Posted on 12/19/2023 3:23:52 PM PST by TomServo
No malice, but your memory is badly flawed. That is not what you said. What you said in #7 was this, verbatim:
"Judge [Wallace] said Trump did commit insurrection (which is ludicrous). Said he could be kept off the ballot in the general. It’s all corrupt garbage."
Judge Wallace ruled Trump could not be kept off the ballot in the primary or the general, her ruling was dispositive on that issue, because she ruled Trump did not obtain as an "officer" under 14A, Sec. 3.
Now you say you said, "I said the ruling meant they’d rule he couldn’t run in general". Who's "they"? The Colorado Supreme Court? You never said a single word about an appeal in your post.
If Judge Wallace said "he could be kept off the ballot", why did the Plaintiffs appeal? They would have gotten what they wanted in the lower court and no need for appeal.
What I replied was "Not in this Colorado case. In fact her decision is dispositive of both the primary and general election, where, after an actual trial, her ruling flatly says President Trump cannot be kept off the Colorado ballot because Trump is not an "officer" under 14A, Sec. 3. You may be thinking of the Minnesota case which specifically invited -- punted -- refiling once Trump is on the general election ballot."
Every last word of my reply was true then and true now. "Dispositive" is the outcome of a decision, in this instance a case which was appealed. Had you referenced an appeal in #7 you'd be correct, but you did not.
That is left to the states.
Yes. I read the ruling after I posted to you and this is still the primary.
What struck me was that the earlier ruling did not matter and they plan to keep him off, despite the initial ruling, which was my point initially but they did it via appeal.
We shall see how it ends ultimately.
That’s what Trump get for calling for peace on Jan 6.
-PJ
One, you didn't address the fact you didn't say anything about an appeal in #7. Two, you're still not getting it right, because Wallace's ruling does matter. This is important to understand.
Wallace's ruling was dispositive of both the primary and the general election ballot. Just because her Order mentions the primary doesn't mean it obtains to just the primary ballot.
They held a trial. Wallace ruled Trump can appear on the ballot. If CREW or a different Plaintiff had simply refiled to block Trump from the Colorado general election ballot, Wallace's ruling would have estopped anyone from pursuing the same course of action for the general election. Period.
CREW's lawyers understand that was a dead end, so instead they appealed.
SCOTUS, or more to the point Alito, now must consider a range of options:
I literally cannot make it any clearer than that. If you think something here is a 'gotcha' a week or a month or a year down the road, all I can tell you is that Freepers can read, and they can see you were on the short end of this exchange. Hey, no malice...
Not only that, but Feldman dictates that "banning Trump from running for office again in the future...would take a separate vote apart from the impeachment vote", thusly correctly corroborating that any ANY attempt to create a Bill of Attainder on a former President of the United States would require Congress to create a judicial 'court' for that very purpose; then said creation would have to survive a constitutional challenge that in all likelihood would revoke any such 'court' on the basis of that function already reserved for the Senate; and then said judicial 'court' actually find President Trump guilty of insurrection.
Last time I checked, this Congress is somewhat in the control of the GOP and will be until after Inauguration Day 2025.
“He's [President Trump] calling for a protest march on the Capitol and that's perfectly lawful and constitutionally protected, in fact,” [Feldman] says. “Similarly, when the President spoke later and told his supporters to go home while telling them that he loved them and that the election was being stolen, he was pretty careful not to use words that directed imminent lawless action... proving incitement in a court of law would be difficult, he says."What matters most for those who support impeachment and seek “long-term consequences” is banning Trump from running for office again in the future, he says, but it would take a separate vote apart from the impeachment vote."
You are a bit insufferable.
Reiterating things over and over.
After I said “yes.”
There’s no reason to be so confrontational.
My point stands. It was not over.
And I noted they were doing it via appeal, which you reiterate here in this post.
I was right it was not over in the initial dispositive decision.
Your Megan points are appreciated and good. But somewhat beside the point in terms of political machinations.
“ I literally cannot make it any clearer than that.”
You’re not a particularly good writer.
Stink bait being a highly specific legal term.
I think you can add a lot if you get off your high horse.
I do not care what is at the bottom of your glass, you got busted on jurisprudence, you got beat down with the facts; and single-spacing your bitching about it isn't impressing anyone.
This isn't the local bar, this isn't the Arby's coffee klatsch, this website is devoted to the advancement of Constitutionalism and there is nothing more serious than the topic of this thread -- our former President enduring illicit lawfare that has now metastisized into the highest courts in blue states.
Grow the f up or get off this site.
end of democracy if SCOTUS lets this stand.
2020 fraud may have already ended democracy for the USA.
I hope and pray not.
#MAGA
You’ve got issues.
You are the one trying to make this a fight or something.
My point is back in November you posted this issue was over.
You’re kind of psychotic.
And it’s funny you think 2000 is not noob.
Post impeachment.
The same 14th amendment prevents the Colorado Supreme Court from removing anyone from the Presidential ballot.
The 14th amendment section 2 has a punishment for abridging the right to vote:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.Note that this buttresses the exclusion of the President and Vice President from section 3, since section 2 speaks about denying or abridging the right to vote for the choice of Electors, and keeping someone off the ballot is the highest form of denial and abridgment.
The Constitutional punishment for preventing voters from voting for Electors of their choice in a state should be the direct loss of seats in the House of Representatives, and the indirect loss of Electors in the next election.
If the Colorado Supreme Court blocks President Trump from appearing on the ballot, they are denying the entire state the right to choose President Trump. It doesn't matter what polling suggests the actual vote would be, the entire state is denied the choice.
The 14th amendment should punish Colorado with the loss of their ENTIRE House delegation, and with it their Electoral College allocation, leaving Colorado with only the two Electors based on the Senate.
-PJ
Interesting idea, I like it.
But I think it means more denying citizens right to vote rather than denying a choice of whom they may vote for, but I understand your argument.
I think we are in a lawless time, as most recent decision shows.
I'd like you to elaborate on that point.
Are you saying that this section is only about keeping people from the polls?
Do you read it, as I do, to also mean keeping people from running ("choice" of Electors, Congressmen, Judges, etc.)?
Weren't they also afraid of freed slaves running for office? Weren't they concerned that law enforcement, judges, and businesses would try to keep former slaves off of future ballots?
-PJ
F Colorado! They will never see a dollar from me again.
"The 14th Amendment section 2 has a punishment for abridging the Right to Vote:"
You make a novel de novo argument, but your assertion, while valid and worthy of note, would end up secondary or even tertiary to this ballot access argument.
As other Freepers have noted, this miasma of untested 150-year-old election case law and similarly-aged statutes, paltry as it is, if taken at their worst, do not conclusively exclude Trump as a write-in candidate even if he had been Removed by either Senate trial!
As I just recently stated in another related thread,
"This is a salient point, that "Insurrection" as envisioned by both The Founders and the CWI fallout, both eras correctly proscribed "Insurrection" as siding with a complete break against the United States of America.The Founders based this on The British Empire, CW1 based this on The Confederacy, which was initially barely even dampened by Appomattox. "
THIS is the hurdle that Colorado state court system did not remotely (figuratively and literally) overcome."
The Colorado decision is so problematic on so many levels, a rogue state supreme court is nothing new -- Bush v Gore was a ruling to rein in a rogue state supreme court -- but while that court had at least reliance on an existing legislative pathway for their course of action, as Justice Samour's dissent revealed in his brutal smackdown of his fellow Democrats, the majority in the CREW decision weren't just way out over their skis constitutionally, but it could be plainly argued from Samour's dissent, that the Colorado Supreme Court directly engaged in Incitement to Insurrection!
" By concluding that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing, the majority approves the enforcement of that federal constitutional provision by our state courts through the truncated procedural mechanism that resides in our state Election Code.Thus, based on its interpretation of Section Three, our court sanctions these makeshift proceedings employed by the district court below — which lacked basic discovery, the ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and the opportunity for a fair trial — to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) masquerading as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim.
And because most other states don’t have the Election Code provisions we do, they won’t be able to enforce Section Three. That, in turn, will inevitably lead to the disqualification of President Trump from the presidential primary ballot in less than all fifty states, thereby risking chaos in our country."
This has to stop and it has to stop now. SCOTUS must take the game-playing of the Colorado Supreme Court "Jan. 4 or until SCOTUS hears the case" and summon those justices to appear before them and explain their actions.
You want to stop lawfare that's how you do it, you make it real, you force these 'justices' to obtain lawyers, and make unpaid travel arrangements and get babysitters and you put them in front of the highest court in the United States and you simply have Justice Alito say, in his own quiet way:
"Explain how you came to the conclusion that you were entitled to create a Bill of Attainder on a former President when even the remote possibility of such an extreme prohibition belongs solely with Congress, and even then, it would be imbued with the stain of unconstitionality.Explain yourselves, right now, don't look back at your clerks who you encouraged to execute this calumny, each of you stand up here and look us in the eye and explain yourselves."
That is where we are at as a nation, that this neomarxist mafia that plagues our nation must be brutally exposed on this overreach and that the American people finally awaken, and renew their committment -- their obligation -- to justice and jurisprudence.
Since the Democratic Party supported the Confederacy and its insurrection the Democratic Party should be forever banned from proposing candidates in any election.
If the legislature of any state were to select the electors then they could be subject to sanctions under the Voting Rights Act.
Looks like the “Voting Rights Act” is unconstitutional.
Not that any court would have the guts to say so.
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.