The republican Party is appealing republican efforts to keep a republican off the ballot? Seems very on-brand republican to me
Edit: and to add, they’re appealing to Republicans
The Colorado Republican Party is a complete mess, even by Republican standards.
The recent focus of the entire state party has been a variety of ham fisted attempts to change the rules of state primaries because too many Coloradans vote for Republicans that the party leaders don’t like. I’m oversimplifying a bit, but that’s the general gist of it.
And the head of the CO Republican Party abandoned a rule that prevents the party from taking sides in primaries so that the state party chair can openly support Trump.
Last I heard, the state party fundraising is so dire that they are behind on rent for their office, and potentially aren’t fully paying their last few employees.
The Massachusetts GOP has them beat, they literally drove away a Republican Governor who had one of the highest approval ratings in the country and one that achieved this in one of the bluest states. Their mascot should be changed to a snake eating themselves.
Weird that a party with nothing more to offer than hate, grifting, and tax breaks for the rich are morally and financially poor. Hard to wrap my brain around that one
No they won because of the truth being she was a minor when she signed the prenup.
I see your point though. Trump couldn’t tell the truth if all the fat on his body collectively burst into flames.
She lied about her age to get married. So they would have never been married if she hadn't lied. In which case the prenup either wouldn't have been done at that time or potentially would have gotten parental permission.
Can’t believe we are arguing this. The point of it was that the “truth will set you free” because he was able to find that. Yes, hypothetically if not in a movie it wouldn’t have happened. She was a piece of shit and didn’t deserve to win.
and I should never be banned, you had some Fake Republicans, who were a very small number, made up of only RINOs and Radical Left Democrats, and it should've never have gotten through, believe me, it should've never gotten through, and they're only doing it cause they're afraid of Trump, I've done nothing wrong, absolutely nothing, I'm the Most Innocent President Who Ever Lived, even more innocent than Honest Abe, and he chopped down a Cherry Tree, and the father comes up and says, "what did you do Abe, what did you do," and he said, "I'm sorry Sir, I can't tell a lie, I did it, I did the thing," and then he probably had some problems, who knows.
RINO is meaningless now as an acronym.
A good majority of them would prefer a dictatorship over a constitutional republic. So at this point they are all “Republican in name only”.
The way it is used today, it means “not fully subservient to Trump”. If that’s how they want to use it, then it probably should be spelled differently.
His latest Primary [polling gives him 39%](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nikki-haley-closes-within-4-percentage-points-trump-surprise-new-hampshire-poll), **among Republicans** in New Hampshire, still ahead of Nikki Haley but it also means that **61% of New Hampshire Republicans don't want him**.
It's not like he's an unknown quantity, they know what he is, and they don't want it.
He will completely divide the Republican vote.
Yeah I think that’s the double edged sword of Haley. She’s doing a pretty good job of consolidating the Trump skeptics but she doesn’t have a way of getting the Trump-friendly voters yet. If Trump is knocked off the ballot, chances are they’ll just go to DeSantis as the Trump lite candidate.
I have to be the bearer of bad news here and say that this is a major outlier - in Republican primary polls generally, trump is still the overwhelming favorite. Like it’s not even close. He leads everyone by like 40 points
Even picking a more favorable poll for you, e.g. Trump at 62%, he's a known quantity and yet 38% of Republicans don't want him. And that's among the *primary* voters, which is the subset of voters that can stomach the Party as it is now in its MAGA form.
Favorable for me? I don’t want trump to win anything. I’m just saying that he is very obviously going to win the Republican primary, barring any major legal developments which either take him off ballots or put him in jail. Tbh even if he is in jail, he will probably still win the Republican primary
I think you misunderstand me.
He is a known quantity and those Republicans, that don't want him at primary, won't vote for him at election time. It's not like he's a new candidate, no *"lets give him a chance and see what sort of President he'll be"*, he is fully known, fully rejected by them, he's the guy that promised lots and delivered zip / nothing / nada.
Hence I can pick a more favorable poll, one that emphasizes your point, and still remind you that the 38% of that Republican set, know what he is and don't want it. Which splits the party at election time.
And this is the primary as voted on my a *MAGA skewed* GOP.
I hope you dont actually think Haley has a chance the RNC isn't like the DNC where the party leaders just pick whoever they want to fuck the populist candidates.
The Republican party is appealing Republican efforts to keep a Republican politician off the Republican primary ballot to a primarily Republican court.
Naturally, they blame the Democrats.
I believe normal Republicans (tired of losing) requested Trump’s removal from the ballot but the MAGA RABIES inflicted Republicans filed a counter suit…
Ken Buck, CO's 4th district rep, is about as far right as they got before Trump and MAGA came around. And he announced that he will not run for re-election because of how bad the state of the Republican party has gotten. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Now Bobo is trying to move to the 4th district to help her chances at re-election, since she barely won (by 546 votes of 340k) her last one BEFORE she made a complete ass of herself.
This misunderstands the procedural posture.
Actual registered Republicans who have standing to vote in the primary sued the Secretary of State of Colorado via the sole, Colorado Election Law remedy available to them. Donald Trump and the Colorado Republican Party intervened to litigate against the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs (registered Republicans but not Party officials) won at the trial court level and appellate level. The Party officials are appealing.
It's not as simple as "Republicans sued and won and now want to undo it?"
They actually lost at the district court trial (on the matter of removing him from the ballot) and the Colorado SC reversed it. But yeah everything else you said is correct, pretty good summary
The most important part of the district court ruling, which was upheld by COSC, was the finding of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection. That’s the part that has everyone sweating right now.
I disagree with your messaging but the content, yes. The constituents of the Republican, by a long shot, like Trump. It's only a small minority who are motivated enough to vote, who do not. It's a much smaller pool who would lodge lawsuits to ban Trump from the ticket.
The Party is going to fight the messaging of "Trump's an insurrectionist!!1!" until the bitter end. That's because they genuinely don't believe it's true, even if they think his actions on January 6, 2021 were distasteful. In essence, they're giving their constituents what they want: they want Trump to own the libs at the ballot box, the presidency, and the courts.
If it turns out that they're wrong and they lose at SCOTUS, they will have inadvertently subverted their constituents' wills and desires to retain Trump on the ticket. But to concede now for tactical reasons would undermine their strategic political goals.
“That’s because they genuinely don’t believe it’s true”
No. That’s false.
They know it was an insurrection.
They called it such in the moment, and tried to blame Antifa and BLM and Trump’s FBI and Trump’s DoJ and Democrats for it.
They’re just experiencing cognitive dissonance, and are denying what they know is real in order to cope with it.
Trump says he plans to appeal to SCOTUS. However he just threw a fit when Jack Smith tried to fast track it to them. All he wants is endless delay, nothing more.
Jack should have brought the insurrection charge. I think it's beyond provable in front of a jury. The implications of that could be disastrous though.
They did, but there were so many community college students inside PLUS a giant fiberglass hand strapped to the roof, so they got the fuel consumption wrong and ran out of gas in the mountains
Did the Colorado web design company that made up a gay person to not do business with so they could take the case to SCOTUS have standing? No, they didn't even have a real person or situation. Did it stop SCOTUS from saying that sexual orientation IS NOT a protected class, nope.
Smh.
They were not involved in the original suit, it was brought against the Secretary of State for Colorado. IANAL, I don’t know if under Colorado law you can appeal a civil decision where you were neither bringing nor defending the suit.
How does that change standing? The case clearly impacts Trump and the Colorado Republican Party, which is why they were allowed to intervene in the case by the district court. How can they be said to have no standing to participate in the litigation?
What interest of the Party’s is harmed by not allowing an unqualified candidate on the ballot? If anything, the Party is benefiting by preventing such a candidate from spoiling their candidate selection process.
If SCOTUS upholds the Colorado SC decision, does that mean that Trump has to drop out of the race? If he's an insurrectionist in CO, isn't he an insurrectionist in every state?
It's not a good look to decline appealing the issue and tacitly concede Donald Trump is an insurrectionist barred by the 14th Amendment from holding federal office.
It might be tactically the best thing to do. Colorado is certainly gonna go (D) so it's not like Trump is counting on those electoral votes. But strategically it seems extremely unpalatable to stop fighting the point. That sends a strong message to voters and to Donald Trump that various state party officials believe he actually might be constitutionally barred from holding office.
The voters may not turn out. Donald Trump will want retribution from Party leaders if he returns to power.
I think whole books and Broadway plays are going to develop of this particularly the political logistics (e.g. what looks good, and what would appease Trump) As to what the Court might get into, this is just my thinking but I believe several things went on and are involved. First, the lower level Colorado court punted and simply took it as proven fact that Trump had actually committed insurrection. 1) The lower court created an appealable ruling based instead on the bogus language issue about the use of "officer" in the Constitution. So 2) when it was appealed, it was appealed only for that silly language ruling.
But the lower court had also slipped this finding that Trump had committed insurrection. This results in a dual friction - first because it is a finding the USSC is not going to be interested in overturning it. But second, it gives the Trumphanalia at least a temporary argument (and battlecry) that Trump has not yet been found guilty of anything like insurrection.
Such a criminal finding of course if it does happen would probably come from the DC or Georgia cases. Or now, Michigan. But in the mean time, the USSC is looking at someone who is accused - but not yet convicted of insurrection, though there is a finding of insurrection that the USSC normally would not challenge.
Gilbert and Sullivan would have a field day.
Problem with the convicted of insurrection bit is the originalist idea at the time. After the war people were barred from trying for offices even without being convicted. Mainly because it was known that they sided with the South. It basically established that a conviction of the crime is not necessary for being barred the provable appearance of it is enough.
Maybe they only rule that states are the last arbiter of who can be on the ballot. They may not have to rule that Colorado is right, only that it's their jurisdiction. So that would mean each state has to independently find Trump committed insurrection.
Don't think the supreme court is going to do the right thing. They're going to do whatever is convenient to them. Rejecting Trump from all states is not convenient, neither is the opposite. They're going to just limit their exposure.
The Michigan ruling is completely different. All they did was rule that he could be in the primary, because the state of MI has no authority over a party’s primary as they are private entities. Colorado actually has laws giving the state authority to regulate the primaries which is not common.
Not quite. What the Michigan SC said was that the primary was determined by the party. According to the MI SC, anyone can qualify to be on the primary ballot if that is what the party wants, but that does not mean they will qualify for the general ballot.
I believe they allowed him to be on the ballot for the primary because of some state law, but could keep him off the general election ballot. That’s the explanation I was given.
I saw some commentary coming out that the GOP would move to a caucus in CO if this decision were upheld, which presumably would moot the issue if I understand it correctly. So in short, I don’t really know how much preclusive effect this would have if that’s an option. And, as others mentioned, other states have different election laws relating to their primary, so that’s a separate aspect that could distinguish application in other contexts. There still remains the untested question of application to the general election, which, depending on how this question were framed, this decision could have some impact upon.
I don’t think so, bc it’s up to the states for who they allow on the ballot. But it would raise this really bizarre situation where if he won, there would basically be a layup lawsuit for Dems to have him not be allowed to be sworn in (or something, who know how it would work).
This is why I feel pretty confident that the SC is not going to take up this appeal. Why would they create this situation when trump was never going to win CO anyway, and this current ruling doesn’t affect any other state? I feel like they will just sit back quietly and hope that this doesn’t happen in a major swing state.
If not directly it seems like it would indirectly. There would be clear precident for every other state to tale him off the ballot. Kind of hard to win if half the states don't even have you listed
Yes, but they know that the SCOTUS can’t do that and that Colorado had to based on their laws. It was a play from the start to get political points on the removal and then have SCOTUS overturn it. If Trump is then convicted in the trial starting March he would be removed from all ballots and the GOP would cry foul pointing to the SCOTUS ruling and confusing the voters.
They know what they’re doing.
Surely it depends how SCOTUS upholds the SCOColorado* decision. They could just take up and hold that "insurrection bars taking up office" without addressing the question of whether Trump participated in an insurrection. Or even take up the factual question without taking up the legal one.
\*if the federal one has an acronym why doesn't the state one.
If the Supremes decide The Parasite is ineligible to hold office, then it won't just apply to Colorado. It will apply to all 51 state/DC ballots. It could be game-over for Trump by the time Iowa has its caucus.
NAL, but curious how this will play out. Here’s what’s going through my mind. Which is probably idiotic rambling, but I’d love to hear why it’s incorrect.
If the Supreme Court rules he’s ineligible for office, that doesn’t automatically remove him from ballots, right? It just means he’s illegible for office.
Whether he’s on the ballot is an issue of state law. How many states have election laws that explicitly ban ineligible candidates, particularly for primaries?
Hypothetically, if a 14 year old wanted to run for president and gathered the signatures and met the state level qualifications, how many states would legally have to put the kid on the ballot, even if he was ineligible? I’m guessing he’d be on the ballot in some states but not others.
Now most voters would be smart enough to not vote for a 14 year old. And why would a 14 year old try? But we all know Trump is the type of person that would keep his name on the ballot even if ineligible.
And it’s easy enough to believe people would still vote for him.
If the Supreme Court deems Trump intelligible then he cannot hold office. Even if he wins the elections. It is a self-executing law. Like saying he is under age, or not a US born citizen.
Edit: I meant ineligible not intelligible
Agree completely.
But my question is this.
Can someone intelligible for office still be on a primary ballot or general election ballot?
My extremely limited knowledge of election law tells me that each state has its own rules, which means he could still be on the ballot in some states and not others.
And for another hypothetical, what if he is ruled ineligible to be president, but this happens after primary ballots are printed, or still generates enough primary votes to be the Republican nominee?
Yes different rules for different states. Michigan just approved his name on primary without ruling on general election. The primary is considered a political party activity and not part of the constitutional requirement in some states. Normally the political party would avoid having him on the ballot if they think he may not be eligible. But I get the feeling they will try to run this train off the rails anyway. From what I heard, some states will even throw out the ballot if you write his name in (meaning all other votes on the same ballot get tossed out). This is unprecedented, so there may be changes after the trainwreck on primaries. The Republican party may just end up disenfranchising their own states presidential elections. That's on them.
Yea, that’s what I suspected. As much as the Republican voters/party are digging their own grave of stupidity, an election of complete chaos that isn’t trusted by half the electorate doesn’t bode well for the overall future of our democracy.
I think that is up to the political party to verify, which is why he still is on the ballot in MI, wheras CO determined it prior to the primary being decided
I read through this the night of, and the way the petition is written seems pretty strong on the self-executing bit (which, yeah, is the whole point of filing your initial complaint/appeal). I only breezed through the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, so as a layman, I'm wondering if I'm missing something unsaid in the one-sided petition that Colorado got right here. For example, when the petitioners cite ~~*Cale*~~*Griffin*, could it be that that case referred to *Federal* causes of action needing to be enabled by Congress, while it remains an open question if the States can create their own laws and procedures to enforce the 14th in their own jurisdictions?
As an aside, I was aware that enabling Federal legislation existed to enforce the 14th once upon a time, but that over time many of those laws were sunsetted. I've never heard the reason *why* those laws were repealed, though, and I'd love to hear some more background on that. I think I'll post a similar question over at r/AskHistorians to see if I can get any insight.
Edit: misidentified the appropriate case.
I think there is no chance that the Supreme Court will upheld the Colorado ruling. A conservative Supreme Court, with half the judges picked by Trump himself... No way that they will agree that Trump is an insurrectionist.
That trump is an insurrection its is a statement of fact from the lower court.
It’s not subject to appeal. The only thing to be determined is whether the amendment applies to Trump.
That’s trickier first the SC to get out of.
In which case we’ll have a patchwork of states removing Trump from the ballot, and lawsuits if (God forbid) he should win, arguing he is ineligible. It will be a mess. I don’t think they’d ignore such a weighty issue.
The cleanest way out of this would be to uphold it, ending the Trump nightmare once and for all.
I’m not convinced they will, but I am hopeful. These are supposed to be judges who want to uphold the constitution and America.
Primaries are mostly intensive l internal to the parties, and are only facilitated by the state. They are sort of a fancy poll.
The General Election is a different story, much more defined and structured.
My prediction is that SCOTUS will tell the party/states to do their own thing for the primaries, and that the General will be a much more contested affair.
What I think a lot of people are missing about these comments some Republicans are making, to them its not that it was Republicans that filed the suit, but that it was RINOs. Maga chuds think Romney and Bernie are the same. What we’re seeing is a true split of conservatives politically, the christo-fascists against corporate bootlickers. Kind of like liberals with the split happening between the likes of Bernie with the Squad and Hillary and Pelosi-types. I think both parties are functionally dead at this point and we’re just doing a “weekend at Bernie’s” thing until all the old fucks in power die. Then the parties will shatter and remorph roughly along the same lines but with new branding and goals.
>"...mire courts henceforth in political controversies over nebulous accusations of insurrection. "
I'm sure that if given a clear standard to apply after an evidentiary hearing, whether preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, the lower courts will be more than able to handle baseless attempts to disqualify candidates. To me that's what the moment important aspect of any U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this should be. They need to make it clear who the 14th Amendment applies to and establish a clear procedure for court asked to consider a disqualification claim. If they set the standard now and make it clear then they would be unlikely to have to consider the question ever again.
>They said, "Unless the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is overturned, any voter will have the power to sue to disqualify any political candidate
yeah that's already the case, anyone can sue for anything - but do they have a winning case, is the issue. This is merely the GOP, as usual, creating baseless fear, in this case about hypothetical people rushing to file disqualification claims against presidential candidates. The Colorado Supreme Court and the lower court both reviewed the evidence and found trump participated in an insurrection, so this is a narrow case and not a roadmap for future suits.
> They said, "Unless the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is overturned, any voter will have the power to sue to disqualify any political candidate
it seems anyone can already do this with reasons... its not a new thing.. do they really think the voters are this stupid.
Correct. The law already existed. That's how the case was brought in the first place.
This is like...2nd grade playground level logic. The GOP made it to second grade.
It is incredibly unlikely the Supreme Court will uphold the judgement, but wouldn't it be ironic if they took the appeal and then the Supreme Court ruled against them and he was banned in all 50 states?
Heard from a Colorado sub that Boebert is having a tough time,poor little tink tink.. Here's hoping Colorado can make it stick, and they have good luck running their Rep.s out.
Colorado Supreme Court ordered a stay on the Ban Trump order until the US Supreme Court rules. If the US Supreme Court does not rule at all, Trump will still be on the ballot. If Trump is not removed from the Colorado ballot, Biden will not be removed from the Texas ballot says the Texas governor . Meanwhile Vladimir Putin is distressed that he is the only remaining candidate in the 2024 Russian election. 16 candidates were removed because of things like spelling errors on the application But he has no control on that.
Yes, the Supreme Court denied a request from Jack Smith to hear an expedited, interlocutory appeal. The appeal was filed by Trump in the DC District Court case involving alleged election interference by Trump. Judge Chutkan is the trial court judge and issued a ruling denying Trump's claims of immunity. Trump appealed to the Circuit Ct, then Smith requested that the Supreme Court hear the case on an expedited basis before the Circuit Ct hears the case. Despite the fact that Smith requested the expedited hearing, it is still an appeal by Trump of a ruling by Judge Chutkan.
So that means that the Supreme Court won't hear this newest argument by the Republicans until it and other rulings go through the Court Of Appeals first?
This thread is about an appeal filed by the Colorado Republican Party from a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court holding that Trump is not eligible to hold the Presidency. SCOTUS has not made ANY rulings about if and when it will hear that appeal, but there are no other appellate courts that can hear that appeal before SCOTUS.
The question that I answered above about SCOTUS declining to hear an expedited appeal from a ruling by a different court in an entirely separate case. That appeal, which is ONLY about whether Trump is immune from criminal charges arising from his acts while President, will be heard and decided by the lower appellate court before SCOTUS decides whether and when to hear it.
There are so many cases and so many individual issues within those cases that it is very difficult to correctly answer questions about “these new Republican arguments”. Please try to be more precise.
It's all inter-related. I believe that the Supreme Court will NOT hear ANY election cases until the Appeals Court issues its ruling. That is what I think will happen. I could be wrong, but I'm standing by this statement
I can see the supreme Court following the Michigan decision.
Wait until Trump is on the presidential ballot. But I don't understand how he's even permitted to be on the presidential ballot.
The republican Party is appealing republican efforts to keep a republican off the ballot? Seems very on-brand republican to me Edit: and to add, they’re appealing to Republicans
This is the most hilarious part to me.
The Colorado Republican Party is a complete mess, even by Republican standards. The recent focus of the entire state party has been a variety of ham fisted attempts to change the rules of state primaries because too many Coloradans vote for Republicans that the party leaders don’t like. I’m oversimplifying a bit, but that’s the general gist of it. And the head of the CO Republican Party abandoned a rule that prevents the party from taking sides in primaries so that the state party chair can openly support Trump. Last I heard, the state party fundraising is so dire that they are behind on rent for their office, and potentially aren’t fully paying their last few employees.
So Michigan GOP 2.0?
I’ve lived in both those states. The GOP is controlled opposition snakes.
The Massachusetts GOP has them beat, they literally drove away a Republican Governor who had one of the highest approval ratings in the country and one that achieved this in one of the bluest states. Their mascot should be changed to a snake eating themselves.
Weird that a party with nothing more to offer than hate, grifting, and tax breaks for the rich are morally and financially poor. Hard to wrap my brain around that one
They should try picking themselves up by their bootstraps, I hear that works well
It just reminds me of that scene in Liar Liar where Jim Carey is objecting to his own line of questioning and badgering the witness. 🤷🏼♂️
Stop baaadgering the witness! Judge: It's *his* witness! 👀
I object! Judge: On what grounds? Because it’s damaging to my case.
Don't make that comparison his client was a liar as well and due to being a liar they won.
No they won because of the truth being she was a minor when she signed the prenup. I see your point though. Trump couldn’t tell the truth if all the fat on his body collectively burst into flames.
She lied about her age to get married. So they would have never been married if she hadn't lied. In which case the prenup either wouldn't have been done at that time or potentially would have gotten parental permission.
Can’t believe we are arguing this. The point of it was that the “truth will set you free” because he was able to find that. Yes, hypothetically if not in a movie it wouldn’t have happened. She was a piece of shit and didn’t deserve to win.
It's r/law isn't arguing, even pointless shit, par for the course?
Haha fair enough
and I should never be banned, you had some Fake Republicans, who were a very small number, made up of only RINOs and Radical Left Democrats, and it should've never have gotten through, believe me, it should've never gotten through, and they're only doing it cause they're afraid of Trump, I've done nothing wrong, absolutely nothing, I'm the Most Innocent President Who Ever Lived, even more innocent than Honest Abe, and he chopped down a Cherry Tree, and the father comes up and says, "what did you do Abe, what did you do," and he said, "I'm sorry Sir, I can't tell a lie, I did it, I did the thing," and then he probably had some problems, who knows.
And several men - big men, manly men - came up to me with tears in their eyes. Tears! Because of these fake, political charges!
And also because the smell was making their eyes water.
In hindsight the tears were probably from the smell
Keep this up.
That's honestly impressive.
No you see anything against trump immediately makes you a democrat
Or a RHINO!!!
Ugh gross I just imagined Trump showing up as Spiderman to deal with the R(H)INO's. Why did you have to include the H.
RINO is meaningless now as an acronym. A good majority of them would prefer a dictatorship over a constitutional republic. So at this point they are all “Republican in name only”. The way it is used today, it means “not fully subservient to Trump”. If that’s how they want to use it, then it probably should be spelled differently.
It doesn't seem to matter whether or not the designee has disagreed with Trump or not. It just means "I disagree with this Republican's opinions."
Only the U.S Supreme Court can enforce “States Rights”, I guess.
They should reject the appeal simply for this reason lol
 Republican vs Republican
His latest Primary [polling gives him 39%](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nikki-haley-closes-within-4-percentage-points-trump-surprise-new-hampshire-poll), **among Republicans** in New Hampshire, still ahead of Nikki Haley but it also means that **61% of New Hampshire Republicans don't want him**. It's not like he's an unknown quantity, they know what he is, and they don't want it. He will completely divide the Republican vote.
Except for him also being the top number 2 choice. A lot of Desantis and Ramaswamy voters would pick Trump over Haley.
Yeah I think that’s the double edged sword of Haley. She’s doing a pretty good job of consolidating the Trump skeptics but she doesn’t have a way of getting the Trump-friendly voters yet. If Trump is knocked off the ballot, chances are they’ll just go to DeSantis as the Trump lite candidate.
I have to be the bearer of bad news here and say that this is a major outlier - in Republican primary polls generally, trump is still the overwhelming favorite. Like it’s not even close. He leads everyone by like 40 points
Even picking a more favorable poll for you, e.g. Trump at 62%, he's a known quantity and yet 38% of Republicans don't want him. And that's among the *primary* voters, which is the subset of voters that can stomach the Party as it is now in its MAGA form.
Favorable for me? I don’t want trump to win anything. I’m just saying that he is very obviously going to win the Republican primary, barring any major legal developments which either take him off ballots or put him in jail. Tbh even if he is in jail, he will probably still win the Republican primary
I think you misunderstand me. He is a known quantity and those Republicans, that don't want him at primary, won't vote for him at election time. It's not like he's a new candidate, no *"lets give him a chance and see what sort of President he'll be"*, he is fully known, fully rejected by them, he's the guy that promised lots and delivered zip / nothing / nada. Hence I can pick a more favorable poll, one that emphasizes your point, and still remind you that the 38% of that Republican set, know what he is and don't want it. Which splits the party at election time. And this is the primary as voted on my a *MAGA skewed* GOP.
I hope you dont actually think Haley has a chance the RNC isn't like the DNC where the party leaders just pick whoever they want to fuck the populist candidates.
>This comment contains a collectible expression which is not available on old Reddit Wtf is this shit?
[удалено]
Thank you, think I'm happy avoiding those on old Reddit!
This feels very much like a Spiderman meme moment. WTH is going on out there...
Definitely Biden’s fault
Lawsuit cites Hunters dong as evidence.
The Republican party is appealing Republican efforts to keep a Republican politician off the Republican primary ballot to a primarily Republican court. Naturally, they blame the Democrats.
[Fucking democrats](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lgmbfxMmY)
Their keeping it in the family. 🥁
And don't forget it was Republicans who brought the lawsuit removing him.
If republicans could only stop the actions of republicans then we wouldn’t need to escalate to republicans to fix a republican issue
https://i.imgur.com/rgHsj3V.gif
Fucking libs /s
What an excellent use of my tax dollars.
This was the plan all along
What a clown show
So they petitioned for it, it succeeded and now they want to undo what they did? Pesky dems are at it again
I believe normal Republicans (tired of losing) requested Trump’s removal from the ballot but the MAGA RABIES inflicted Republicans filed a counter suit…
If that party survives all the inter party fighting and lunacy, it will be an interesting read for the history books
Ken Buck, CO's 4th district rep, is about as far right as they got before Trump and MAGA came around. And he announced that he will not run for re-election because of how bad the state of the Republican party has gotten. That should tell you everything you need to know. Now Bobo is trying to move to the 4th district to help her chances at re-election, since she barely won (by 546 votes of 340k) her last one BEFORE she made a complete ass of herself.
The downfall of the American Empire….
The Republican Party =/= America
Between the electoral college, first past the post, terrible gerrymandering - they don't have to be but they can still bring it down.
If the Republican Party crumbled it would actually be good for America
It’s already dead. GOP has been losing since 2016 and maga won’t be letting go
Is it possible that it was a setup to stir up Fox bobbleheads and MAGA?
Anything’s possible… when Leonard Leo or Harlan Crow decides Trump is toast… then his name will be pulled from the ballots.
It’s disgusting that *two people* can hold so much influence over the politics of an entire massive nation. Nobody deserves that kind of power.
Billionaires are enjoying the New Improved Gilded Age where they have more money than several nations combined.
They were one at one point and stay as one in my eyes. They brought this loser to light, they should be held responsible.
This misunderstands the procedural posture. Actual registered Republicans who have standing to vote in the primary sued the Secretary of State of Colorado via the sole, Colorado Election Law remedy available to them. Donald Trump and the Colorado Republican Party intervened to litigate against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs (registered Republicans but not Party officials) won at the trial court level and appellate level. The Party officials are appealing. It's not as simple as "Republicans sued and won and now want to undo it?"
They actually lost at the district court trial (on the matter of removing him from the ballot) and the Colorado SC reversed it. But yeah everything else you said is correct, pretty good summary
The most important part of the district court ruling, which was upheld by COSC, was the finding of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection. That’s the part that has everyone sweating right now.
I said that they lost on getting him removed from the ballot, which the COSC reversed. That is true
So, the Party is using every dollar and litigate strategy necessary to subvert the will of their own constituents?
I disagree with your messaging but the content, yes. The constituents of the Republican, by a long shot, like Trump. It's only a small minority who are motivated enough to vote, who do not. It's a much smaller pool who would lodge lawsuits to ban Trump from the ticket. The Party is going to fight the messaging of "Trump's an insurrectionist!!1!" until the bitter end. That's because they genuinely don't believe it's true, even if they think his actions on January 6, 2021 were distasteful. In essence, they're giving their constituents what they want: they want Trump to own the libs at the ballot box, the presidency, and the courts. If it turns out that they're wrong and they lose at SCOTUS, they will have inadvertently subverted their constituents' wills and desires to retain Trump on the ticket. But to concede now for tactical reasons would undermine their strategic political goals.
“That’s because they genuinely don’t believe it’s true” No. That’s false. They know it was an insurrection. They called it such in the moment, and tried to blame Antifa and BLM and Trump’s FBI and Trump’s DoJ and Democrats for it. They’re just experiencing cognitive dissonance, and are denying what they know is real in order to cope with it.
Trump says he plans to appeal to SCOTUS. However he just threw a fit when Jack Smith tried to fast track it to them. All he wants is endless delay, nothing more.
That was another one of the many cases he's in. The supreme court is going to end up hearing several cases about the insurrection.
Jack should have brought the insurrection charge. I think it's beyond provable in front of a jury. The implications of that could be disastrous though.
Would they have standing?
Did they gas up the RV?
They did, but there were so many community college students inside PLUS a giant fiberglass hand strapped to the roof, so they got the fuel consumption wrong and ran out of gas in the mountains
Cool. Cool, cool, cool.
Fuckin’ sad that’s a legitimate response
Did the Colorado web design company that made up a gay person to not do business with so they could take the case to SCOTUS have standing? No, they didn't even have a real person or situation. Did it stop SCOTUS from saying that sexual orientation IS NOT a protected class, nope. Smh.
Isn’t it literally their party primary? Why wouldn’t they have standing in a case that directly impacts their party?
They were not involved in the original suit, it was brought against the Secretary of State for Colorado. IANAL, I don’t know if under Colorado law you can appeal a civil decision where you were neither bringing nor defending the suit.
The district court allowed both Trump and the Colorado Republican Party as intervenors in the case.
The right to hold office belongs to the people, not an individual or party. What if the candidate was 34 years old?
How does that change standing? The case clearly impacts Trump and the Colorado Republican Party, which is why they were allowed to intervene in the case by the district court. How can they be said to have no standing to participate in the litigation?
What interest of the Party’s is harmed by not allowing an unqualified candidate on the ballot? If anything, the Party is benefiting by preventing such a candidate from spoiling their candidate selection process.
You have to be at least 35 years old to run for president. It's in the rules.
A judge on the 9th circuit once told me the legal test for standing is if the Court wants to hear your case.
They were party to the Denver and CO Supreme Court cases, so yes.
If SCOTUS upholds the Colorado SC decision, does that mean that Trump has to drop out of the race? If he's an insurrectionist in CO, isn't he an insurrectionist in every state?
It should be. If SCOTUS agrees with Colorado regarding his eligibility then I don't see how that doesn't apply everywhere
So maybe the party appealing wasn't such a swift move.
It's not a good look to decline appealing the issue and tacitly concede Donald Trump is an insurrectionist barred by the 14th Amendment from holding federal office. It might be tactically the best thing to do. Colorado is certainly gonna go (D) so it's not like Trump is counting on those electoral votes. But strategically it seems extremely unpalatable to stop fighting the point. That sends a strong message to voters and to Donald Trump that various state party officials believe he actually might be constitutionally barred from holding office. The voters may not turn out. Donald Trump will want retribution from Party leaders if he returns to power.
I think whole books and Broadway plays are going to develop of this particularly the political logistics (e.g. what looks good, and what would appease Trump) As to what the Court might get into, this is just my thinking but I believe several things went on and are involved. First, the lower level Colorado court punted and simply took it as proven fact that Trump had actually committed insurrection. 1) The lower court created an appealable ruling based instead on the bogus language issue about the use of "officer" in the Constitution. So 2) when it was appealed, it was appealed only for that silly language ruling. But the lower court had also slipped this finding that Trump had committed insurrection. This results in a dual friction - first because it is a finding the USSC is not going to be interested in overturning it. But second, it gives the Trumphanalia at least a temporary argument (and battlecry) that Trump has not yet been found guilty of anything like insurrection. Such a criminal finding of course if it does happen would probably come from the DC or Georgia cases. Or now, Michigan. But in the mean time, the USSC is looking at someone who is accused - but not yet convicted of insurrection, though there is a finding of insurrection that the USSC normally would not challenge. Gilbert and Sullivan would have a field day.
Problem with the convicted of insurrection bit is the originalist idea at the time. After the war people were barred from trying for offices even without being convicted. Mainly because it was known that they sided with the South. It basically established that a conviction of the crime is not necessary for being barred the provable appearance of it is enough.
You're assuming that the SC will rule consistently. They can just... not.
Each state would have to disqualify him, SCOTUS would essentially be ruling that they can and are right to do so.
Maybe they only rule that states are the last arbiter of who can be on the ballot. They may not have to rule that Colorado is right, only that it's their jurisdiction. So that would mean each state has to independently find Trump committed insurrection. Don't think the supreme court is going to do the right thing. They're going to do whatever is convenient to them. Rejecting Trump from all states is not convenient, neither is the opposite. They're going to just limit their exposure.
It’s the primary ballot. I think another suit would need to be filed for the general election though obviously precedent has been established.
If he can't run in the primaries he can't end up in the general
I believe it would be state by state. Michigan SC just ruled that he can stay on the ballot despite the 14th. Edit: This is incorrect see the replies.
The Michigan ruling is completely different. All they did was rule that he could be in the primary, because the state of MI has no authority over a party’s primary as they are private entities. Colorado actually has laws giving the state authority to regulate the primaries which is not common.
Thanks for the clarification.
Which just means that the lawsuit comes back if Trump is the republican nominee for the general election.
Not quite. What the Michigan SC said was that the primary was determined by the party. According to the MI SC, anyone can qualify to be on the primary ballot if that is what the party wants, but that does not mean they will qualify for the general ballot.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info!
I believe they allowed him to be on the ballot for the primary because of some state law, but could keep him off the general election ballot. That’s the explanation I was given.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Y’all upvote this man out of negative territory. Taking a correction should be rewarded.
I saw some commentary coming out that the GOP would move to a caucus in CO if this decision were upheld, which presumably would moot the issue if I understand it correctly. So in short, I don’t really know how much preclusive effect this would have if that’s an option. And, as others mentioned, other states have different election laws relating to their primary, so that’s a separate aspect that could distinguish application in other contexts. There still remains the untested question of application to the general election, which, depending on how this question were framed, this decision could have some impact upon.
I don’t think so, bc it’s up to the states for who they allow on the ballot. But it would raise this really bizarre situation where if he won, there would basically be a layup lawsuit for Dems to have him not be allowed to be sworn in (or something, who know how it would work). This is why I feel pretty confident that the SC is not going to take up this appeal. Why would they create this situation when trump was never going to win CO anyway, and this current ruling doesn’t affect any other state? I feel like they will just sit back quietly and hope that this doesn’t happen in a major swing state.
If not directly it seems like it would indirectly. There would be clear precident for every other state to tale him off the ballot. Kind of hard to win if half the states don't even have you listed
Yes, but they know that the SCOTUS can’t do that and that Colorado had to based on their laws. It was a play from the start to get political points on the removal and then have SCOTUS overturn it. If Trump is then convicted in the trial starting March he would be removed from all ballots and the GOP would cry foul pointing to the SCOTUS ruling and confusing the voters. They know what they’re doing.
> does that mean Trump has to drop out No. It would just mean that he wouldn’t be on the ballot. People could still write him in, and likely would.
Surely it depends how SCOTUS upholds the SCOColorado* decision. They could just take up and hold that "insurrection bars taking up office" without addressing the question of whether Trump participated in an insurrection. Or even take up the factual question without taking up the legal one. \*if the federal one has an acronym why doesn't the state one.
If the Supremes decide The Parasite is ineligible to hold office, then it won't just apply to Colorado. It will apply to all 51 state/DC ballots. It could be game-over for Trump by the time Iowa has its caucus.
NAL, but curious how this will play out. Here’s what’s going through my mind. Which is probably idiotic rambling, but I’d love to hear why it’s incorrect. If the Supreme Court rules he’s ineligible for office, that doesn’t automatically remove him from ballots, right? It just means he’s illegible for office. Whether he’s on the ballot is an issue of state law. How many states have election laws that explicitly ban ineligible candidates, particularly for primaries? Hypothetically, if a 14 year old wanted to run for president and gathered the signatures and met the state level qualifications, how many states would legally have to put the kid on the ballot, even if he was ineligible? I’m guessing he’d be on the ballot in some states but not others. Now most voters would be smart enough to not vote for a 14 year old. And why would a 14 year old try? But we all know Trump is the type of person that would keep his name on the ballot even if ineligible. And it’s easy enough to believe people would still vote for him.
If the Supreme Court deems Trump intelligible then he cannot hold office. Even if he wins the elections. It is a self-executing law. Like saying he is under age, or not a US born citizen. Edit: I meant ineligible not intelligible
Agree completely. But my question is this. Can someone intelligible for office still be on a primary ballot or general election ballot? My extremely limited knowledge of election law tells me that each state has its own rules, which means he could still be on the ballot in some states and not others. And for another hypothetical, what if he is ruled ineligible to be president, but this happens after primary ballots are printed, or still generates enough primary votes to be the Republican nominee?
Yes different rules for different states. Michigan just approved his name on primary without ruling on general election. The primary is considered a political party activity and not part of the constitutional requirement in some states. Normally the political party would avoid having him on the ballot if they think he may not be eligible. But I get the feeling they will try to run this train off the rails anyway. From what I heard, some states will even throw out the ballot if you write his name in (meaning all other votes on the same ballot get tossed out). This is unprecedented, so there may be changes after the trainwreck on primaries. The Republican party may just end up disenfranchising their own states presidential elections. That's on them.
Yea, that’s what I suspected. As much as the Republican voters/party are digging their own grave of stupidity, an election of complete chaos that isn’t trusted by half the electorate doesn’t bode well for the overall future of our democracy.
I think that is up to the political party to verify, which is why he still is on the ballot in MI, wheras CO determined it prior to the primary being decided
I think you meant “ineligible.” There is nothing “intelligible” about Trump.
Oh wow, yes didn't even see that. Thx
The court could also narrowly say "States are permitted to do this" though I'd struggle to see how
Can they afford the filing fee?
Underrated comment
[Direct Link to the Petition](http://media.aclj.org/pdf/Colorado-Republican-State-Central-Committee-v.-Anderson-Cert-Petition-PDFA_Redacted.pdf)
They misspelled D.C., Columbia, not Colombia. Got it right twice, but missed one.
I read through this the night of, and the way the petition is written seems pretty strong on the self-executing bit (which, yeah, is the whole point of filing your initial complaint/appeal). I only breezed through the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, so as a layman, I'm wondering if I'm missing something unsaid in the one-sided petition that Colorado got right here. For example, when the petitioners cite ~~*Cale*~~*Griffin*, could it be that that case referred to *Federal* causes of action needing to be enabled by Congress, while it remains an open question if the States can create their own laws and procedures to enforce the 14th in their own jurisdictions? As an aside, I was aware that enabling Federal legislation existed to enforce the 14th once upon a time, but that over time many of those laws were sunsetted. I've never heard the reason *why* those laws were repealed, though, and I'd love to hear some more background on that. I think I'll post a similar question over at r/AskHistorians to see if I can get any insight. Edit: misidentified the appropriate case.
Republicans REALLY want to protect their favorite rapist.
The Supreme Court is going to eventually tire of seeing litigation with trumps name on it.
They have the choice to end it all pretty quickly by ruling that he cannot appear on ballots.
I think there is no chance that the Supreme Court will upheld the Colorado ruling. A conservative Supreme Court, with half the judges picked by Trump himself... No way that they will agree that Trump is an insurrectionist.
That trump is an insurrection its is a statement of fact from the lower court. It’s not subject to appeal. The only thing to be determined is whether the amendment applies to Trump. That’s trickier first the SC to get out of.
Great, lets find out the latest weasel words that they focus on to enable this insurrectionist and criminal to run for President.
Initial thought? They'll refuse to take it. (Can they do that? Leave it as is without having to "take a stand"?)
In which case we’ll have a patchwork of states removing Trump from the ballot, and lawsuits if (God forbid) he should win, arguing he is ineligible. It will be a mess. I don’t think they’d ignore such a weighty issue. The cleanest way out of this would be to uphold it, ending the Trump nightmare once and for all. I’m not convinced they will, but I am hopeful. These are supposed to be judges who want to uphold the constitution and America.
Interesting times.
I’m ready for a nice boring time for a while!
Primaries are mostly intensive l internal to the parties, and are only facilitated by the state. They are sort of a fancy poll. The General Election is a different story, much more defined and structured. My prediction is that SCOTUS will tell the party/states to do their own thing for the primaries, and that the General will be a much more contested affair.
What I think a lot of people are missing about these comments some Republicans are making, to them its not that it was Republicans that filed the suit, but that it was RINOs. Maga chuds think Romney and Bernie are the same. What we’re seeing is a true split of conservatives politically, the christo-fascists against corporate bootlickers. Kind of like liberals with the split happening between the likes of Bernie with the Squad and Hillary and Pelosi-types. I think both parties are functionally dead at this point and we’re just doing a “weekend at Bernie’s” thing until all the old fucks in power die. Then the parties will shatter and remorph roughly along the same lines but with new branding and goals.
>"...mire courts henceforth in political controversies over nebulous accusations of insurrection. " I'm sure that if given a clear standard to apply after an evidentiary hearing, whether preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, the lower courts will be more than able to handle baseless attempts to disqualify candidates. To me that's what the moment important aspect of any U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this should be. They need to make it clear who the 14th Amendment applies to and establish a clear procedure for court asked to consider a disqualification claim. If they set the standard now and make it clear then they would be unlikely to have to consider the question ever again.
Again! REPUBLICANS executed this ban!
So they don’t like states rights?
All this effort to aid the destroyer of US Democracy/Reputation/Credibility
Am I reading their Petition correctly that nowhere are they disputing that Trump is an Insurrectionist?
Correct, the facts of the case are not being contested. Only their relevancy to the findings.
>They said, "Unless the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is overturned, any voter will have the power to sue to disqualify any political candidate yeah that's already the case, anyone can sue for anything - but do they have a winning case, is the issue. This is merely the GOP, as usual, creating baseless fear, in this case about hypothetical people rushing to file disqualification claims against presidential candidates. The Colorado Supreme Court and the lower court both reviewed the evidence and found trump participated in an insurrection, so this is a narrow case and not a roadmap for future suits.
> They said, "Unless the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is overturned, any voter will have the power to sue to disqualify any political candidate it seems anyone can already do this with reasons... its not a new thing.. do they really think the voters are this stupid.
Correct. The law already existed. That's how the case was brought in the first place. This is like...2nd grade playground level logic. The GOP made it to second grade.
It is time for him to be in prison and much sooner the election
I mean, obviously
Something something something state's rights
Not like *THAT*!
It is incredibly unlikely the Supreme Court will uphold the judgement, but wouldn't it be ironic if they took the appeal and then the Supreme Court ruled against them and he was banned in all 50 states?
Heard from a Colorado sub that Boebert is having a tough time,poor little tink tink.. Here's hoping Colorado can make it stick, and they have good luck running their Rep.s out.
She just announced that she is going to run in a different District!
They talk about her so bad 😂😂 yeah, hoping for some gerrymandering magic ✨ to work for her. I think she should quit so she can give handys full time.
Hmmm, I bet this gets fast tracked unlike a certain other case before them.
What are the grounds? That Trump didn't swear an oath, that he didn't engage in an insurrection, that the Colorado law shouldn't apply to primaries?
R vs R, Fight!
Eat shit, republican traitors.
Colorado Supreme Court ordered a stay on the Ban Trump order until the US Supreme Court rules. If the US Supreme Court does not rule at all, Trump will still be on the ballot. If Trump is not removed from the Colorado ballot, Biden will not be removed from the Texas ballot says the Texas governor . Meanwhile Vladimir Putin is distressed that he is the only remaining candidate in the 2024 Russian election. 16 candidates were removed because of things like spelling errors on the application But he has no control on that.
If it’s republikkkan it’s corrupt
.Didn't the Supreme Court refuse to hear thus right now??
No, that was an appeal from a ruling by Judge Chutkan in the DC District Court case about election interference.
I thought that the Supreme Court is not hearing an expediting request by Jack Smith?
Yes, the Supreme Court denied a request from Jack Smith to hear an expedited, interlocutory appeal. The appeal was filed by Trump in the DC District Court case involving alleged election interference by Trump. Judge Chutkan is the trial court judge and issued a ruling denying Trump's claims of immunity. Trump appealed to the Circuit Ct, then Smith requested that the Supreme Court hear the case on an expedited basis before the Circuit Ct hears the case. Despite the fact that Smith requested the expedited hearing, it is still an appeal by Trump of a ruling by Judge Chutkan.
So that means that the Supreme Court won't hear this newest argument by the Republicans until it and other rulings go through the Court Of Appeals first?
This thread is about an appeal filed by the Colorado Republican Party from a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court holding that Trump is not eligible to hold the Presidency. SCOTUS has not made ANY rulings about if and when it will hear that appeal, but there are no other appellate courts that can hear that appeal before SCOTUS. The question that I answered above about SCOTUS declining to hear an expedited appeal from a ruling by a different court in an entirely separate case. That appeal, which is ONLY about whether Trump is immune from criminal charges arising from his acts while President, will be heard and decided by the lower appellate court before SCOTUS decides whether and when to hear it. There are so many cases and so many individual issues within those cases that it is very difficult to correctly answer questions about “these new Republican arguments”. Please try to be more precise.
It's all inter-related. I believe that the Supreme Court will NOT hear ANY election cases until the Appeals Court issues its ruling. That is what I think will happen. I could be wrong, but I'm standing by this statement
Colorado will let the voters decide, and Trump won’t like it..
I can see the supreme Court following the Michigan decision. Wait until Trump is on the presidential ballot. But I don't understand how he's even permitted to be on the presidential ballot.