I think SCOTUS reverses this 7-2...........I think Haley would be the pick, I think some dems and independents would look to her for some normalcy, I dont know a ton about her other than what I have seen in the debates. I thin desantis is to much like trump and Viv........dude is smart as hell but he to conspiracy laden to be taken seriously IMO. But at the end of the day I see trump being the nominee and then were all in for an ugly ass 2024 campaign............I may head down to mexico from July to Dec just so I dont have to hear the ads and see all the rhetoric
Surprise, surprise, surprise. 3 out of 4 activist judges that voted to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado are from the poisoned Ivy League. None of the local Denver judges voted for this. First they come for the Jews and then they come for Trump. Who is next?
For those who value factual information: A trial court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection, yet he remains unqualified for disqualification because the term "official" in Section 3 of 14A doesn't apply to the POTUS. The Colorado Supreme Court supported the trial court's decision on Trump's insurrection and dismissed his argument that it was shielded by the 1A. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned the trial court's stance that the POTUS is not considered an "official" and thus could be disqualified. Three judges dissented: One judge dissented, contending that Trump was not afforded adequate due process, and only Congress possesses the authority to execute Section 3 of the 14A. Two judges dissented, asserting that Colorado law lacks the breadth necessary for the removal of the POTUS. It's worth noting that all dissenters did NOT disagree that Trump engaged in insurrection and that the POTUS is indeed an "official" under Section 3 of 14A. Spoiler Here is what the Court affirm or reverse (exact quotes): The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three. Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing. Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine. Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court committed reversible error. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial. The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.” The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions. President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.
You might not know this, but pretty much all conservative judges are from Ivy League schools, including all 6 Conservative Supreme Court Justices. You might also not know this, but the word "poison" has been hot these days, with Trump using it ("poisoning the blood" of the US). It is what Hitler used in persuading the masses to eradicate the Jews. Indeed, if one does not stand up against Hitler-style rhetoric (against any group of people), then who is next?
Probably right. Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson are auto-votes for hard left positions and generally ignore the law in favor of ideology. Frankly they have no qualifications to even be on the court. Product of identity politics just like the plagiarizing antisemitic Harvard President.
https://bsky.app/profile/mattgertz.bsky.social/post/3kgyegmcimx2s "It's a bad idea to keep Trump off the ballot because he might respond by leading his supporters in a violent insurrection" seems more a statement of the problem than anything else.
Been super busy with work lately so I may have missed a dissenter or two. Are our resident clutchfans libs all on board with the legality of this ruling in CO?
Brandon is the most successful president in terms of legislation passed. I seriously have no idea what you people smoke Even the crappy NYT polling has biden with a +6 advantage with his 2020 electorate. He won 2020 by 5 points and now leads that group by 6? What did he lose? It's funny how folks are reading so much into polling that shows RVs and not LVs. You people are brainwashed
Clutchfan libs aren't braindead MAGA like @Trader_Jorge and the other cultist @Salvy . The decision will be reversed 9-0 or 8-1. You can't defeat MAGA at the courthouse. The only way to defeat trump is at the ballot box. To defeat him at ballot box you have to get the economy going. Swing voters don't give a **** about trumps issues or bidens issues. What they care about the ability to feed their family and provide a better life for their kids. Biden has to focus on the economy and getting the border under control. This is how you defeat MAGA
Clutchfans are many things, but legal minds ? Here is the opinion of a prominent Conservative Legal Scholar who has studied this for years. ‘The Opposite of Politics’: A Conservative Legal Scholar Says Kicking Trump Off the Ballot Is ‘Unassailable’ - POLITICO On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is barred from reclaiming the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment , which prohibits people who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding political office. That argument has gained traction in some legal circles in recent months thanks in part to the work of J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, who, together with the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe, promoted the idea that the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from seeking a second term. This isn’t the first time Luttig has played a central role in arguments about Trump’s eligibility for office. After the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Luttig published an op-ed in The Washington Post arguing that the Constitution prohibits Congress from impeaching a president once he or she has left office. Luttig’s op-ed found an eager audience on Capitol Hill , where several Republicans cited his legal argument as a reason for opposing Trump’s impeachment. I spoke with Judge Luttig by phone to discuss whether he regrets the way Republicans used his arguments in Trump’s second impeachment (he says he’s “agnostic” about it) and whether he believes the Supreme Court will affirm the Colorado court’s decision: “I believe [it] should — and I believe it will.” The following has been edited for clarity and concision. When did you become convinced of the argument that Trump is disqualified from office by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Professor Laurence Tribe, who is the preeminent constitutional scholar in the nation, and I have been thinking about the 14th Amendment disqualification clause together for three years — essentially since January 6, 2021. Professor Tribe has been studying and writing about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for his entire career as a constitutional law professor. Did you consider mentioning that argument in your 2021 Washington Post op-ed? It strikes me that if Trump was disqualified on 14th Amendment grounds, it was sort of beside the point whether the Senate was constitutionally empowered to convict him, right? No, that’s not actually correct for technical reasons that I’ll only go into if you want me to. Yeah, let’s get into those. Can you explain? Well, you’re interpreting two different clauses of the Constitution of the United States. The impeachment clause is concerned with removing a president from office — in my interpretation of that clause. Now, if a president is convicted by the Senate and impeached, one constitutional remedy for that impeachment is to disqualify that incumbent president from holding high offices again. But I did not have to reach that question, because I concluded that he had to be impeached and convicted before he left office. Professor Tribe disagreed with my conclusion about the scope of the impeachment clause, and he did go on to say that the Senate could still convict the former president even though he was no longer in office, and that the Senate could disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again. But I did not need to reach those two questions. Now, all of those questions are just fundamentally a different a matter of constitutional law from the disqualification clause [of the 14th Amendment]. Those are different questions, but I wonder if it was relevant in the context of your op-ed that you also believed at the time that Trump was disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment? They’re separate constitutional questions, but isn’t that relevant context for your argument? No, no, not at all — especially not in the context of an op-ed in The Washington Post. You have very, very little space [to make your argument], and I never have enough space even to address the [main] issue, much less to try to tackle unrelated issues. The Wall Street Journal and other outlets have reported that you consulted with congressional Republicans during the second impeachment trial. What were those conversations like, and what exactly did you consult with them about? That reporting is correct. I would not characterize it as consulting with the Senate Republicans. I was discussing with some of the Senate Republicans my conclusion that the former president could not be convicted by the Senate after he left office. Some of the Republicans who ultimately voted against convicting Trump cited your arguments as the reason why they were voting no, or at least as part of why they were voting no. Do you regret the fact that your argument was used as justification for their no votes? I’m agnostic on that. I do the law, and they can do politics, so it was a matter of indifference to me whether they agreed with my conclusion on the impeachment clause. Putting aside the constitutional questions, would a political solution to Trump’s eligibility — meaning impeachment and conviction within the bounds of the Constitution — have been preferable to the judicial one that we’re now facing? I’m agnostic on that political question. Of course, I understand your question. But I’m not in a position to say whether it would be preferable. I can only say that that would have been another option that would have avoided the disqualification question under the 14th Amendment. ... continue on next post
... It’s just that since the Colorado decision, a lot of commentators have been arguing that the Constitution empowers Congress to serve as the primary check on the executive, and that an impeachment and conviction from Congress would have been a better solution than kicking it to the courts. Yes, that is correct as a matter of constitutional law. In fact, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, which means that congressional action is not required. Nor is it required that the former president be convicted of the criminal offense of an insurrection or rebellion against the United States under Title 18 USC 2383. Do you worry at all about the political blowback that a judicial decision removing Trump from ballots could spark? I do, but what I would say, though, is this: The Constitution itself tells us that disqualification of the former president is not anti-democratic. Rather, the Constitution tells us that it is the conduct that can give rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. I would add that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and it is the Constitution of the United States that is providing the avenue for the disqualification of the former president. This is not politics. This is the opposite of politics. This is constitutional law. And right now, the courts — the state courts and eventually the Supreme Court — will be interpreting the Constitution of the United States without regard to politics, let alone partisan politics. You’ve said you’re confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado ruling. What’s the source of your confidence? I’m always exceedingly careful with my word choice in public on profound matters of great importance. What I have said is that I am confident that the Supreme Court would affirm Colorado Supreme Court’s decision based upon the objective law, which in this instance is Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Which is to say that I know that the Colorado Supreme Court decision is unassailable in every single respect under the Constitution of the United States. What about the political crosswind that the court is caught in? That’s exactly what I never comment on. This has always been my position, and this is my position today: I have always had reverence for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I have that same reverence for the institution and the current court that I have had my entire life. And that is why I believe that this Supreme Court will affirm the Colorado Supreme Court if it takes this case for review. What would you think if they don’t affirm the argument that you’ve called “unassailable”? What would that imply to you about the court? Were the Supreme Court to decide the Colorado Supreme Court case and reverse that court’s decision, I would feel the same way about the Supreme Court that day that I feel today: The Supreme Court of the United States is the final decision maker as to the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. I accept that, as all Americans should accept that. If we do not accept the final decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, that is radically threatening to America’s democracy and the rule of law. Fair enough. I’m just trying to grasp what you mean when you say “unassailable.” I mean, the Supreme Court could assail it. I understand your question, and I appreciate it. All we can do is assess ourselves the objective law — in this instance, the meaning and application of Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Now, I was a judge for many, many years, and I did exactly that on constitutional questions for 15 years — and as we discussed earlier, I’ve been studying this specific question in great detail for the past three years. So, you know, I consider myself — personally — an expert on the question. The Colorado Supreme Court decision was over 120 pages, and I read every word of every page, and I understood every single word because I’ve studied the issue. The Colorado Supreme Court addressed every single state law question and every single federal constitutional question as to the meaning and interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I know for a fact that it resolved each and every one of those questions as required not just under state law, but, more importantly, under federal constitutional law. That’s why I said that the opinion is unassailable in every respect. It is a masterful judicial opinion, and based on the objective law of the 14th, I believe that the Supreme Court should — and I believe it will — affirm the Colorado Supreme Court if given the opportunity. I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether the justices agree with you. That’s right. We all have to wait and see. Always.
If they had any evidence or well.. actual crimes on Biden the right would want the same. But they don’t.
The Folly of Colorado’s Trump Disqualification Four state Supreme Court judges ban the former President from the 2024 ballot without due process. https://www.wsj.com/articles/colora...urteenth-amendment-083b1271?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 The Folly of Colorado’s Trump Disqualification Four state Supreme Court judges ban the former President from the 2024 ballot without due process. By The Editorial Board Dec. 20, 2023 at 6:30 pm ET The decision by four Colorado judges to bar Donald Trump from the state presidential ballot is an ugly turn that augurs nothing but trouble for American law and democracy. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the ruling, as it probably will, the Colorado decision will confirm for millions of Americans that Mr. Trump’s opponents will do everything possible to deny them their democratic choice. Anti-Trump lawyers have been peddling that Mr. Trump can be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Colorado’s 4-3 Supreme Court majority is the first court to buy the argument, and in the process it has blundered into the middle of the 2024 election. The four Democratic justices join special counsel Jack Smith and New York and Georgia prosecutors in providing ironic assistance to Mr. Trump in gaining the GOP presidential nomination, and maybe the White House. The court says Mr. Trump is disqualified under the post-Civil War 14th Amendment because he inspired and “engaged” in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. that took place on Jan. 6, 2021. They rely largely on evidence compiled by the House Jan. 6 special committee. Mr. Trump’s behavior after the 2020 election through Jan. 6 was disgraceful, and it is one of several reasons not to trust him with so much power again. It was an attempt to obstruct the counting of electoral votes. But the evidence is unpersuasive that this amounted to an insurrection or rebellion under the statutory or constitutional meaning of those terms. The justices claim the 14th Amendment is “self-executing,” which means that ballot disqualification doesn’t require a conviction in court. Yet the Senate acquitted Mr. Trump of the impeachment charge of insurrection. And Mr. Smith, the special counsel, didn’t include insurrection under 18 U.S.C. Section 2383 of the U.S. criminal code in his four-count indictment of Mr. Trump. Does anyone think the hard-bitten Mr. Smith would shy from doing so if he thought he could prove it before a jury? The court’s chief justice, Brian Boatright, cited the lack of a conviction for insurrection in his dissent from the Colorado majority. And in a separate dissent, Justice Carlos Samour wrote that Mr. Trump was denied the “procedural due process” required before disqualification is justified. The 14th Amendment was written to guarantee due process to all Americans, not to deny it. The Colorado Four also do a legal dance around the fact that Section 3’s disqualification clause doesn’t expressly include the President. As former Attorney General Michael Mukasey explained in these pages on Sept. 8, the clause applies only to those who have taken an oath “as an officer of the United States,” so Mr. Trump can’t be barred from the ballot. The Colorado majority’s contrary reading of the clause will get careful scrutiny at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices could decline to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, but given the legal and democratic stakes they almost have to take it. This is the first time any state has used Section 3 to disqualify a presidential candidate, but if it stands in Colorado it won’t be the last. A broad definition of insurrection would open the door for other potential candidates to be disqualified depending on their participation in controversial political protests. Dragging the Supreme Court into the presidential race is itself damaging to democracy. Mr. Smith has already asked the Justices to weigh in on Mr. Trump’s claims of immunity from prosecution. Whatever the Court decides, and especially if the Justices are divided on either question, half of the country will be angry. The political left is leading a campaign to delegitimize the Court, and these fraught cases will offer more ammunition to partisans, whatever the legal merits. The Colorado disqualification shows how Democrats are determined to make 2024 an election decided by lawyers and courts, not by voters. They seem to believe this is the way finally to banish Donald Trump from politics, but have they been paying attention? Their second impeachment didn’t finish him, and four indictments with 91 felony counts have caused GOP voters to rally to his side. This ballot-denial gambit is likely to have a similar effect, and it will now dominate political news up to the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses. The Colorado Four may think they’re heroes of the resistance, but they’ve given Mr. Trump a great in-kind campaign contribution. Democrats believe that Mr. Trump is such a threat to America’s democratic institutions that they’re justified in abusing those institutions themselves. They’re damaging democracy in the name of trying to save it. Appeared in the December 21, 2023, print edition as 'The Folly of Colorado’s Trump Ban'.
