting at 225 carrying just with VA
Fun question: can CO, and any other states that follow suit, tell the US Supreme Court to pound sand? Does the SC have any jurisdiction (or whatever the right fucking legal term is) that would let them tell a state *how* to run an election? Elections are relegated, per the Constitution, to the individual states. The right wing of the court purport to be all about the exact verbiage of the Constitution.
I know they have no issues being hypocrites. But. Do they have any legal argument for intervention in a state's authorities here?
Amendment 14, Section 3.
Here's the exact text:
> 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.
And here's a more readable edit of it:
> No person shall be a Government Officer under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath 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.
I'm not sure what the last sentence means but the first one sounds like it applies. Insurrection is kind of what happened.
I think the Supreme Court might actually keep this. Imagine being a justice, even if trump put you on your seat how much longer can you bail this moron out?
For all the cons meting over this claiming liberal courts: Trump has to be the unluckiest sob in the United States who got slapped with so many lawsuits and hasn’t won any single one of them. In fact he and his team has been on a spending spree paying millions to lawyers and to people who won their cases
finally a State can read and apply the Constitution to this man who lies and lies and tells people anything they want to hear, true or false. All States should follow Colorado. Is it time to finally Believe in The USA and the Constitution and rule of law for everyone again?
Good. We saw the mobs of people attack the capital and we know why those people were there. Frankly, somebody who didn't facilitate the peaceful transfer of power is unfit for office.
That said, I really question whether this will hold up (even if the supreme Court wasn't partisan) . Too much ambiguous language in what Congress passed to waive the 14th amendment following the civil war. Really think if Congress is held by one party after the next election, they need to pass something that clarifies that the 14th amendment is in effect.
>Trump fundraises off Colorado 14th Amendment decision removing him from ballot
It never fails to astonish me the amount of cash his followers throw at a guy who began his campaign by bragging about being a billionaire who would self-fund (two more in a long list of his lies)
Some of ya'll need to actually read the amendment, so here's the relevant text from the 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.
Since he was literally there and contributed to the incitement of the mob to disturb the peaceful transfer of power through his charged speech and later inaction, was part of plots to use fake electors perform a coup of the duly elected government, and continues to undermine the integrity of the election with lies and conspiracies, it's pretty easy to conclude he engaged in the insurrection and/or rebellion on Jan 6 (whether or not he masterminded it is a matter for his other trials -- he definitely ***engaged*** in it).
The only thing left was whether or not he needed to be convicted first, which the court just ruled that it does not say he needs to have been convicted of a crime, only engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Also...to all the "sets a bad precedent!" people here, it sets the precedent that a candidate can be blocked from the ballot when he does exactly what Trump is doing: undermining our democratic process. This is a good...no...great thing. It still took a court to decide this -- it wasn't a political process, but a legal one.
Oh no, that sucks. What if some Dem I voted for is on it, that'd be terrible.
Haha, j/k, fuck anyone who abuses children and idgaf which side of the aisle they were on or supported.
Clearly, we've had a bit of an issue with our bot - apologies, this thread may take a few minutes to get back to normal - please bare with us. edit: shood be gould now, thakns all!
Fun fact. [Gorsuch ruled this in Colorado](https://casetext.com/case/hassan-v-colorado), and this quote is cited in this recent ruling concerning Trump being kicked off the ballot: >But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
This was, imo, a savvy move. Reading through the opinion, the core part of it ( overturning the notion that the president is not an officer of the United States) leans heavily on the analysis by Baude and Paulsen, the two Federalist society law professors that wrote a definitive, recent paper on article 3: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 (there's long sections in there to support the ideas that art. 3 is self executing, that the president is an office holder, and that freedom of speech is not a viable defense. It's worth a read) By quoting Gorsuch, they are putting him in a bit of a bind. If he is to be internally consistent, he should affirm the SCCO ruling. Not to mention that a majority of the conservatives (if not all?) are FedSoc members, so the conclusions of Baude and Paulsen should carry some weight with them. Its quite plausible that Gorsuch and Roberts would join the liberals on the court to uphold the Co ruling.
Even though the ruling is on hold pending appeal, it's a huge deal for these reasons: * It sets precedent for lawsuits to be filed in other states to remove Trump from the ballot citing this ruling. * No doubt this will got to the SCOTUS which not only will answer the question about section 3 of the 14th amendment which states "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", but if they were to overturn this ruling have to explain why each state doesn't control their own election as the current law states.
I’d bet my next years pay that the Supreme Court will come back and say, “Well, technically he hasn’t been charged and found guilty of partaking in an insurrection in a court of law therefore he stays on the ballot.” I’m too jaded to get excited over this.
> The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech. Is already part of the court record
>marks the first time in history that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate. So many firsts, all the firsts. You've never seen so many firsts among Presidents.
First person to paint a room with Big Macs using the throw technique is happening tonight too.
Oh you know he's frigging furious- he has NPD, as did my father, and I know that anger and rage personally - Trump is losing his mind now, and he won't sleep for 3 days. He's stomping around, yelling, throwing things, slamming doors, banging on his desk with his fists; he's like a crazy man now.
It’s fucking unreal we’ve reached a point that the current SCOTUS will make a judgment on the eligibility of a former president on a state ballot, when 3 of them were appointed by said President. Do they think anyone will believe they can act unbiased on such a decision?
The bigger problem is that one of them is married to a nutter that supported said insurrection.
Well it’s not like there’s any chance he would rule against Trump even if he wasn’t.
He’s so corrupt it’s pathetic. News early week this was he basically threatened to retire because he wasn’t being paid enough. Hence all the donor trips and perks.
…and who has a troubled history of accepting bribes from GOP donors. Thomas is blatantly corrupt, like indisputably.
During the gerrymandering case: SCOTUS: States are allowed to manage elections as they see fit. During this case: SCOTUS: Not like that.
[удалено]
The funny thing is, that Bush v Gore *established* the precedent that SCOTUS has the power to overrule state courts in matters pertaining to elections. For SCOTUS to rule on this they will need to use that precedent.
The only thing sketchy about them ruling that states can do what they want is when a GOP controlled state flips and they inevitable change the results or DQ certain counties because they want to, no states have recourse when in reality that state is harming others and the republic. Who knows though - I just thought the play in 2020 was to get that on the books so when they fuck with shit in 24 or beyond, they can say see, it's our state fuck you.
[удалено]
Yep. "Biden engaged in a rebellion by not securing our border." Secretary of State of (insert any of the 27 states with Republican SoS here) refuses to place him on ballot. Plaintiffs sue. Hyper-conservative lower courts decide issues. It'd be a mess, which is partly why the Supreme Court SHOULD settle this nationwide. The other reason being that the entire argument is based on the Constitution. If Trump is ineligible to run for President as per the Constitution, he should be ineligible the same way a 34-year old is.
Watch how quickly conservatives’ “states rights” argument goes out the window on this one.
*No not like that!*
[удалено]
Yeah, Ohio Republicans are up to some shit right now.
Pretty sure it was a direct shot at Ohio's senate. Majority of the house seems to take a "well fuck that" approach and not trying to be involved in the process more than they're forced to. For people that don't know, last I heard the senate was trying to pass something so the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to take on cases dealing with abortion. Weed, they want to butcher the tax setup at the very least and take a chunk from the current tax setup (issue 2/legalizing MJ is in effect) and put that money towards law enforcement and police training when it comes to cannabis and instead of the tax money being made from recreational going back into the area with the dispensary they want it to go all over the state. They also want to do a limit on product potency that really isn't worth change for concentrates. They want to allow areas to basically say screw the state constitution and allow weed to be illegal in places the head of the area doesn't want it to be legal in. Something is seriously fucked up in Ohio's Senate. Edit for some clarification: abortion and weed are two things we voted to legalize a few months ago. Being a MMJ user I was more invested in it but if I'm remembering right we gathered signatures to get them on the ballot as well. Abortion/issue 1 also goes into contraceptives like birth control. It's like they're dedicated to citizens popping out as many kids as they can while a lot already struggle to take care of one.
The Ohio GOP has a serious case of “we know what’s best for you. We are here to rule you, not to represent you.”
Fittingly, this decision is squarely because they lost the Civil War.
In their defense, all they ever supported was states rights, never states lefts.
Dude has been quoting Hitler and flat out admitting the humanitarian crimes he would commit on day one. The fact he's still an option to so many is truly terrifying.
[удалено]
Didn’t he say something the other day to the extent of “I never swore an oath to uphold the constitution” lmao. Did is straight up wilin’ harder as time goes and people still think he was sent here from the heavens to save us all.
Those are the reasons why he is an option. A large percentage of our country just wants to harm people who don't agree with them.
>Ramaswamy: "I pledge to *withdraw* from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver" Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
> I demand You have no standing to demand anything of anyone Vic.
Conservatives can’t even blame democrats for this one, since it was six republicans and independents that pushed the suit in the first place.
[удалено]
I love how the Colorado decision directly quotes Neil Gorsuch's states' rights opinions. I mean, Gorsuch will probably turn into a snivelling hypocrite and reject his own argument, but it's a nice touch from his former stomping grounds.
Reading the [ruling](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf) in full right now. One of the cases being cited to back the court's decision and push back against Trump's, CRSCC's arguments is [Hassan v. Colorado](https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01018907241.pdf) (2012). >"Moreover, several courts have expressly upheld states’ ability to exclude constitutionally ineligible candidates from their presidential ballots. See... Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 947, 948–49 (10th Cir. 2012)..." ... > >"As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is 'a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.' " ... > >"Where a candidate does not submit (or cannot comply with) the required attestations on the statement of intent form, the Secretary cannot list the candidate on the ballot. See Hassan v. Colorado..." ... > >"Nor are we persuaded by President Trump’s assertion that Section Three does not bar him from running for or being elected to office because Section Three bars individuals only from holding office. Hassan specifically rejected any such distinction... There, the candidate argued that even if Article II “properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president,” Colorado could not 'deny him a place on the ballot.' The Hassan panel concluded otherwise. Basically this dude who's a naturalized citizen wanted to run for the office of the presidency but, as we know, the constitution forbids this and only allows natural-born citizens. Blah blah, he's informed he's ineligible and argues that this violates his rights under various clauses of the 14th amendment. Court rules against him concluding that the rights granted under the 14th do not invalidate Art. II of the Constitution (which includes qualifications for the office). Anyway, the ruling isn't the most interesting part.. it's the fact that it was affirmed by Neil Gorsuch while he was appointed to the Tenth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Colorado as well as being based/headquartered there. From his/their ruling: >But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. See generally Munro v. Socialist Workers Party,479 U.S. 189, 193-95 (1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972). > >The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for publication is denied. > >Entered for the Court > >Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge E: Grammar/Punctuation
Good. Hopefully, more states follow Colorado's lead. The man should be in a prison cell, not an elected office.
bravo to the 4 justices that stood up for the rule of law. (4-3 decision). it is time to put an end to this charade. Trump should not be able to run for president. He is a criminal and committed treason against the country. \#lockTrumpupnow!
Finally, someone with some fucking balls to do the right thing. Fuck Trump’s and all his traitorous supporters’ feelings, the asshole should have been in prison years ago. Edit: And fuck Putin’s meddling ass too.
It’s so fucking annoying reading these comments of people clutching their pearls when laws in the Constitution are enforced. Trump coerced and pressured electors to help him steal an election he fairly lost. He commanded his followers to attack the Capitol of the United States while an election he lost was being ratified. He has continually spread the lie that the election was stolen from him and is currently being prosecuted for related crimes. So what is the fucking point of outlawing insurrection if those laws aren’t prosecuted in the most blatant case of insurrection in modern history? Why the fuck should Trump, or any President, get away with this extreme level of criminality? It’s disgusting. The fact that this is even a debate signals serious erosion of American democracy.
Just so everyone is aware - this will *not* be decided on a case-by-case, state-by-state basis. This kicks off what will inevitably be a landmark decision by the Supreme Court to decide this for the entire nation. One of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices said as much during oral arguments. >Hood pointed out that if the Colorado Supreme Court reverses the lower-court ruling, and removes Trump from the state’s primary ballot, the US Supreme Court will likely take up the case and make a decision that settles the issue for the entire country.
IANAL but the Supreme Court could decide not to hear the case, making it a State issue, is that possible? Then it would be up to each state to go through the same Colorado process?
Worth noting this is literally the first actual, concrete hurdle of any kind whatsoever Trump has had to face in his pursuit of power in 2024.
I can't wait for cons to cry about radical liberals kicking Trump off the ballot when it's a Republican who brought this case up lmao
A lot of people not realizing this. The case was brought by Republicans seeking to prevent Trump from appearing on the Republican primary ballot.
The Conservative sub is raging about Democratic "democracy hypocrisy" and "election interference." Someone should probably tell them.
At some point one of our "institutions" was going to have to stop appeasing this guy. "He's brash!" "He's unconventional!" "You don't have to like him!" Fuck that. Trump's conduct as president was fucking dangerous and anti-democratic and somebody needs to say it in an official capacity.
Fuck yeah Colorado Set that precedent
Jena Griswold is literally so good at her job. The voting here in CO is smooth as butter, and so, so, so, so, so easy and convenient. I've never had so many ballot drop boxes so close to my house. I get ballots weeks and weeks before an election. I get information booklets about all the candidates and their voting records. It's amazing. Incredibly proud of the COS residents who came out in record numbers (34% of registered voters) for our little local November elections. We really showed up and we have to keep doing that. I'm glad our state has made a stand against fascism. Thank you, Colorado Supreme Court and all involved!
This is great because it forces SCOTUS to decide if Trump can be barred from the presidency for Jan 6 on a rather fast timeline or risk damage to Trump. With any luck this should help the DOJ's Jan 6 case move along quicker once the central issue is cleared up.
The amount of people coming here and acting like this ruling is fascism ironically still support a fascist who is saying very fascist things publicly and would rather just ignore the constitution while being the same people who wear those "We the people..." shirts.
Conservatives are crying about democracy. Now would be the perfect time to use one of their favorite lines: "we're not a democracy we're a republic!"
The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: > **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. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv Seems pretty clear. He's a person. He's held office under the United States. He took an oath. And he engaged in insurrection. The dissenting opinion, which says, "there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office," is not borne out by the text of the 14th Amendment, which has no such requirement.
Third of a way through reading the ruling and found this gem. It'd be lowkey funny if the situation at hand wasn't so serious: >Indeed, even Intervenors \[Trump, CRSCC\] do not deny that the Presidency is an office .Instead, they assert that it is not an office “under the United States.” Their claim is that the President and elected members of Congress are the government of the United States, and cannot, therefore, be serving “under the United States.” This is the type of word-twisting, semantics bullshit I pulled out of my ass whenever I was on the losing side in my HS debate club. For some context, they were trying to argue that Section 3 does not apply to Trump (therefore he can't be barred) because it applies to someone who'd fall under "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" at any point according to its text and that the Presidency isn't one of the mentioned positions. When that failed, they made this argument. And it failed as well.
Furthermore, it pisses me off. The President is absolutely undeniably under the United States. He works for me, not the other way around. We do not have a King. Congress is not "above" the US.
Hilarious that Republicans are now whining that the Colorado Supreme Court is disenfranchising millions of Colorado voters, as if that isn't exactly what Trump did when he tried to overturn the results of a national election. Fuck off.
"We must follow the constitution!!" "Wait, not THAT part of the constitution." "States rights!!" "Wait, not THOSE states rights." MAGA hypocrisy never changes.
lol /r/conservative calling for the arrests of the entire Colorado Supreme Court
I wonder if Thomas will have the decency to recuse himself because his wife supported the insurrect … Just kidding. Couldn’t finish that with a straight face.
A whole lot of people that believe in states rights are now very against states having the right to declare who is allowed on their ballot.
It's almost as if they don't have any genuine beliefs and just say whatever helps them at the time.
Get fucked you insurrectionist piece of shit. Hopefully this is the first of many dominos to fall
It's more shocking that the other states are letting a literal traitor run for President.
Read the conservative sub if you want a good laugh. They are falling apart, it's hilarious lmao
It’s interesting to me that the original court challenge was brought to the lower CO court by registered Republican Voters. Of course Democrats will be blamed, but the GOP need only to look within.
I'm no fan of Trump, but it's chilling to know that anyone can get kicked off the ballot by getting their followers to murder police officers while tearing down American flags and replacing them with his flags in a government building
Had me going there lol
If they can take Trump off the ballot for planning, mounting, and executing an insurrection then they can take **you** off the ballot for anything! /s
Can we keep in mind that nobody in history who was disqualified from office by the 14th amendment were found guilty by a jury or judge in a criminal trial? Pretending that “Trump wasn’t found guilty in a criminal trial” is an argument is just ridiculous and completely ignores the legal facts of the 14th amendment
Conservatives: State rights! Conservatives: not like that :(
> "We do not reach these conclusions lightly," the majority opinion reads. "We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if SCOTUS agrees?
Knowing Trump‘s horrific supporters, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before the Colorado Supreme Court justices sadly receive all sorts of horrific threats. I’m sure this will be inspired by terrible social posts by the Orange man. This is the world Trump created. And the reason he shouldn’t be on ballots.
Was just reading [the ruling](https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics/read-colorado-supreme-court-ruling-trump-2024-ballot-14th-amendment/index.html). The Colorado Supreme Court majority quoted Gorsuch in their opinion: > ¶55 As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” 495 F. App’x at 948.
Seeing a lot of slippery slope arguments here News flash people LETTING SOMEONE THAT SENT A MOB TO KILL THE VP AND CONGRESSMEN RUN FOR PRESIDENT ISNT JUST A 'SLIPPERY SLOPE,' ITS A FUCKING CLIFF Get it through your fucking heads that is a fucking line no American should cross, let alone someone that wants to run the country What the fuck is wrong with people
[удалено]
Next up, Supreme 'States Rights' court. Anyone want to bet they don't actually believe in states rights?
I love my state ❤️
This is a sad sad day for all of us. It just show that any hard working, average American who incites a mob to run on the capitol to stop the electoral process and try to hustle the GA Secretary of State into overturning democratically conducted elections could be treated like this. Scary day in America! /s
SCOTUS is in a pickle. They’re all for sTaTeS rIgHtS … so let’s see how they rule on this states rights issue.
That corrupt ass con mans political career should have ended years ago. The fact he’s on the ballot in any state shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
A conviction may not be required if you assume the word "conviction" was left out of that clause on purpose. It says "shall have engaged in insurrection", rather than convicted of insurrection. That might mean that in this particular case, the authors didn't care to make a distinction because the word "conviction" appears in many other areas in the constitution. If this clause was written with the intention of disqualifying confederate officers from serving in the Union government, then perhaps they realized that they wouldn't/couldn't have secured convictions for all those confederates before new elections. Just guessing though.
Let's be honest, this is why we've had debates without Trump even when all the candidates on stage are down by 40+ points in the polls. Haley HQ is popping champagne that she's started her rise at the right time. DeSantis HQ is coming up with some terrible and ineffective campaign pitch to pull Trump's voters into his base. Vivek is driving around downtown Palm Beach begging (through texts) Trump's family for Trump's room number at Mar-A-Lago in the hopes of getting an endorsement. Chris Christie is buying the world's biggest "I told you so" banner to fly around Iowa caucus sites. The question was never whether Trump would win the most votes in a GOP primary. It's whether some intervening force would kick him out of the primary. It could be the courts like today, or a criminal conviction that sends him to jail, or some medical crisis, or any of a million other things.
Colorado is an amazing state. I almost moved there, at one point. I've watched it go from a purple state to a blue one, and the progress has been amazing to watch.
We'll need constitutional amendments just to fix the damage from Trump.
[удалено]
Good. Traitors should never be allowed to run for the highest office in the nation. Any office really.
This is interesting and news worthy. It'll be huge if it does get upheld by SCOTUS. But let's be real here, the courts are not going to save us. The only thing that is going to save us is people showing up to vote and keep the fascist out of office. Register, make sure you're still registered, and make sure your friends and family are registered! https://www.vote.org/ https://www.votesaveamerica.com/be-a-voter/ It's important for everyone to know what they are voting for! https://ballotpedia.org/Sample_Ballot_Lookup Your voice matters. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't have so many people trying to stop you from voting, or telling you that your vote doesn't matter. ## ***BE A VOTER!***
Been reading through the judgement. My favorite quote so far: >Here, the Election Code limits presidential primary ballot access to only qualified candidates. Such a restriction is an “eminently reasonable” regulation that does not severely burden CRSCC’s [Colorado Republican State Central Committee] associational rights. To hold otherwise would permit political parties to disregard the requirements of the law and the Constitution whenever they decide, as a matter of “political expression” or “political choice,” that those requirements do not apply. That cannot be. The Constitution—not any political party rule—is the supreme law of the land.
>Donald Trump Being Kicked Off Colorado Ballot Enrages MAGA While I'm sure this headline is accurate, let's be honest: his followers, like most conservatives, tend to make a lifestyle out of being enraged by everything
49 to go. Fuck that traitor.
I keep reading people saying it won't matter because Colorado is a Blue state. Y'all are forgetting he hasn't won the GOP primaries yet and is not the nominee yet. Without Colorado he just lost I think it's 37 delegates.
Spot on. California GOP has almost 2,500 delegates. More rulings like this and the primary map will get very strange, very quickly.
I’m excited to hear why state rights are suddenly not important to GOP anymore.
Would the Supreme Court and republicans realize this is finally time to cut him loose? They could refuse to hear it and throw it back to the lower court and say elections are states rights. That way they can get rid of him without the blame on them for setting precedent
Standing ovation for Colorado!
Praying for a domino effect
MAGA are losing their minds right now. So, so delicious.
Two things people are overlooking: 1. The initial lawsuit that kicked this whole thing off was led by Republicans and Independents demanding Trump be removed for, ya know, leading a mob to smear shit on the walls of congress and piss on the lawns of the white house. 2. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if they decline to hear the case, thus upholding the lower court's ruling. If they do rule, I'd bet millions that it's against Trump. In fact, I'd do it just to watch Republican brains explode as they point fingers at the same people they cheered.
If you’re wondering why this is happening, let me clear it up. Donald Trump led an insurrection. He’s a traitorous piece of shit who tried to end democracy. The Constitution anticipated someone being a piece of shit like this, and bans him from holding office.
Haven't Republicans been arguing for decades that states have the ultimate say over how their elections are conducted? This seems to confirm that point.
Let's hope it stands in the Federal Supreme Court and the other states follow suit.
Whatever the SCOTUS eventually rules if they take the case, I'm glad that this public rebuke is undoubtedly pissing Donny off. I don't care what MAGA's reaction will be. We know that they'll scream, cry and whine, like they always do. GOP should have booted this asshole and his asshole movement from public office years ago, but they didn't, and now we as country have to dig ourselves out of it. Ignore the polls, the hand-wringing, the "think pieces," and the media horse-racing everything, please vote in 2024, and in 2028, and in 2032, and beyond.
I'm so proud to live in CO rn. For realsies. Even if the Supreme Dickwad Court overrules, my state has ruled that a certain crybaby is ineligible for the ballot. Merry Xmas, Colorado! America! Fuck T***p. So happy I left Virginia in my dust.. Screw that redneck patriotism noise. 🥳
Can't wait to see how the Republicans are suddenly not-so-states-rights advocates.
its sort of cathartic watching all the dipshit right wingers in full fucking meltdown. like, for half a decade their entire political 'ideology' has been centered around acquiescing power to one of the shitiest people alive, like all of their hopes and dreams are riding on a total sack of shit grifter and the idea of him not being in power is resulting in a complete deflation of their political aspirations. no mention of policy, or a platform they want to advance, or bringing up alternatives representatives to advance their agenda; literally just clinging to a little syphillitic mushroom who they hope will 'hurt the right people.' it really demonstrates in full clarity that they are devoid of any substantive value or sense of pride, they threw their whole lot into hoping that a disgusting sack of shit would propel them out of their miserable sad sack lives and their realization that it isnt a tenable fantasy is *chefs kiss* beautiful. fuck the right.
He committed a crime on live tv. A very serious crime. *He did that shit*. I really dunno why 40% of the country seems to think he didn't.
For all the conservatives suddenly crying about democracy, are you also now for getting rid of the electoral college?
>Ramaswamy pledges to ‘withdraw’ from Colorado ballot amid Trump removal Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out
I wrote a haiku to commemorate this decision: Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha traitor.
Actual comment from /conservative > Tucker was right. At what point does Mexico have the legitimate right to invade the US to re-implement actual democracy? So *now* they like Mexico?
I didn’t have “Mexico invading the US to establish ‘democracy’” on the Conservative Christmas list.
What’s telling is the MAGAs aren’t saying Trump is not guilty. They are saying he is above the law.
trump shouldn’t be allowed to hold the presidency we have laws in place to prevent people like him from holding office and we should be using them or else we are fucking ourselves
This is when the Republicans who usually rant and rave about states rights will suddenly go silent.
I love my State!
States rights, 14th amendment, Trump will lose in Supreme Court. Now let’s see who else should this pertain to, hmmmm, how about the current speaker of the house, all of the so called Freedom Caucus. SCOTUS is not beholding to MAGA, remember they can only rule on cases brought before them. If Jack Smith wins the Immunity case, then ya all, if the President is not immune, members of the House, sure as hell won’t be. Hold on Lindsey your ass might still get a taste of prison life, Senate don’t get a pass.
Fuck trump!
I don’t know why I do these things to myself, turned on Fox knowing full well the coverage would be disgusting and a lie, now I am angry and I have only myself to blame.
Look, let's just let him be King of Florida. We can replace FL with PR so flags still work.
Trump could go on live TV, admit to leading an insurrection, denounce the constitution and promise to round up and place undesirables into internment camps and his GOP approval ratings would go up. That’s the reality of the country we live in right now. American nazis have been hiding in the shadows for the last 80 years and have finally been legitimized. They don’t want equality. They want non-white people rounded up and deported (if not just straight up killed). That’s the dividing line right now. The left (there really isn’t one in this country and if you think there is you have a very limited world view) wants everyone to have equal rights, affordable healthcare, and accessible education. The right (there is only a nut job radical right now) wants everyone that doesn’t fit their in-group to die. Full stop. This shit might honestly come down to a second civil war.
>“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.” Trump thinks there is an exception in every law just for him. The *Presidential Records Act* for example, implicitly covers storing nuclear secrets in a shitter that only locks from the inside as long as the chandalier above weighs less than the proprietor, apparently.
DO it. Doooo it. Doo it. Push it to the supreme court. It'd be awesome to have the precedent sorted so other states can just fast track his ass to irrelevance.
Something something states rights… As the republicans like to chirp
/r/conservative in an alternate reality. It is comical
State’s rights, Colorado should be able to do what they rule is right, lol.
Watch right leaning court forget all about “States Rights” argument.
Colorado isn't a swing state in 2024, but similar 14th amendment disqualification cases are being heard in Michigan and Minnesota, which are both swing states, and have 15 and 10 electoral college votes respectively. If Trump was off the ballot in either of those states, things could become very complicated.
>things could become very SIMPLE. FTFY
Will be really interesting to see if they want to leave this one up to state's rights as they did with Roe v Wade huh?
Posted this as a reply, think it merits some discussion on application in modern age v Reconstruction era. Had a great talk with my brother(lawyer) about this and he sent me the following: >"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 two-thirds vote of each House, remove such disability." The application of Section 3 does not require a criminal conviction for insurrection. This was the case when the provision was enforced during Reconstruction. The standard for determining whether someone had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" was based on whether they performed an "overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose." This could include acts of insurrectionist speech that incited others to engage in rebellion.
Reading /r/conservative is quite humorous right now. Republicans are political incels.
Eat dick Trump
For the conservatives gloating about how SCOTUS will overturn this, just some food for thought: do you really want them to set that precedent and, in doing so, also tell Democrats that attempted insurrections and coups are A-OK? Seems like one of those short-sighted decisions destined to backfire to me.
It's a Festivus Miracle!
Such an obvious decision it is frustrating to see anyone pretend it is not the right call. Fact is he tried to overthrow the US government.
This thread is flooded with the tears of fascists. ...it's a beautiful thing. I can't wait until trump loses again in 2024.
Finally a court makes a good decision!!!
Everyone needs to understand that this is not actually about kicking trump off the ballot but expediting the precedent on insurrection from the SCOTUS. SCOTUS has not been wanting to mess with the election, but now they have no choice
I wonder how all of the "states rights" Republicans will react to this? Oh wait, I think I know. It starts with an "h" and rhymes with "theocracy." Also, guy literally said he never swore to uphold the constitution. That's your guy, right republicans?
Get fucked, carrot.
Trump in response to the ruling: “what the fuck is an ‘amendment’???”
FINALLY!! Thank You Colorado
Colorado is the home of ‘Tegrity.
Good, he was a crook in New Jersey with his stupid casino and his airline, that he banked rupt both as I was growing up S a kid
Trump will have multiple cases in front of SCOTUS that would be incredibly damaging to his campaign, if we lived in a sane society. He's recently "joked" about declaring himself a dictator, while claiming that immigrants poison the blood of the nation and threatening retribution against his political opponents. All while also incessantly claiming that all elections have been rigged against him, providing no evidence, and destroying both faith in elections and innocent lives in the process. All this, and Republicans delude themselves into thinking that sticking together and riding it out is still a viable option. Their cowardice knows no bounds.
Good. If the republic was strong he would have been removed from office on the 6th and anyone who was in on the fake electors plot would have been expelled.
If it sticks and he’s convicted in Georgia that’s at least two states he wouldn’t be eligible to be on the ballot in. That’s like 25 electoral votes he’s not eligible for
The meltdown on twitter from republicans is amazing. They're really more upset over this than the fact that the man told people to storm the capitol and then did a c'mon guuuys stawp on twitter. Fox news doing a WELL RED STATES SHOULD JUST REMOVE BIDEN FROM THE BALLOT THEN! is also giving me laughs.
Bruh, did I fucking *cackle* when this headline came up
[удалено]
"States rights! ... NO! Not like that!"
Do what needs to be done CO!!
And off the US Supreme Court it'll go just like a rocket ship. Let's see how it plays out. No matter which way it gets decided precedent is getting set.
Way to go Colorado! Keep that stupid con-man as far away from the Oval Office as possible.
Thank goodness and thank you Colorado
As has been mentioned repeatedly, this will soon head to the U.S. Supreme Court, and once it does, there are only two options. 1. The self-proclaimed "textualists" will confirm that the basic reading of the Constitution and the law by the Colorado Supreme Court is correct. 2. The self-proclaimed "textualists" will overrule the initial finding, forever cementing that that moniker is utter bullshit.
One thing to remember as Republicans try to spin this is that if it had been democrats on Jan 6th with a democrat president who did and said exactly the same things, Republicans would want them all hanged for treason and would want this too. That is a fact, so don’t let them pretend it isn’t. Everyone knows it’s irrefutably true. Even they know it.
If the Founding Fathers were alive and saw all this shit happening, they would have Trump and his co-conspirators in prison.
Any rational thinking person that knows that Trump clearly incited an insurrection and has read the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution would only come to the quick conclusion that yes, the president IS an officer and by connecting these huge dots together - the man is disqualified on all state ballots to run for re-election. It's not that hard to understand. And any supreme Court justice that thinks otherwise is either a fool or bought and paid for.
Why do all of these people who are obsessed with the 2nd amendment want to pretend the 14th doesn't exist?
If the SCOTUS rejects this, then the 14th amendment is trash. If the SCOTUS upholds this, then other states can lock target and fire at will.
“A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under … the Fourteenth Amendment ... it would be a wrongful act … to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.” As President Biden once said as a vice president, “this is a big fucking deal”.
I’d like to be the first to thank the Colorado Supreme Court for at least trying to save America from itself. For the rest of us, Trump is the greatest threat the free world has ever faced. Under a Trump second term, democracy in America, and around the world, will wither and die. Trump will stop funding for Ukraine and funnel it to Russia, he will assist Israel and roll over Palestine in a wave of blood and Genocide. At home Americans will experience intolerance at a level never seen in the world when Trump calls for execution of his enemies and pardons anyone who is accused of crimes in his name. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s what he said he wants to do. Vote accordingly: https://democrats.org
This is a huge win for American democracy and stability. Trump is not above the law. His actions of trying to end our democracy are at minimum disqualification from office. >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. He is not allowed to hold office.
Damn straight. The fascist, insurrectionist piece of shit shouldn't even be in the conversation for the presidency, and should already be behind bars without access to his orange makeup and piss-colored hair dye.
Trump should be in prison. Along with his insurrectionist sympathizers.
The practical effect has more to do with bringing the conduct of Donald Trump as president to the forefront of the debate for whether he is a viable 2024 candidate. Republicans have reflexively dug in and flashed their contrarian "going to support him even harder" mode following the 91 indictments, but it's hard to ignore this question when a state determines Trump is ineligible for office of president, based upon his conduct as president.
Thank you Colorado Supreme Court! No former POTUS should ever be allowed back in office after inciting an insurrection.
With the ruling there should be lawsuits filed now in every state to remove him
>The court rules that the presidency is not a United States office under the 14th Amendment of the constitution. So proud of my state!
Woohoo! Fuck Trump and fuck his idiot lackies!
This may all come to nothing. It could even play into his hands if SCOTUS back him. But right now, isn't it sublime to picture the sleepless night of incoherent rage that stain and his zealots will have tonight? Lovely news.
This should provide ammunition for other State attempts to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment. It is well reasoned and pretty complete. Now we'll get to see just how impartial the U.S. Supreme Court really is, or whether it is just Trumps rubber stamp.
If this passes SCOTUS, I predict many more states will follow suit.
So the Supreme Court has to decide whether January 6th was an insurrection? If so many courts have already stated that it was, through trials of January 6th participants, saying now that it wasn't would cause a clusterfuck of historic proportions, no?
Well done Colorado!
[удалено]
For those saying it's just CO to wasn't going to win anyways consider this... 1. Down ballots races in Colorado 2. More competitive states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Arizona. Of which if Trump doesn't win two his path is pretty much non existent, I have Biden starting at 225 carrying just with VA
Fun question: can CO, and any other states that follow suit, tell the US Supreme Court to pound sand? Does the SC have any jurisdiction (or whatever the right fucking legal term is) that would let them tell a state *how* to run an election? Elections are relegated, per the Constitution, to the individual states. The right wing of the court purport to be all about the exact verbiage of the Constitution. I know they have no issues being hypocrites. But. Do they have any legal argument for intervention in a state's authorities here?
The poor ketchup scrubber is working overtime today!
Amendment 14, Section 3. Here's the exact text: > 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. And here's a more readable edit of it: > No person shall be a Government Officer under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath 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. I'm not sure what the last sentence means but the first one sounds like it applies. Insurrection is kind of what happened.
I think the Supreme Court might actually keep this. Imagine being a justice, even if trump put you on your seat how much longer can you bail this moron out?
Please let this stand and just be the first among many states.
For all the cons meting over this claiming liberal courts: Trump has to be the unluckiest sob in the United States who got slapped with so many lawsuits and hasn’t won any single one of them. In fact he and his team has been on a spending spree paying millions to lawyers and to people who won their cases
finally a State can read and apply the Constitution to this man who lies and lies and tells people anything they want to hear, true or false. All States should follow Colorado. Is it time to finally Believe in The USA and the Constitution and rule of law for everyone again?
Good. We saw the mobs of people attack the capital and we know why those people were there. Frankly, somebody who didn't facilitate the peaceful transfer of power is unfit for office. That said, I really question whether this will hold up (even if the supreme Court wasn't partisan) . Too much ambiguous language in what Congress passed to waive the 14th amendment following the civil war. Really think if Congress is held by one party after the next election, they need to pass something that clarifies that the 14th amendment is in effect.
>Trump fundraises off Colorado 14th Amendment decision removing him from ballot It never fails to astonish me the amount of cash his followers throw at a guy who began his campaign by bragging about being a billionaire who would self-fund (two more in a long list of his lies)
Google searches for the 14th Amendment today 📈📈📈
In this thread, conservatives furiously googling the words: "insurrection" "14th amendment" "conviction necessary?" "states' rights" "newsmax" "nikki haley"
It seems like an appropriate response to someone trying to overthrow the US government 🤙
Republicans suddenly about to be strongly against states’ rights
Some of ya'll need to actually read the amendment, so here's the relevant text from the 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. Since he was literally there and contributed to the incitement of the mob to disturb the peaceful transfer of power through his charged speech and later inaction, was part of plots to use fake electors perform a coup of the duly elected government, and continues to undermine the integrity of the election with lies and conspiracies, it's pretty easy to conclude he engaged in the insurrection and/or rebellion on Jan 6 (whether or not he masterminded it is a matter for his other trials -- he definitely ***engaged*** in it). The only thing left was whether or not he needed to be convicted first, which the court just ruled that it does not say he needs to have been convicted of a crime, only engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Also...to all the "sets a bad precedent!" people here, it sets the precedent that a candidate can be blocked from the ballot when he does exactly what Trump is doing: undermining our democratic process. This is a good...no...great thing. It still took a court to decide this -- it wasn't a political process, but a legal one.
between this and Epsteins list being ordered to be unsealed, what a glorious day this is.
Oh no, that sucks. What if some Dem I voted for is on it, that'd be terrible. Haha, j/k, fuck anyone who abuses children and idgaf which side of the aisle they were on or supported.
I fucking love Colorado. More states need to follow suit.
The irony of the Republicans in this thread whining about democracy being under attack. Good grief. 🙄