Two courts in Colorado spent days coming to a different conclusion … versus Dershbag opining off the top of his head … as a talking head on a far right, fact free SCW echo chamber … and likely paid to have this particular opinion.
LOL... such an idle threat deom the trump folks. I don't think the "tit for a tat" is mentioned anywhere in the 14th Amendment...
Should this be a states' rights issue? Is he qualified to be President for some states but not others? No, if he is disqualified, it should be for the entire country, not just the states that did something about it. It would be a mess if he was on some state ballots but not others. And it probably helps his election chance if he is barred from states like Colorado where he wouldn't have won anyway.
No, that would be crazy. But I guess they could avoid ruling on Section 3 completely by pushing it back to the State, ruling that the lawsuit is actually not valid due to CO election law. State rights rule!
Why then have any qualifying or disqualifying factors for political office. Let felons hold office (they essentially are with trump anyway). Let 12 year old kids run. Why require citizenship? Might as well remove the 14th amendment, at least section 3. trump is above the law.
Under the Constitution the election of President isn’t a national election and it’s 50 separate stat elections. That’s why a president can win with a minority vote and why some states done even have to give all their electors to a single candidate. To my knowledge the question of who decides who is qualified to run for president hasn’t been determined if the states can do that but under the current structure of the Constitution the states have a large say in how to conduct their own elections.
My understanding is that they can’t do that. CO is the ultimate authority on CO law and while the USSC can rule based on the Consitution overruling CO law they couldn’t just say The CO SC didn’t interpret their own law correctly.
You must be responding to someone else. Sure, but his disqualification ultimately rests on the Article 14 rule that would prevent him from serving. Taking him off the ballot is a practical way of having a free and fair election without disqualified candidates at the state level. But couched as a states rights issue, the implication is he could still be on the Arizona ballot even if the SCOTUS agrees to keep him off the Colorado ballot. That doesn't make sense because he can't serve regardless, and makes a practical solution completely impractical. If SCOTUS upholds Colorado then every vote cast for him in every state is wasted.
Were you not suggesting that trump shouldn't be removed from the CO ballot based on the CO judge's ruling? That's what I was responding to. Seems you are still arguing that same point below. CO ruled on this. Other states may as well. In a perfect world (at least in a world where criminals couldn't run for high office), all states should remove him from their ballots. But the reality of the current state of politics in the US, some states have no problem with criminal trump running for and even becoming president. Some states, including TX, seem to want a criminal as president. Worse, the current USSC seems to support a criminal becoming president, and will rule in any case before them to allow it.
Sad, but true. Why anyone would want a criminal leading the country is mind-blowing to me. He has always felt he is "above the law" and that will never change. Add in the fact that he is a lying sociopath that nobody in their right mind should trust, and then triple that with the fact that he wants to be judge, jury, and prosecutor of anyone who crosses him. He wants to rule as he sees fit, and that's dangerous to democracy and the people of this country when he's not fit to rule to begin with.
No. I'm saying all states should move together. If he is disqualified in one state, he should be disqualified in all states.
Yes that is a definite possibility but that is the nature of our system that states run elections even for federal office. Just making a guess here but I suspect the USSC will issue a ruling along the Bush v Gore lines using your reasoning that the denial of Trump on one state ballot would be a violation of the equal protection for CO voters if people could still vote for him in other states.
So your position is to wait for all states, including TX to move together with CO? I am afraid you would be waiting until hell froze over. I'd rather have states make their decisions.
My best guess is …. If Trump is stupid enough to appeal the CO decision to the USSC, the USSC will make the final decision of Trump versus Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Either Trump wins big or loses big. All or nothing. The smart play for Trump would be to let all of the blue states kick him off their ballots. He wasn’t going to win them anyway. Trump would only need to challenge swing and red states.
No. If SCOTUS rules on Colorado, that should be the end. He is gone or he stays in all states. What I don't want to see is SCOTUS say that CO has a right as a state to disqualify Trump and Arizona can choose to keep him. That's what a state right would look like, and it doesn't make sense. If he is disqualified in CO, it is because of A14, which would apply equally in AZ.
The most telling thing to me is that 99.99% of the supporters arent even TRYING to argue the facts of the case. Its all general outrage at the fact that Colorodo actually tried to apply the law, dire predictions about the slippery slope in the future and of course threats of revenge. MAGAots care about the "Dear Leader" above the law, their family, right and wrong and everything else in existence.
Trump ia a creature of habit, and his favorite habit seems to be generating outrage. I doubt he has the self control for a longer term strategy like that.
