Colorado Will Not Be Allowed To Deny Trump Access To Their Presidential Ballot

[schism666]

The 4 judges in CO misinterpreted Section 3 of the 14th. I’ll let SCOTUS provide the definitive explanation you seek. We can expect the issues of due process, what constitutes an insurrection, to whom Section 3 applies, and historical context to be addressed in the Court’s decision.

did the 6 repubs also misinterpret section 3? why would scotus rule on a states' rights issue? (see abortion)

 

[ll74]

The 4 judges in CO misinterpreted Section 3 of the 14th. I’ll let SCOTUS provide the definitive explanation you seek. We can expect the issues of due process, what constitutes an insurrection, to whom Section 3 applies, and historical context to be addressed in the Court’s decision.

The state district court agreed that he participated in insurrection. The state supreme Court interprets the section for the state. The SCOTUS can certainly overrule from a federal perspective and provide federal guidance.
Love how states' rights come and go like the wind.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

did the 6 repubs also misinterpret section 3? why would scotus rule on a states' rights issue? (see abortion)

Yes, the 6 Republicans also got it wrong.

 

[schism666]

Yes, the 6 Republicans also got it wrong.

but you, a bitter keyboard cowboy, knows more about the law and ruling than the 6 pubs and four justices.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

but you, a bitter keyboard cowboy, knows more about the law and ruling than the 6 pubs and four justices.

Yes, but you don’t have to take my word for it. SCOTUS has the final say in the matter.

 

[schism666]

you don’t have to take my word for it.

don't fret, there's never any chance of that happening.

SCOTUS has the final say in the matter.

cite?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The 4 judges in CO misinterpreted Section 3 of the 14th. I’ll let SCOTUS provide the definitive explanation you seek. We can expect the issues of due process, what constitutes an insurrection, to whom Section 3 applies, and historical context to be addressed in the Court’s decision.

So just to clarify.
Should Trump win the electoral college in 2024, Biden and Harris could stop him from taking office with no legal repercussions whatsoever?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So just to clarify.
Should Trump win the electoral college in 2024, Biden and Harris could stop him from taking office with no legal repercussions whatsoever?

Whowever wins the electoral college will be sworn in as President.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, but you don’t have to take my word for it. SCOTUS has the final say in the matter.

SCOTUS hasn't spoken yet though. Remember the adage, "don't count your chickens until they hatch". There is better than a 50/50 chance SCOTUS punts on this, and leaves it up to each state.

Isn't that what you Republicans keep saying, "states rights".

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Whowever wins the electoral college will be sworn in as President.

Not remotely close to what I asked.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Not remotely close to what I asked.

If Trump wins, Biden and Harris will not be able to stop him from taking office

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If Trump wins, Biden and Harris will not be able to stop him from taking office

Also not remotely close to what I asked.

 

[AlexBailey]

A big part of this argument has already been ruled on and upheld by a current Republican member of the SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has already previously ruled that a state can reject a presidential candidate and remove them from the ballot on constitutional grounds.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nei...rado-ruling-disqualified-trump-ballot-2023-12


"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,'" the state opinion reads.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Also not remotely close to what I asked.

The answer to your question is no.

 

[Bn2f]

If Trump wins, Biden and Harris will not be able to stop him from taking office

Riddle me this?
If SCOTUS sides with trump, as you’ve concluded should happen, and trump defeats Biden come November. Kamala Harris will still reside over the Senate until January. Why must she then confirm the electoral college vote? What’s stopping Biden from instructing her to delay or even go with, shall we say, fake electors?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

A big part of this argument has already been ruled on and upheld by a current Republican member of the SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has already previously ruled that a state can reject a presidential candidate and remove them from the ballot on constitutional grounds.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nei...rado-ruling-disqualified-trump-ballot-2023-12


"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,'" the state opinion reads.

In the Hassan case, the plaintiff was constitutionally disqualified for the office. The narrow question was whether someone constitutionally disqualified for office could nevertheless appear on the ballot. The state of CO said no and the court (including Gorsuch) agreed.

 

[AlexBailey]

In the Hassan case, the plaintiff was constitutionally disqualified for the office. The narrow question was whether someone constitutionally disqualified for office could nevertheless appear on the ballot. The state of CO said no and the court (including Gorsuch) agreed.

So the question of whether Colorado may exclude a presidential candidate has been already been decided and upheld.

Now it’s up to whether or not Anderson v. Griswold will be upheld.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Griswold


It’s tricky for Trump, because the SCOTUS will have to rule on the legal legitimacy of Anderson v. Griswold, not on whether or not Trump’s name can be kept off the ballot.

Was it a clean case?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Riddle me this?
If SCOTUS sides with trump, as you’ve concluded should happen, and trump defeats Biden come November. Kamala Harris will still reside over the Senate until January. Why must she then confirm the electoral college vote? What’s stopping Biden from instructing her to delay or even go with, shall we say, fake electors?

Lol. John Eastman‘s crazy ass idea went down in flames. The question before SCOTUS (assuming Trump appeals the CO ruling) is about Section 3 of the 14th.

 

[schism666]

Lol. John Eastman‘s crazy ass idea went down in flames. The question before SCOTUS (assuming Trump appeals the CO ruling) is about Section 3 of the 14th.

to summarize... you're saying trump will be on the ballot in march even tho he's not eligible, you know more than 4 justices but you are also aware that trump hasn't appealed yet to even put any of your theories into motion.

lmao.

 

[AlexBailey]

The 4 judges in CO misinterpreted Section 3 of the 14th. I’ll let SCOTUS provide the definitive explanation you seek. We can expect the issues of due process, what constitutes an insurrection, to whom Section 3 applies, and historical context to be addressed in the Court’s decision.

Are you trying to hold onto the idea that because sec. 3 of the 14 amendment doesn’t specifically mention the Presidency that it doesn’t apply to Trump? Good luck.


https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/anderson-v-griswold/

“Dictionaries from the time of the drafting and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment show that the term “office” would have been understood to include the president, and the text of the Constitution itself refers to the presidency as an “office.””

 

[Bn2f]

Lol. John Eastman‘s crazy ass idea went down in flames. The question before SCOTUS (assuming Trump appeals the CO ruling) is about Section 3 of the 14th.

Hmmmm.
Interesting.
Such light dismissal of a scheme that came oh so close to working and that almost cost Mike Pence his life by the hands of orderly tourists.

The correct answer is: this would not have gotten this far with an outgoing Biden presidency because Biden respects the constitution and had he hinted at interfering with the transition the 25th would’ve been invoked by Biden’s own administration.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So the question of whether Colorado may exclude a presidential candidate has been already been decided and upheld.

Now it’s up to whether or not Anderson v. Griswold will be upheld.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Griswold


It’s tricky for Trump, because the SCOTUS will have to rule on the legal legitimacy of Anderson v. Griswold, not on whether or not Trump’s name can be kept off the ballot.

Was it a clean case?

The Hassan case decided that a presidential candidate who is constitutionally disqualified for office can be kept off the ballot. Assuming Trump appeals this weeks Colorado Supreme Court’s Hail Mary, SCOTUS will determine if the Colorado court‘s determination that Trump is constitutionally disqualified for office passes constitutional muster.

 

[Bn2f]

Hmmmm.
Interesting.
Such light dismissal of a scheme that came oh so close to working and that almost cost Mike Pence his life by the hands of orderly tourists.

The correct answer is: this would not have gotten this far with an outgoing Biden presidency because Biden respects the constitution and had he hinted at interfering with the transition the 25th would’ve been invoked by Biden’s own administration.

I believe… No! I know this to be true because you, HisArpy, and Fox News would be the leading voices calling for invocation AND I, along with righteous democrats, would agree. There would be no cowardly fealty to Biden from democrats.

 

[Bn2f]

The Hassan case decided that a presidential candidate who is constitutionally disqualified for office can be kept off the ballot. Assuming Trump appeals this weeks Colorado Supreme Court’s Hail Mary, SCOTUS will determine if the Colorado court‘s determination that Trump is constitutionally disqualified for office passes constitutional muster.

Numerous Republican voters have told CPR News that they plan to write in Trump in that case. However, those votes wouldn't be counted if the ruling stands, according to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. “We do not count the votes of unqualified write-in candidates,” she said.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hmmmm.
Interesting.
Such light dismissal of a scheme that came oh so close to working and that almost cost Mike Pence his life by the hands of orderly tourists.

The correct answer is: this would not have gotten this far with an outgoing Biden presidency because Biden respects the constitution and had he hinted at interfering with the transition the 25th would’ve been invoked by Biden’s own administration.

It was a nutty idea, Pence did the right thing.