Posted on 11/23/2023 6:34:10 AM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
The Colorado Supreme Court agrees to review Donald Trump's eligibility for the 2024 ballot following an insurrection ruling.
A lower court previously ruled Trump engaged in insurrection but still permitted his ballot inclusion. Legal experts, including Glenn Kirschner and Neal Katyal, advocate for Trump's removal based on the insurrection findings.
Trump denounces the legal challenge as voter disenfranchisement while applauding the lower court's decision.
The case's significance is heightened by Trump's increasing popularity in Colorado, as indicated by recent polls.
The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by voters who want Donald Trump removed from the state's 2024 presidential ballot.
A lower court judge has already agreed that Trump engaged in insurrection in encouraging the January 6 Capitol attack and seeking to overthrow the 2020 election result.
Trump is appealing the insurrection ruling and both appeals will be heard together, the Colorado Supreme Court has decided.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Indeed
Now that Speaker Johnson....What a FABULOUS NAME!....has released all the Jan 6th VIDEOS, PANIC is RAMPANT!!!
Agreed. I’d go 1 further and revoke their statehood. Turn it back to a territory.
Kirschner is insane he must have a Soros nose ring as a bonus.
Doesn’t say much for his track record
Donald Trump being unalived in 2024 looks more likely.
FIFY
The 1st issue is “Has Trump been convicted of insurrection?”
Nobody, north or south, doubted for a moment that the Civil War had been a war against the government of the United States. We are now being told that for several hours on January 6, 2021 there had been a war against the U.S. as determined by some local judge in Colorado.
Your post is incoherent. What do you want them to do? They can’t randomly pluck cases out of state courts and decide to hear them. One can file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari after a decision by the highest court of the state. This case may well be the first one that is procedurally ripe for review by SCOTUS since it’s now before the highest court of Colorado
Me too but some states have laws requiring that a candidate has to be registered as a write-in candidate for write-in votes to be counted for that person. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to take him off ballots at the last minute.
Me too but some states have laws requiring that a candidate has to be registered as a write-in candidate for write-in votes to be counted for that person. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to take him off ballots at the last minute.
Newsweek ANITHER LEFT WING R
AG.
“Trump’s popularity is surging in Colorado so it’s time to kick him off the Colorado ballot?
What kind of third world tyranny are these lunatics attempting?”
Same as Germany, actually, where they now want to ban AFD because it is too popular.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/afd-party-ban-germany-far-right-extremists/
This has been overlooked by all the pundits but I thought all along it would come back to haunt us. We shall see I guess.
What do the polls says about Trump’s popularity in Colorado?
This whole 14th amendment ploy was an attempt to get a court finding that Trump did engage in insurrection. Now that a judge (without due process) has made such a ruling, it can be referenced in other legal cases. In effect, becoming the legal precedent.
That is why there is an appeal. There has been no trial, no presentation of evidence, no conviction of the crime of insurrection. But the left wants to impose the punishment / sentence anyway.
Cheating is their middle name, first name, last name and gang name.
Trump cannot be guilty of insurrection because he was the President at the time. Only the President can invoke the Insurrection Act and he did not invoke it, therefore legally it was not an insurrection.
Additionally I believe that in order for insurrection to actually take place, the “insurrectionists” must be notified that their actions are illegal and that they need to disperse, cease and desist. If they refuse to do so, then conditions for the implementation of the Insurrection Act exist. On January 6th, the protestors and rioters did cease and desist after just a few hours.
Lastly, Trump could not preemptively deploy the military for law enforcement operations before Jan 6th without Congressional approval. To do so would have probably violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
Pity the Colorado Supreme Court and their Thanksgiving vacay self-imposed assignment (on their clerks!) with Judge Wallass' 298 grafs of pure, unadultered 'judicial' rage, over-the-top hubris from a demented but determined libtard biotch who used the trial to attempt to kangaroo President Trump for "insurrection" ...And yet Ms. Wallass literally lacked the balls to actually attempt to keep him off the ballot, as one recurring theme plays out over those 100 pages -- Wallass feared being pimp-slapped by SCOTUS, as does the Colorado Supreme Court -- as the only jurist actually stupid enough to put her head in the SCOTUS noose.
Instead, after a 'trial' that laughably featured the likes of Eric Swallowell, she simpers through over 28,000 words before arriving at her 'out' -- 14A, Sec. 3 -- with the intent of appearances that she is letting him off on a technicality (that since Trump had never taken an Oath of Office of any kind before becoming President, he could not be regarded as an "officer" under A14, Sec3), when she doesn't understand the constitutional history behind 14A, instead simply using her short actual decision to fling more hubris at the Confederacy (clearly equating in her mind "MAGA" with "Deo vindice"), and unsubtly attempting to blame the framers of the 14th Amendment -- more stupid white men to her, surely -- as having provided President Trump with the aforementioned 'out'. LOFL!
However, not unironically, she may have provided Justice Alito with one more angle to repel any other state court stupid enough to foist an unconstitutional ballot decision upon SCOTUS in an emergency cert once general election ballots start to close next summer.
Meanwhile, where is conservative media, who should be interviewing every single one of these Petitioners to copiously scrub them of any remaining Sullivan privacy protections, while also giving each of them the opportunity to flame out on camera just like the Georgia grand jury forewoman: that incoherent, duplicitous, snaggled-toothed, in-bred, backwoods attention wh-re Emily Kohrs (see Sullivan, ibid lol).
Allowing the insurrection clause of XIV to operate without a conviction (you can’t run because I say so) would establish a dictatorship.
In reading the comments on that posting, you have to wonder what flavor Kool-Aid they’re all drinking . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.