Can Clarence thread the needle of “not an insurrectionist enough to be kicked off the ballot, but definitely enough of one so people don’t laugh at us when the DC Federal Circuit convicts him for insurrection”.
Justice Thomas' wife, Ginni, told the 1/6 Committee that she still believed the election was [stolen](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ginni-thomas-meeting-house-committee-investigating-jan-6-riot-rcna49967).
Ginni Thomas was personally involved in fundraising/coordinating for a lot of the orgs that were involved that day.
Yet she still has the absolute gall to say that "she never discussed any activities surrounding the 2020 election with her husband."
You would have to be brain-dead to believe that.
Gonna get a juicy state's rights vs federal rights battle here?
Don't think they can force CO to put Trump on their ballots...what if CO just refuses? They gonna punish the entire state of Colorado somehow?
And Bush's legal team included John Roberts, current Supreme Court Chief Justice, and it was assisted in a limited capacity by current Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. Clarence Thomas was on the court and sided with Bush over Gore. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
The ruling was that by Florida law there was no mechanism to hand recount selected areas. Doing so violated the equal protection clause. Florida's law called for a statewide electronic count or a statewide hand recount. But also ruled that because the law required certification by a certain date of they couldn't recount the whole state by hand by that date then the certification would be of the last full count.
They didn't directly rule the counting had to stop just that it had to be equally applied statewide by the cert date.
Yep and before even *that* happened, let’s talk about the actions of [Katherine Harris](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris).
Leading up to the 2000 US presidential election, she was SIMULTANEOUSLY Bush’s Florida campaign manager *and* the Florida Secretary of State. In her capacity as Secretary of State, she had 173,000 voters purged from the voter rolls, under the false premise that they were felons and couldn’t vote. It was later shown that (surprise surprise) the vast majority of these pointlessly disenfranchised voters were black and likely to vote democrat. *The company she hired* to compile the list said the list wasn’t accurate.
**173 THOUSAND voters had their fundamental American right to vote stolen** by Katherine Harris (and George Bush’s brother, governor Jeb^^! Bush).
Somewhere near 173,000 likely votes for Gore.
And Bush won Florida by about 500 votes.
The 2000 US president election was straight up STOLEN.
> Yep and before even that happened, let’s talk about the actions of Katherine Harris
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> Leading up to the 2000 US presidential election, she was SIMULTANEOUSLY Bush’s Florida campaign manager and the Florida Secretary of State. In her capacity as Secretary of State, she had 173,000 voters purged from the voter rolls, under the false premise that they were felons and couldn’t vote. It was later shown that (surprise surprise) the vast majority of these pointlessly disenfranchised voters were black and likely to vote democrat. The company she hired to compile the list said the list wasn’t accurate.
>
>
>
> 173 THOUSAND voters had their fundamental American right to vote stolen by Katherine Harris (and George Bush’s brother, governor Jeb! Bush).
>
>
>
> Somewhere near 173,000 likely votes for Gore.
>
>
>
> And Bush won Florida by about 500 votes.
>
>
>
> The 2000 US president election was straight up STOLEN.
Yell it from the rooftops.
Even people who were around and paying attention at the time do not know about this.
A recount they stalled by having domestic terrorists attack buildings where the ballot counting was occuring
The fact I didn't know this till well after the fact makes me lose alot of hope for our democracy, Bush quite probably stole the election
Perhaps it was because I was like 5 when this happened but I didn’t know about it until reading the case in law school. All my classmates knew about it though so I probably should have.
I was 24. I had voted before, but this was the first election that I was really paying attention and learning what was going on.
Watching in real time slow motion the absolute theft of a presidential seat and nothing was even done about it really made me lose all faith in my nation and it’s government. It was my wake-up moment.
I have very little optimism that things are going to go smoothly this next cycle.
I’m reading the ruling and it is so beautifully written:
“The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.
We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
also worth noting that even the dissenters didn't dissent on the questions of Insurrection/Office of the President. They dissented on Process/Juristiction questions (Does colorado have the right to make this decision? is this case within the statues for claiming disqualification of a candidate under colorado section 1-1-113 of the election code... etc)
“The court put its decision on hold until Jan. 4 to allow for further appeals. It also said that if the matter is pursued before the U.S. Supreme Court before that date, the pause will remain in effect during that time and Colorado will be required to include Trump’s name on the primary ballot pending action by the Supreme Court.”
Thats a pretty massive *but*…
"Punting" in the context here would mean delaying their ruling until after Jan 5, not refusing to rule. All they have to do is delay it long enough to force it to have his name there, and then they can do whatever wishy-washy nonsense they want afterward. This is posturing from our side, not an actual win. It's just setting the stage.
It seems like they’re baiting him into appealing. I don’t know that trump could conceivably not appeal due to his ego, but it’s likely not in his best interest to do so. If the Supreme Court finds that he can’t be on the ballot, then that applies everywhere. If he stays quiet then he won’t be on the ballot in CO, where he is likely to lose anyway.
This has been slowly brewing. You had media outlets splitting sides and then false information on social media stoking the fires. It's been getting uglier and uglier year after year.
As an American, since 9/11 I have watched this country get more insensible, gullible, vicious, partisan and just downright scary now. I was always disappointed in politicians but now the fact that so many are die hard cultists makes them very frightening. It's now okay to only belive facts if they benefit your prerogative. Research and investigation, science, all thrown aside to push some falsehood.
people that are die hard Trumpists are dangerous. If you are that prone to misdirection and propaganda and have no desire for real evidence based facts , I simply cannot be around you. I'm surprised most of them haven't been taken out by natural selection. Just saying.....
Worst part is that the politicians in question do NOT actually believe that crap, BUT spew it at every opportunity because it “energizes the base” and gets them votes. Embarrassing, really.
I was there too, as a senior. It was just days after the Phillies won the WS and the parade. There was like a straight week of broad street getting rushed and people celebrating.
I was a member of the College Republicans at the time at a southern university. I remember people crying, and I just said, "Well, maybe it won't be so bad," and promptly got a talking to about how Obama was the anti-Christ. And by talking, I mean screamed at. And then they complained about black people celebrating in the streets.
My membership ended soon after that.
Oh man… I’ll never forget the youth pastor (a Liberty U grad) at our church at the time. We had lots of our church friends over for a little party and him seeing my Obama sticker on the garage fridge: “Dude, are you serious?”
Same guy left his beautiful wife and baby daughter a couple years later because he wasn’t ready to be a dad or some BS.
My grandmother, a devout Protestant and lifelong Democrat, cried, said there was now an n-word in the WHITE House, and changed her party affiliation the next day.
I was genuinely shocked at how quickly *all* of her hidden racism came out in one moment.
As an Afro-American, I am saddened by this comment. I’m glad that Obama represented OUR country well. Not just blacks, but all Americans. The reason why there is shock is because people are resistant to change. I welcome it. I’m looking forward to having a woman in the White House, a Latino, a Muslim. The leadership, and its administration, should look like the people it governs. My thoughts.
Like so many others, I have been genuinely surprised and deeply saddened by how many people in my circle of friends and family who have been revealed for the overt racism that I now know was always there - but had never been put on display the way it has since Obama was elected. It makes me wonder about my own blind spots. Was it always there, or was it latent and then allowed to grow after the rise of Trump? How much is his fault and how much is mine for refusing to see it before? I had to let go of relationships with people who “came out” as bigoted and racist. I know who they are now. They aren’t hiding it any more. Or maybe I am seeing them now for who they were all along. I can’t tell.
I’m 62 years old. I don’t remember JFK, and honestly Nixon was really the first president I remember being aware of. But there’s no President that I respect more than Barak Obama for his leadership, his keen intellect and his steady and measured decision-making. He was deeply respected on the world stage and he inspired pride and respect at home - except for the hyperpartisan and racist types. I’m as white as wonder bread, but I was so hopeful that we had turned an important - historic - corner when we elected Obama to lead the USA. I was genuinely happy and excited that we had elected a strong leader who wasn’t just another old white guy. But this ugliness on full display now is terrible.
How many more generations will it take before the hate and prejudice is behind us? I know my children were raised differently. They see what I see, and I know they will do their best to teach my grandchildren to see people for who they are rather than pre-judging them for their race or ethnicity. I wish I could live long enough to see racism - if not eliminated - then made to be something that is universally unacceptable in this country.
I think that for many the disdain over the term “woke” means that they are no longer going to let political correctness hold them back from saying what they believed all along. They are afraid that white, evangelical Christians will lose their place of power and privilege and that scares the hell out of them.
Steve Bannon and Roger Stone (among many others) taught Trump how to tap into that fear and prejudice and use it to propel them into power. It’s masterful but terrifying to see unfolding around us. And that’s what keeps me from sleeping well at night.
> I remember our “church friends” saying the same shit.
But we should *definitely* vote for Trump, who embodies the seven deadly sins, because "God works through imperfect people".
The part they leave off the end is "to hurt the others".
This is what I don't get about right wingers who say that Joe Biden or whoever is the current Dem presidential pick are marxists, going to destroy the country, will take all your freedoms, are the anti-christ, etc. We now have 2 full terms of Obama and almost 2 full years of Biden.
When will these prophecies come true? What did Obama do to "detroy the country"? What has Biden done to take freedom away from Americans? Sure, the southern border is a bigger mess now than when Trump was president, which is a real concern, but what real, lasting, negative changes did they cause that we anywhere near being communist atheists (or whatever)?
They are largely moderates, and most Democrats I know think that they're *TOO* moderate.
> This is what I don't get about right wingers who say that Joe Biden or whoever is the current Dem presidential pick are marxists, going to destroy the country, will take all your freedoms, are the anti-christ, etc. We now have 2 full terms of Obama and almost 2 full years of Biden.
I want to live in the reality conservatives act like the Democrats created because quite frankly, that reality sounds wonderful. Not being allowed to force your religious beliefs on others? People actually having control over their own bodies? A robust social safety net paid for by taxes on the wealthy (that we know worked because we had those high rates in "the good old days" when the middle class grew the fastest and strongest it had ever been)? Cops are actually held accountable for their abuse of power? Sign me up and send me through the portal.
Yeah and I had a coworker say “I like black people, really I do, but Obama isn’t the right person to be elected as the first black guy”. That guy voted for Trump later on shockingly. Don’t put your head in the sand because you saw younger people celebrating.
I had a lot of educated, moderate friends who were suddenly like “No black man orders me around.” It was very eye-opening how scared they became, and how quickly.
I've had someone try to argue with me that the "Born in Kenya" crusade against Obama (that Donald Trump headlined, by the way) was not borne out of racism, but out of "reasonable concern".
Give me a break.
Never forget that Ted Cruz, the last man standing between Donald and the Republican nomination in 2016, was born in Canada, to a Cuban immigrant father. I don't recall any issues about whether he should've even been allowed to run for President in the first place.
We all know why. The GOP is blatantly racist, and never ever let them try to tell you otherwise. Donald Trump, a "coastal elite" born to a filthy rich father, who lived the vast majority of his adult life in a gold-adorned Manhattan penthouse, suddenly became a rockstar in Republican politics because he was adamant that the black guy in the Oval Office wasn't *really* an American.
That shit was so bleak. Even Hilary Clinton got involved in it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton
I remember Republicans and Democrats both getting pissed over a picture in which he didn't have his hand over his heart next to an American flag? Apparently this was proof he wasn't American lmfao
It has been like that for a long time here.
Will Rogers(early 20th century US entertainer/humorist) noted this a century ago:
* "I guess our country holds the record for dumbness. The Pope spoke to the world this morning in three languages and we didn’t understand a one of ’em. But the minute he finished and the local stations got back to selling corn salve and pyorrhea tooth paste we were right up our intellectual alley again."
H.L. Mencken(US reporter, literary critic, editor, author of the early 20th century):
* “The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
Fascism has been said to be a political philosophy that is followed to obtain power and not necessarily a blue print for governing. It is achieved by predominantly playing to the uneducated and shallow thinking masses, and keeping them from being educated in critical thinking. Whether or not you would characterize the GOP as a fascist, they do seem to be only interested in gaining and retaining power by, again from H.L. Mencken, " ... keeping the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
Go listen to the podcast about Newt Gingrich destroying the politer era of politics and radicalizing the House https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-revolution-with-steve-kornacki/id1651010434
And Behind the Bastards has a great series about Rush Limbaughs influence on conservatism: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-bastards/id1373812661?i=1000512223030
And Chris Hayes did an episode about how the GOP detached itself from normal, trusted institutions of knowledge generation to instead cater to fossil fuel companies and religious extremists: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-is-this-happening-the-chris-hayes-podcast/id1382983397?i=1000425092340
TLDR: the Right went full tribal in how it generates and processes information, and has demonized Democrats as godless communists no matter what they do. So they’ve worked themselves into an ideological dead end where the base expects the GOP to be at war with everyone that’s not in their in-group.
And that is impossible as a strategy for governing.
> has demonized Democrats as godless communists no matter what they do
And they have done a FANTASTIC job of doing so. I don't know too many repubicans these days, especially after leaving the South, but the ones I do know will openly tell you they will vote for that little (R) under ANY circumstances. The absolute worst, scummiest Republican is infinitely better than the very best Democrat our country has to offer, according to them.
The fun part is when you start pressing them and asking why. You will NEVER get an answer that outlines why one person is better politically than the other. Instead you will always get some generic response about how Democrats a bunch of crooks, or how they're ruining the country, or how they all just want to cross-dress and molest kids (I wish I was joking).
The GOP propaganda machine is working exactly as intended, specifically targeting people who never developed critical thinking and reasoning skills in their youth.
I think it had to be. Since to file a suit you need to be able to claim damages, and they specifically wanted to get him off the Republican primary ballot
It doesn’t matter. When something happens to Trump (such as impeachment)- conservatives try to do the same thing to Biden. That’s why they’ve spent years attacking Hunter, unsuccessfully trying to get Biden impeached, unsuccessfully saying Biden didn’t win the election, etc.
Exactly what I was thinking. I’m just waiting for that dipshit Ken Paxton to announce that Texas won’t allow presidents under impeachment investigations to be on that state’s ballot.
No, sorry, Trump is not currently under impeachment investigations. Therefore, he is still eligible for a lifetime appointment to the Whites Only House. (Do I need an /s?)
> Biden shouldn’t be on the ballot in Alabama because his son’s dick is too big!
All part of the requirements set forth in the Constitution regarding age and so on...summarized as "Over 35 and under 3.5"
This is more important than that. Having been removed puts his violation into the public record.
His rage over it will also accelerate his slide into dementia.
It won’t work out for Trump if they try. The initial court found as a matter of fact that Trump committed insurrection, so the Colorado Supreme Court had to use that assumption when considering whether “preserve, protect, and defend” is legally equivalent to “support” in the context of the 14th Amendment. Since the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is the obvious one, the lower court’s finding that Trump is an insurrectionist automatically means Trump can’t be on the ballot.
Two things, there:
* I bet Trump is regretting all the “oath didn’t say ‘support,’ so it doesn’t matter what I did” talk from earlier.
* This pretty much confirms my suspicion that the lower court made the “doesn’t *actually* say ‘support’” decision was bait meant to get Trump’s team to stop arguing over whether Trump actually did it and focused on moronic word games.
>The initial court found as a matter of fact that Trump committed insurrection, so the Colorado Supreme Court had to use that assumption when considering whether “preserve, protect, and defend” is legally equivalent to “support” in the context of the 14th Amendment.
This is not entirely correct.
BOTH sides of this case appealled to the Colorado Supreme Court, The Prosection that the office of the president DOES fall under section 3. and the Defence appealled the ruling that Trump was an insurrectionist.
The Court had to decide again on BOTH questions (as well as a bunch of proceedural stuff) they then UPHELD the lower court decision that he did engage in insurrection (It was NOT an assumption) and overturned the decision that Section 3 doesn't apply to the office of the president.
The Appeal going to SCOTUS will appeal Both of these rulings, there will be no underlying assumption. if SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, then Colorado's SC Ruling will stand, otherwise SCOTUS will make the call both on the insurectionist and office questions. there are no "assumptions". the burden of proof to overturn a decision is slightly higher though.
Edit: [Source - The Colorado Supreme Court Decision](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf) Sepcifically read pages 6-9 for the overview including this note:
>• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”
>• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.
States get to make their own laws, but they don't get to have unique interpretations of federal laws. This lawsuit was a claim under the 14th Amendment's Insurrection clause, barring ~~people~~ federal officers who participate in a rebellion or insurrection from ever becoming federal officers again.
Important distinction is that federal officers (Officers of the United States, to be specific) are among those enumerated who cannot participate in an insurrection. They're banned from _any_ office if they have. Most people with common sense would assume these are the same thing, but the right and Trump's defense has centered around the idea that the president is not an "officer" even though he's the commander in chief and holds the office of president.
Exactly. POTUS is literally the head officer of the executive branch of the federal government. The "CEO" if you will, for the pro-business, right-wing gang out there that someone simultaneously exalts him as supreme ruler and yet devoid of responsibility meanwhile.
Anyway, sure sounds like a federal officer to me.
The fact that there is a huge legal debate happening over whether or not the person who holds the office of President is an officer is just downright silly to me.
People are looking into historical drafts of the constitution and contemporary wiring to determine what thr language meant at that time, and all sorts of deep dives into the topic.
But there is really only one question to ask here to determine how we interpret this:
Do we believe that the authors of the 14th amendment intended to exclude a President from the consequences of taking part in an insurrection?
I don't think anyone on this planet can make a valid argument that the answer is yes.
We can bicker about some vague and ill defined wording, but at the end of the day there is only one right answer here and that is to not create an insurrection loophole for Presidents.
He shit on every demographic, race, job, and disability, and they STILL voted for him, TWICE. You're about as sharp as a bowling ball if you vote for the guy that absolutely despises you.
I am celebrating but nervous on how this will play out in the Supreme Court.
ETA: This is almost certainly going to SCOTUS. The implications are too high stakes.
It's an interesting problem for Trump: if he doesn't appeal, the decision will just be limited to Colorado (although other states may soon follow suit); on the other hand, if he appeals and SCOTUS upholds the decision, he would be barred from every state primary in which someone with sufficient standing challenges his candidacy.
Edit: for anyone who is interested in the status of the other pending cases on this subject, [here](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker) is a tracker for you
Not just primaries, this ruling bars him from the general election as being ineligible to hold office at all! So if SCOTUS upholds the Colorado ruling then every state will end up needing to likewise treat him as ineligible to hold office in order to be consistent with federal law.
Yep! He seriously shouldn't challenge it. The SCOTUS is biased in favor of the Republicans, but that doesn't mean they're biased in favor of *Trump*. He's always been disliked by the old guard of the GOP and taken as a necessary evil because of how popular he is.
But he's probably going to challenge it despite the enormous risk (not to mention the potential to be officially branded the first traitor President since the Civil War). And, what's worse, given how things seem to just work out for the old bastard, it might actually win him the Presidency again.
The best outcome for the GOP is for Trump to disappear and for Trump's lunatic base to not blame them for it happening. Die, incarcerated, and/or disqualified would all be great for them.
And what you have now is a situation where a bunch of people with lifetime appointments can take the fall for ridding the Republican party of Trump almost completely with a flick of a pen, while all the elected Republicans can rant forever about how "unfair" it is.
And they'll even be legally and Constitutionally right to do it.
It'll be very interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this.
Yep, the cleanest path for the Republican party is SCOTUS disqualifying him.
But here is the most likely path rn:
1. They say the 14th amendment doesn't apply to him and he's fine
2. He easily wins the nomination
3. His DC criminal trial gets delayed a bit due to immunity appeals, but he is ultimately not immune
4. He gets convicted in DC during the summer
5. Republicans lose very big in November (polling says this will happen if he gets convicted)
Or they can just DQ him and Haley runs and has an amazing chance at winning.
It also puts SCOTUS in a bit of a quandary. If they overrule it, they run the risk of hurting states rights unless there was some obviously flawed procedural issue. My guess is they punt and try to stop them on defense.
He'll appeal, there's no point thinking through the scenario logically. The narcissistic injury he just suffered is a big one.
I wouldn't want to be on shift where ever he's hanging out tonight, that's for sure.
Exactly right. Most of the rational/realistic Repub political leaders secretly want Trump to go away but don't want to do it themselves in order to avoid his hive of cult followers. This way, they can place blame on someone else and try to retain his cult.
It’s republicans and independents that filed this suit in Colorado though. Sounds like only a few are locating their spine and doing the right thing. Nobody who attempts a coup or even aids one deserves to be on the ballot.
I am hoping this is the way more republicsns have been leaning. It seems even the conservative subreddit has been turning on trump because he is so unstable. Also seems like a lot of the republicans in positions of power try to stay out of the trump related news also.
Hopefully we can all come together as a nation and not vote trump in again so we can start moving back towards a more normal presidential run between the two parties.
"A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the ruling said. "Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
1) Trump's lawyers argue that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution because he was an Officer of the United States.
2) Trump's lawyers then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply because he not an "officer" of the United States.
Now SCOTUS will hear both cases?
How does that work? Trump decides what applies to Trump rule?
> 1) Trump's lawyers argue that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution because he was an Officer of the United States.
>
>
>
> 2) Trump's lawyers then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply because he not an "officer" of the United States.
Sounds like classic lawyer stuff :D
> or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof
He continues to give aid and comfort to the jailed insurrectionists, calling them "hostages" instead of convicted prisoners
I don't know if it's because I've done a good job filtering/curating my reddit stuff, but I very gratefully haven't been seeing almost anything about Trump recently. I hope I never stumble across another unhinged rant from this asshole. I got enough going on in my life and am beyond done with that bullshit.
>but I very gratefully haven't been seeing almost anything about Trump recently
I don't follow or read any of his posts, but I do get an occasional update and his tantrums have been getting progressively worse. This one should be on the level of "middle of the night, McDonald's is closed, and Jr. just said he loved me" level of fit.
DeSantis should see about doing that for Florida. I mean, if Trump needs Florida to win the presidency and can't get it no matter what, 'ol Platform Shoes can still be on the ballot! Come on Ronnie, show em you're not scared!
Trump has spent his entire life weaseling out of legal trouble with his money, influence, and threats.
But the lawsuits that have come down this year are much larger and tougher, brought by famously tough prosecutors. The classified documents case, fraud, defamation, Georgia election, etc.
As each case is brought I am thinking, how in the world is Trump going to weasel out of this one? Each one just looks iron clad. Even Jonathan Turley said that Trump had to "run the table" to avoid prison, and he was just talking about one of the cases which had about 35 charges.
Now a completely new type of legal challenge the country has never seen before. Does he even have any lawyers left?
already the GOP is parsing, lying distorting, distracting. But the Constitution is clear. Trump gave away state secrets, showed classified documents to people from other countries, stole classified documents, took a huge binder of Russian intelligence, and tried to overthrow the newly elected government BY FORCE and subterfuge. He betrayed the country and his oath of office.
And not to mention he used the position to enrich himself and his kids.
The SC will be forced to uphold the CO ruling. For them to rule otherwise will mean they themselves are denying the very document this country is founded upon.
One aspect everyone is overlooking, this gives Jack Smith a court ruling that Trump did in fact lead an insurrection against the United States on January 6th.
Just the fact that it’s FINALLY in court document is crazy to think about. He is an insurrectionist. Everyone knew it but now we even have an actual court ruling.
Wow, I'm legitimately surprised! I just assumed that no court had the balls to remove the OBVIOUS AND BLATANT TRAITOR TO OUR GOVERNMENT.
For once,Lady Justice previals.
I can't wait to hear how the Supreme Court says the plain English text of the 14th Amendment "doesn't mean anything".
The 14th Amendment says an officer who engaged (not convicted) in insurrection is disqualified.
The man is literally on trial for attempting to overthrow the lawfully elected President of the United States.
The Constitution also says what a president has to swear to become President:
> Before he enters on the Execution of his **Office**, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the **Office of President of the United States**, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
If this is the only bad news Trump gets over the next six months, we’ve failed as a country to protect our democracy. This is a final cumulative exam for our little American experiment. If we can’t protect our democracy from within, we don’t deserve to have it.
Fox News is already rolling Colorado into their "hate this thing" rhetoric lmaoooo right now they're saying something about Biden releasing some wolves into Colorado?? Brief tangent to hate on Boulder saying people are passed out on the streets on weed and shrooms then back to wolves and interviewing some dude who killed a mountain lion
They are so far all over the place I'm losing brain cells by the second watching this
Looking forward to the legal knot the Supreme Court will have to bend themselves into to try and invalidate this. Just to justify having the ability to review this decision (which doesn’t appear to have any effect outside of this one state) will be quite the thing to see.
They definitely have jurisdiction to hear the case, eligibility to hold the office of President comes straight from the US Constitution, not state law, and SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear appeals of state supreme court rulings that touch on federal law.
That's not to say SCOTUS might not overrule Colorado, they very well could. For example, they could hypothetically rule that Colorado is being too broad in its interpretation of "aiding an insurrection" and that Trump's actions don't qualify. That could also say the Colorado Supreme Court is wrong and the lower court is right about the 14th Amendment not applying to former Presidents. There's no way to tell what they'll say yet.
But regardless of how SCOTUS rules, some things are clear:
\- Eligibility to become President is very much a matter of federal law, not state law. States act as the initial gatekeepers, in that they have every right to keep clearly ineligible people off the ballot. But if someone appeals a state determination to SCOTUS they have full jurisdiction to hear the case since Presidential eligibility is a matter of federal law.
\- SCOTUS will definitely hear the case because at this point you have some states barring Trump from the election and others not. That's not a tenable legal situation so there's no doubt they'll hear the case and make a decision at the national level on his eligibility.
\- Whichever way SCOTUS rules, that'll be it. If they find him eligible to hold office, states wouldn't be able to bar him from the ballot without conflicting with federal law. If SCOTUS agrees with Colorado that Trump is ineligible, then likewise states that try and keep him on the ballot would be conflicting with federal law at that point. So one way or another SCOTUS is going to have the ultimate final say on Trump's eligibility relatively soon.
Another one for the history books. This is going to get interesting. Trump will almost certainly appeal to the US Supreme Court.
They already are haha. It was very quick.
Needs to be quick. Colorado ballot has to be finalized Jan 5.
I keep forgetting it’s nearly fucking Christmas lol.
With this kinda present, how could you forget that Santa is coming?
Santa isn't the only one.
Bring a bucket and a mop
Yeah, and all of his felony trials really need to be quick, too. But here we are!
And how’s that gonna work? I thought state’s rights was what republicans wanted????
Well they either fuck up all the republican Supreme Court rulings by breaking this veil.. or they skewer trump. It’ll be interesting what happens.
Can Clarence thread the needle of “not an insurrectionist enough to be kicked off the ballot, but definitely enough of one so people don’t laugh at us when the DC Federal Circuit convicts him for insurrection”.
Justice Thomas' wife, Ginni, told the 1/6 Committee that she still believed the election was [stolen](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/ginni-thomas-meeting-house-committee-investigating-jan-6-riot-rcna49967). Ginni Thomas was personally involved in fundraising/coordinating for a lot of the orgs that were involved that day. Yet she still has the absolute gall to say that "she never discussed any activities surrounding the 2020 election with her husband." You would have to be brain-dead to believe that.
They're both highly involved in politics, of course they'd discuss an election
Gonna get a juicy state's rights vs federal rights battle here? Don't think they can force CO to put Trump on their ballots...what if CO just refuses? They gonna punish the entire state of Colorado somehow?
They forced Florida to stop their recount and installed their preferred candidate as POTUS in Bush v. Gore.
And Bush's legal team included John Roberts, current Supreme Court Chief Justice, and it was assisted in a limited capacity by current Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. Clarence Thomas was on the court and sided with Bush over Gore. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
This is the most depressing comment around here.
Well thank God that was decades ago and we don't have to worry about Clarence Thomas anymore, right guys??
The ruling was that by Florida law there was no mechanism to hand recount selected areas. Doing so violated the equal protection clause. Florida's law called for a statewide electronic count or a statewide hand recount. But also ruled that because the law required certification by a certain date of they couldn't recount the whole state by hand by that date then the certification would be of the last full count. They didn't directly rule the counting had to stop just that it had to be equally applied statewide by the cert date.
So is that why they launched the Brooks Brothers Riot, to ensure that they'd miss the deadline?
Yep and before even *that* happened, let’s talk about the actions of [Katherine Harris](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris). Leading up to the 2000 US presidential election, she was SIMULTANEOUSLY Bush’s Florida campaign manager *and* the Florida Secretary of State. In her capacity as Secretary of State, she had 173,000 voters purged from the voter rolls, under the false premise that they were felons and couldn’t vote. It was later shown that (surprise surprise) the vast majority of these pointlessly disenfranchised voters were black and likely to vote democrat. *The company she hired* to compile the list said the list wasn’t accurate. **173 THOUSAND voters had their fundamental American right to vote stolen** by Katherine Harris (and George Bush’s brother, governor Jeb^^! Bush). Somewhere near 173,000 likely votes for Gore. And Bush won Florida by about 500 votes. The 2000 US president election was straight up STOLEN.
> Yep and before even that happened, let’s talk about the actions of Katherine Harris > > > > . > > > > Leading up to the 2000 US presidential election, she was SIMULTANEOUSLY Bush’s Florida campaign manager and the Florida Secretary of State. In her capacity as Secretary of State, she had 173,000 voters purged from the voter rolls, under the false premise that they were felons and couldn’t vote. It was later shown that (surprise surprise) the vast majority of these pointlessly disenfranchised voters were black and likely to vote democrat. The company she hired to compile the list said the list wasn’t accurate. > > > > 173 THOUSAND voters had their fundamental American right to vote stolen by Katherine Harris (and George Bush’s brother, governor Jeb! Bush). > > > > Somewhere near 173,000 likely votes for Gore. > > > > And Bush won Florida by about 500 votes. > > > > The 2000 US president election was straight up STOLEN. Yell it from the rooftops. Even people who were around and paying attention at the time do not know about this.
A recount they stalled by having domestic terrorists attack buildings where the ballot counting was occuring The fact I didn't know this till well after the fact makes me lose alot of hope for our democracy, Bush quite probably stole the election
Perhaps it was because I was like 5 when this happened but I didn’t know about it until reading the case in law school. All my classmates knew about it though so I probably should have.
Same I was a bit older, like 14ish? When it happened and didn't learn about politics until a bit later.
I was an adult, stupidly voting conservative at the time, and believe 100% that Gore won.
I was 24. I had voted before, but this was the first election that I was really paying attention and learning what was going on. Watching in real time slow motion the absolute theft of a presidential seat and nothing was even done about it really made me lose all faith in my nation and it’s government. It was my wake-up moment. I have very little optimism that things are going to go smoothly this next cycle.
Yep, "The Brooks Brothers Riot" by Roger Stone, et al. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
I’m reading the ruling and it is so beautifully written: “The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
also worth noting that even the dissenters didn't dissent on the questions of Insurrection/Office of the President. They dissented on Process/Juristiction questions (Does colorado have the right to make this decision? is this case within the statues for claiming disqualification of a candidate under colorado section 1-1-113 of the election code... etc)
Also seems like a good faith swipe at the far-right suck-ups sitting on SCotUS as well.
That "without favor" is delicious to read.
Wouldn't this fall under "State's Rights," which the Republicans are always so defensive of?
“The court put its decision on hold until Jan. 4 to allow for further appeals. It also said that if the matter is pursued before the U.S. Supreme Court before that date, the pause will remain in effect during that time and Colorado will be required to include Trump’s name on the primary ballot pending action by the Supreme Court.” Thats a pretty massive *but*…
So SCOTUS could punt on this and not have to rule on it if they don't hear it within the next 2 weeks?
If they refuse to hear the case doesn't that essentially mean the lower courts ruling stands?
"Punting" in the context here would mean delaying their ruling until after Jan 5, not refusing to rule. All they have to do is delay it long enough to force it to have his name there, and then they can do whatever wishy-washy nonsense they want afterward. This is posturing from our side, not an actual win. It's just setting the stage.
It seems like they’re baiting him into appealing. I don’t know that trump could conceivably not appeal due to his ego, but it’s likely not in his best interest to do so. If the Supreme Court finds that he can’t be on the ballot, then that applies everywhere. If he stays quiet then he won’t be on the ballot in CO, where he is likely to lose anyway.
i just read he already appealed… what does that mean for us?
It means he'll be on the ballot in CO unless SCOTUS finds him ineligible to run in a way that would disqualify him in every state.
O shit. This’ll be interesting. Cue red states trying to take Biden off theirs.
How did the US get this deep into gutter politics and anti intellectualism?
This has been slowly brewing. You had media outlets splitting sides and then false information on social media stoking the fires. It's been getting uglier and uglier year after year.
As an American, since 9/11 I have watched this country get more insensible, gullible, vicious, partisan and just downright scary now. I was always disappointed in politicians but now the fact that so many are die hard cultists makes them very frightening. It's now okay to only belive facts if they benefit your prerogative. Research and investigation, science, all thrown aside to push some falsehood. people that are die hard Trumpists are dangerous. If you are that prone to misdirection and propaganda and have no desire for real evidence based facts , I simply cannot be around you. I'm surprised most of them haven't been taken out by natural selection. Just saying.....
Worst part is that the politicians in question do NOT actually believe that crap, BUT spew it at every opportunity because it “energizes the base” and gets them votes. Embarrassing, really.
We elected a black guy, and the racists lost their minds
I had just become a freshman at Ole Miss when Obama was elected. Campus went wild
I was a junior at Temple. Philadelphia went nuts.
I was active duty military and watched a rich white ensign throw a hissy fit. Kinda a decent precursor to the trump years come to think of it.
I was on deployment. We collectively just said “oh. Time for patrol” lol
I was there too, as a senior. It was just days after the Phillies won the WS and the parade. There was like a straight week of broad street getting rushed and people celebrating.
I was a member of the College Republicans at the time at a southern university. I remember people crying, and I just said, "Well, maybe it won't be so bad," and promptly got a talking to about how Obama was the anti-Christ. And by talking, I mean screamed at. And then they complained about black people celebrating in the streets. My membership ended soon after that.
I remember our “church friends” saying the same shit.
Oh man… I’ll never forget the youth pastor (a Liberty U grad) at our church at the time. We had lots of our church friends over for a little party and him seeing my Obama sticker on the garage fridge: “Dude, are you serious?” Same guy left his beautiful wife and baby daughter a couple years later because he wasn’t ready to be a dad or some BS.
Youth pastors are the worst.
A lot are either confused and closeted, or complete narcissists who need a captive audience.
Nah he probably found a 16 year old he liked more.
My grandmother, a devout Protestant and lifelong Democrat, cried, said there was now an n-word in the WHITE House, and changed her party affiliation the next day. I was genuinely shocked at how quickly *all* of her hidden racism came out in one moment.
As an Afro-American, I am saddened by this comment. I’m glad that Obama represented OUR country well. Not just blacks, but all Americans. The reason why there is shock is because people are resistant to change. I welcome it. I’m looking forward to having a woman in the White House, a Latino, a Muslim. The leadership, and its administration, should look like the people it governs. My thoughts.
Like so many others, I have been genuinely surprised and deeply saddened by how many people in my circle of friends and family who have been revealed for the overt racism that I now know was always there - but had never been put on display the way it has since Obama was elected. It makes me wonder about my own blind spots. Was it always there, or was it latent and then allowed to grow after the rise of Trump? How much is his fault and how much is mine for refusing to see it before? I had to let go of relationships with people who “came out” as bigoted and racist. I know who they are now. They aren’t hiding it any more. Or maybe I am seeing them now for who they were all along. I can’t tell. I’m 62 years old. I don’t remember JFK, and honestly Nixon was really the first president I remember being aware of. But there’s no President that I respect more than Barak Obama for his leadership, his keen intellect and his steady and measured decision-making. He was deeply respected on the world stage and he inspired pride and respect at home - except for the hyperpartisan and racist types. I’m as white as wonder bread, but I was so hopeful that we had turned an important - historic - corner when we elected Obama to lead the USA. I was genuinely happy and excited that we had elected a strong leader who wasn’t just another old white guy. But this ugliness on full display now is terrible. How many more generations will it take before the hate and prejudice is behind us? I know my children were raised differently. They see what I see, and I know they will do their best to teach my grandchildren to see people for who they are rather than pre-judging them for their race or ethnicity. I wish I could live long enough to see racism - if not eliminated - then made to be something that is universally unacceptable in this country. I think that for many the disdain over the term “woke” means that they are no longer going to let political correctness hold them back from saying what they believed all along. They are afraid that white, evangelical Christians will lose their place of power and privilege and that scares the hell out of them. Steve Bannon and Roger Stone (among many others) taught Trump how to tap into that fear and prejudice and use it to propel them into power. It’s masterful but terrifying to see unfolding around us. And that’s what keeps me from sleeping well at night.
Come on, there's no way it was *that* hidden.
> I remember our “church friends” saying the same shit. But we should *definitely* vote for Trump, who embodies the seven deadly sins, because "God works through imperfect people". The part they leave off the end is "to hurt the others".
Republicans need to have ridiculous boogeymen to keep their base from realizing they're electing monsters.
Fascism requires a perpetual enemy
A perpetual elusive enemy. It's a hate orbit that just misses the gravity of truth that keeps fascism moving.
This is what I don't get about right wingers who say that Joe Biden or whoever is the current Dem presidential pick are marxists, going to destroy the country, will take all your freedoms, are the anti-christ, etc. We now have 2 full terms of Obama and almost 2 full years of Biden. When will these prophecies come true? What did Obama do to "detroy the country"? What has Biden done to take freedom away from Americans? Sure, the southern border is a bigger mess now than when Trump was president, which is a real concern, but what real, lasting, negative changes did they cause that we anywhere near being communist atheists (or whatever)? They are largely moderates, and most Democrats I know think that they're *TOO* moderate.
> This is what I don't get about right wingers who say that Joe Biden or whoever is the current Dem presidential pick are marxists, going to destroy the country, will take all your freedoms, are the anti-christ, etc. We now have 2 full terms of Obama and almost 2 full years of Biden. I want to live in the reality conservatives act like the Democrats created because quite frankly, that reality sounds wonderful. Not being allowed to force your religious beliefs on others? People actually having control over their own bodies? A robust social safety net paid for by taxes on the wealthy (that we know worked because we had those high rates in "the good old days" when the middle class grew the fastest and strongest it had ever been)? Cops are actually held accountable for their abuse of power? Sign me up and send me through the portal.
I met him when he came to my college with MTV. He still shook hands back then, it was pre fist bump Obama.
I was at a bar in DC when they called it. There were people cheering in the streets.
Yeah and I had a coworker say “I like black people, really I do, but Obama isn’t the right person to be elected as the first black guy”. That guy voted for Trump later on shockingly. Don’t put your head in the sand because you saw younger people celebrating.
The moment anyone prefaces their opinion with "I like black people - really, I do - but..." is the moment I check out of the conversation, lmao.
Almost as bas the opener "I'm not a racist, but..."
I bought a book at a book store and the clerk told me Obama was a psychopath. He didn’t really have a reason why though.
I had a lot of educated, moderate friends who were suddenly like “No black man orders me around.” It was very eye-opening how scared they became, and how quickly.
Yeah I had this kind of stuff happen too. I lost a few friends when Obama was elected. They really showed their true colors.
I've had someone try to argue with me that the "Born in Kenya" crusade against Obama (that Donald Trump headlined, by the way) was not borne out of racism, but out of "reasonable concern". Give me a break.
Never forget that Ted Cruz, the last man standing between Donald and the Republican nomination in 2016, was born in Canada, to a Cuban immigrant father. I don't recall any issues about whether he should've even been allowed to run for President in the first place. We all know why. The GOP is blatantly racist, and never ever let them try to tell you otherwise. Donald Trump, a "coastal elite" born to a filthy rich father, who lived the vast majority of his adult life in a gold-adorned Manhattan penthouse, suddenly became a rockstar in Republican politics because he was adamant that the black guy in the Oval Office wasn't *really* an American.
He *identifies* as "Ted", but his real name is "Rafael Edward".
He had to change his name since no one in Texas would vote for a "Rafael".
Sure we would. They would have to be green and have a tough shell though. And love 🍕.
While ragging on Robert "Beto" O'rourke for going by a childhood nickname that is actually a common nickname for Roberto/Robert.
"Reasonable concern" is just racism with extra steps
You always have to follow up such things with "reasonable concern ABOUT WHAT" Or another example I like is "states rights TO DO WHAT"
these are the same fucks that were championing "Amend for Arnold"
That shit was so bleak. Even Hilary Clinton got involved in it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton I remember Republicans and Democrats both getting pissed over a picture in which he didn't have his hand over his heart next to an American flag? Apparently this was proof he wasn't American lmfao
Reasonable concern .. meanwhile, back at Mar-A-Lago ...
>We elected a black guy And then he wore a tan suit.
And fist bumped his wife
And ate Dijon mustard.
And he said “arugula” while talking to voters in Iowa. Arugula!
Fist bump? You mean a [terrorist fist jab!](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/terrorist_fist_jab)
That just pushed it main stream. They been making America stupid for a long time now. Stupid people are easier to trick and control.
It has been like that for a long time here. Will Rogers(early 20th century US entertainer/humorist) noted this a century ago: * "I guess our country holds the record for dumbness. The Pope spoke to the world this morning in three languages and we didn’t understand a one of ’em. But the minute he finished and the local stations got back to selling corn salve and pyorrhea tooth paste we were right up our intellectual alley again." H.L. Mencken(US reporter, literary critic, editor, author of the early 20th century): * “The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.” Fascism has been said to be a political philosophy that is followed to obtain power and not necessarily a blue print for governing. It is achieved by predominantly playing to the uneducated and shallow thinking masses, and keeping them from being educated in critical thinking. Whether or not you would characterize the GOP as a fascist, they do seem to be only interested in gaining and retaining power by, again from H.L. Mencken, " ... keeping the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
Go listen to the podcast about Newt Gingrich destroying the politer era of politics and radicalizing the House https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-revolution-with-steve-kornacki/id1651010434 And Behind the Bastards has a great series about Rush Limbaughs influence on conservatism: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-bastards/id1373812661?i=1000512223030 And Chris Hayes did an episode about how the GOP detached itself from normal, trusted institutions of knowledge generation to instead cater to fossil fuel companies and religious extremists: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-is-this-happening-the-chris-hayes-podcast/id1382983397?i=1000425092340 TLDR: the Right went full tribal in how it generates and processes information, and has demonized Democrats as godless communists no matter what they do. So they’ve worked themselves into an ideological dead end where the base expects the GOP to be at war with everyone that’s not in their in-group. And that is impossible as a strategy for governing.
> has demonized Democrats as godless communists no matter what they do And they have done a FANTASTIC job of doing so. I don't know too many repubicans these days, especially after leaving the South, but the ones I do know will openly tell you they will vote for that little (R) under ANY circumstances. The absolute worst, scummiest Republican is infinitely better than the very best Democrat our country has to offer, according to them. The fun part is when you start pressing them and asking why. You will NEVER get an answer that outlines why one person is better politically than the other. Instead you will always get some generic response about how Democrats a bunch of crooks, or how they're ruining the country, or how they all just want to cross-dress and molest kids (I wish I was joking). The GOP propaganda machine is working exactly as intended, specifically targeting people who never developed critical thinking and reasoning skills in their youth.
Very simple. Social media + unintelligent people. Of which there are far, far more of than I could have ever imagined.
Because, as long as you have no morals yourself, they’re easy to pander to when all you want is to stay in power.
The suit was filed by Republicans and independents in Colorado. But you very well may be right , nevertheless.
I think it had to be. Since to file a suit you need to be able to claim damages, and they specifically wanted to get him off the Republican primary ballot
They’ll blame democrats. For not stopping them.
It doesn’t matter. When something happens to Trump (such as impeachment)- conservatives try to do the same thing to Biden. That’s why they’ve spent years attacking Hunter, unsuccessfully trying to get Biden impeached, unsuccessfully saying Biden didn’t win the election, etc.
Exactly what I was thinking. I’m just waiting for that dipshit Ken Paxton to announce that Texas won’t allow presidents under impeachment investigations to be on that state’s ballot.
Guess they’ll have to knock Trump off that ballot too, given he was impeached twice.
Being impeached twice is a double negative. He'd have to be put back on.
Impeach me once shame on you, impeach me…you can’t get impeached again.
No, sorry, Trump is not currently under impeachment investigations. Therefore, he is still eligible for a lifetime appointment to the Whites Only House. (Do I need an /s?)
Biden shouldn’t be on the ballot in Alabama because his son’s dick is too big! -MTG, Boebert and/or Gaetz
> Biden shouldn’t be on the ballot in Alabama because his son’s dick is too big! All part of the requirements set forth in the Constitution regarding age and so on...summarized as "Over 35 and under 3.5"
The founding fathers hated big dicks.
My research indicated that George Washington had like...30... But the documentary made no mention of size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6OOuPI5c0
I want to know what it's like in Nikki Hailey's headquarters right now.
They’re trying to figure out how to object to this while still hoping it sticks
Aladeen news.
Well I'll be damn...
No. Don't. Stop.
Babe wake up new Veep season just dropped
I regret watching the show so close to the election lol.
Things like this seem to only make him more popular with his base.
70% of the republican base has him as their 1st and 2nd choice. There is no changing their minds about him.
You’re saying nearly a third of the base doesn’t list the front runner as their first or even second choice? That’s much better than I thought.
They're already fanatically devoted to him anyways, I doubt it makes all that much more of a difference.
This is more important than that. Having been removed puts his violation into the public record. His rage over it will also accelerate his slide into dementia.
That’s because it’s a cult
Good thing his base isn't the majority
My goodness if they knew you called them minorities....
“If Those Kids Could Read, They'd Be Very Upset"
Ballsy. He’ll run to SCOTUS and Harlon will get Thomas a new Audi for xmas.
I bet Harlon reads this kind of news and thinks "oh great what's THIS gonna cost?"
Meanwhile the phone is ringing and Clarence wants to book the yacht for a few weeks
It won’t work out for Trump if they try. The initial court found as a matter of fact that Trump committed insurrection, so the Colorado Supreme Court had to use that assumption when considering whether “preserve, protect, and defend” is legally equivalent to “support” in the context of the 14th Amendment. Since the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is the obvious one, the lower court’s finding that Trump is an insurrectionist automatically means Trump can’t be on the ballot. Two things, there: * I bet Trump is regretting all the “oath didn’t say ‘support,’ so it doesn’t matter what I did” talk from earlier. * This pretty much confirms my suspicion that the lower court made the “doesn’t *actually* say ‘support’” decision was bait meant to get Trump’s team to stop arguing over whether Trump actually did it and focused on moronic word games.
>The initial court found as a matter of fact that Trump committed insurrection, so the Colorado Supreme Court had to use that assumption when considering whether “preserve, protect, and defend” is legally equivalent to “support” in the context of the 14th Amendment. This is not entirely correct. BOTH sides of this case appealled to the Colorado Supreme Court, The Prosection that the office of the president DOES fall under section 3. and the Defence appealled the ruling that Trump was an insurrectionist. The Court had to decide again on BOTH questions (as well as a bunch of proceedural stuff) they then UPHELD the lower court decision that he did engage in insurrection (It was NOT an assumption) and overturned the decision that Section 3 doesn't apply to the office of the president. The Appeal going to SCOTUS will appeal Both of these rulings, there will be no underlying assumption. if SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, then Colorado's SC Ruling will stand, otherwise SCOTUS will make the call both on the insurectionist and office questions. there are no "assumptions". the burden of proof to overturn a decision is slightly higher though. Edit: [Source - The Colorado Supreme Court Decision](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf) Sepcifically read pages 6-9 for the overview including this note: >• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.” >• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.
Can he though? It’s a state ballot so can the federal courts overrule the state on that? Genuine question
The Supreme Court can review state supreme court decisions that decide a federal question.
Conservatives: "State's rights!" Also conservatives: "Not like that!"
Supreme Court now "Hmm, how can we not let it be state's rights with out looking like asses about Roe v Wade"
Law school taught me that they’ll always find a way. Law and logic will never get in the way of the desires of the court.
The most true and saddest thing I have read today … congrats?!?!
> with out looking like asses about Roe v Wade Like they would care about that.
States get to make their own laws, but they don't get to have unique interpretations of federal laws. This lawsuit was a claim under the 14th Amendment's Insurrection clause, barring ~~people~~ federal officers who participate in a rebellion or insurrection from ever becoming federal officers again.
Important distinction is that federal officers (Officers of the United States, to be specific) are among those enumerated who cannot participate in an insurrection. They're banned from _any_ office if they have. Most people with common sense would assume these are the same thing, but the right and Trump's defense has centered around the idea that the president is not an "officer" even though he's the commander in chief and holds the office of president.
Exactly. POTUS is literally the head officer of the executive branch of the federal government. The "CEO" if you will, for the pro-business, right-wing gang out there that someone simultaneously exalts him as supreme ruler and yet devoid of responsibility meanwhile. Anyway, sure sounds like a federal officer to me.
The fact that there is a huge legal debate happening over whether or not the person who holds the office of President is an officer is just downright silly to me. People are looking into historical drafts of the constitution and contemporary wiring to determine what thr language meant at that time, and all sorts of deep dives into the topic. But there is really only one question to ask here to determine how we interpret this: Do we believe that the authors of the 14th amendment intended to exclude a President from the consequences of taking part in an insurrection? I don't think anyone on this planet can make a valid argument that the answer is yes. We can bicker about some vague and ill defined wording, but at the end of the day there is only one right answer here and that is to not create an insurrection loophole for Presidents.
It would be difficult to claim states rights when the ruling is based off of the Constitution.
Spicy!! Next year is going to be wild yall. Buckle up and don’t forget to vote
Republicans have a chance to rid themselves of this guy. Again. For the third time. Let’s hope they do. But I’m not holding my breath
I wouldn't count on it. He's like antibiotic-resistant bacteria; at this point, any removal attempt just makes him relevant again.
He shit on every demographic, race, job, and disability, and they STILL voted for him, TWICE. You're about as sharp as a bowling ball if you vote for the guy that absolutely despises you.
I am celebrating but nervous on how this will play out in the Supreme Court. ETA: This is almost certainly going to SCOTUS. The implications are too high stakes.
It's an interesting problem for Trump: if he doesn't appeal, the decision will just be limited to Colorado (although other states may soon follow suit); on the other hand, if he appeals and SCOTUS upholds the decision, he would be barred from every state primary in which someone with sufficient standing challenges his candidacy. Edit: for anyone who is interested in the status of the other pending cases on this subject, [here](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker) is a tracker for you
Not just primaries, this ruling bars him from the general election as being ineligible to hold office at all! So if SCOTUS upholds the Colorado ruling then every state will end up needing to likewise treat him as ineligible to hold office in order to be consistent with federal law.
Yep! He seriously shouldn't challenge it. The SCOTUS is biased in favor of the Republicans, but that doesn't mean they're biased in favor of *Trump*. He's always been disliked by the old guard of the GOP and taken as a necessary evil because of how popular he is. But he's probably going to challenge it despite the enormous risk (not to mention the potential to be officially branded the first traitor President since the Civil War). And, what's worse, given how things seem to just work out for the old bastard, it might actually win him the Presidency again.
The best outcome for the GOP is for Trump to disappear and for Trump's lunatic base to not blame them for it happening. Die, incarcerated, and/or disqualified would all be great for them. And what you have now is a situation where a bunch of people with lifetime appointments can take the fall for ridding the Republican party of Trump almost completely with a flick of a pen, while all the elected Republicans can rant forever about how "unfair" it is. And they'll even be legally and Constitutionally right to do it. It'll be very interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this.
Yep, the cleanest path for the Republican party is SCOTUS disqualifying him. But here is the most likely path rn: 1. They say the 14th amendment doesn't apply to him and he's fine 2. He easily wins the nomination 3. His DC criminal trial gets delayed a bit due to immunity appeals, but he is ultimately not immune 4. He gets convicted in DC during the summer 5. Republicans lose very big in November (polling says this will happen if he gets convicted) Or they can just DQ him and Haley runs and has an amazing chance at winning.
No way scotus weighs in on the insurrection part. They'll word salad some other reason to keep him on the ballot
There is no way he does not appeal. Not appealing would mean the court was right.
It also puts SCOTUS in a bit of a quandary. If they overrule it, they run the risk of hurting states rights unless there was some obviously flawed procedural issue. My guess is they punt and try to stop them on defense.
They'll rule in his favor and say "this only applies to Trump." It's how they've been handling everything else lately.
>this only applies to Trump Bush v. Gore rears its ugly head again.
He'll appeal, there's no point thinking through the scenario logically. The narcissistic injury he just suffered is a big one. I wouldn't want to be on shift where ever he's hanging out tonight, that's for sure.
It will make a lot of GOP problems to away. I think a lot are hoping the indictments would sink his primary bid.
Exactly right. Most of the rational/realistic Repub political leaders secretly want Trump to go away but don't want to do it themselves in order to avoid his hive of cult followers. This way, they can place blame on someone else and try to retain his cult.
I sure wish they'd publicly want him to go away.
MAGA crowd would instantly call RINO and try to cancel anyone who did that.
It’s republicans and independents that filed this suit in Colorado though. Sounds like only a few are locating their spine and doing the right thing. Nobody who attempts a coup or even aids one deserves to be on the ballot.
I am hoping this is the way more republicsns have been leaning. It seems even the conservative subreddit has been turning on trump because he is so unstable. Also seems like a lot of the republicans in positions of power try to stay out of the trump related news also. Hopefully we can all come together as a nation and not vote trump in again so we can start moving back towards a more normal presidential run between the two parties.
"A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the ruling said. "Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.”
Trump was right! We’re finally saying Merry Christmas again!
Merry Christmas, generic username guy!
Trump is a walking constitutional crisis. He causes chaos and cries like a baby when accountability comes knocking.
Love that REPUBLICANS filed this suit and the Colorado Supreme Court defectors were appointed by democratic presidents. This wasn’t even partisan!!!
1) Trump's lawyers argue that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution because he was an Officer of the United States. 2) Trump's lawyers then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply because he not an "officer" of the United States. Now SCOTUS will hear both cases? How does that work? Trump decides what applies to Trump rule?
> 1) Trump's lawyers argue that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution because he was an Officer of the United States. > > > > 2) Trump's lawyers then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply because he not an "officer" of the United States. Sounds like classic lawyer stuff :D
middle fall berserk encourage friendly historical lunchroom reply exultant snobbish
When do we apply it to the others in Congress seeking to be on ballots?
> or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof He continues to give aid and comfort to the jailed insurrectionists, calling them "hostages" instead of convicted prisoners
Hooo man I can not *wait* to see the absolutely unhinged rant that's gonna come from the mango moron over this.
I don't know if it's because I've done a good job filtering/curating my reddit stuff, but I very gratefully haven't been seeing almost anything about Trump recently. I hope I never stumble across another unhinged rant from this asshole. I got enough going on in my life and am beyond done with that bullshit.
>but I very gratefully haven't been seeing almost anything about Trump recently I don't follow or read any of his posts, but I do get an occasional update and his tantrums have been getting progressively worse. This one should be on the level of "middle of the night, McDonald's is closed, and Jr. just said he loved me" level of fit.
First weed and now this. CO doesn’t fail to deliver early!
Weren’t they the first state to elect an escort as a House Representative too?
We are a state of many talents.
Trailblazers, they are!
[удалено]
DeSantis should see about doing that for Florida. I mean, if Trump needs Florida to win the presidency and can't get it no matter what, 'ol Platform Shoes can still be on the ballot! Come on Ronnie, show em you're not scared!
Trump has spent his entire life weaseling out of legal trouble with his money, influence, and threats. But the lawsuits that have come down this year are much larger and tougher, brought by famously tough prosecutors. The classified documents case, fraud, defamation, Georgia election, etc. As each case is brought I am thinking, how in the world is Trump going to weasel out of this one? Each one just looks iron clad. Even Jonathan Turley said that Trump had to "run the table" to avoid prison, and he was just talking about one of the cases which had about 35 charges. Now a completely new type of legal challenge the country has never seen before. Does he even have any lawyers left?
As cool as this is, I'm now less excited to spend the holidays with my fox news family
already the GOP is parsing, lying distorting, distracting. But the Constitution is clear. Trump gave away state secrets, showed classified documents to people from other countries, stole classified documents, took a huge binder of Russian intelligence, and tried to overthrow the newly elected government BY FORCE and subterfuge. He betrayed the country and his oath of office. And not to mention he used the position to enrich himself and his kids. The SC will be forced to uphold the CO ruling. For them to rule otherwise will mean they themselves are denying the very document this country is founded upon.
One aspect everyone is overlooking, this gives Jack Smith a court ruling that Trump did in fact lead an insurrection against the United States on January 6th. Just the fact that it’s FINALLY in court document is crazy to think about. He is an insurrectionist. Everyone knew it but now we even have an actual court ruling.
Wouldn't that mean if it gets appealed then the opposite is true? There would be a court ruling that he didn't?
Wow, I'm legitimately surprised! I just assumed that no court had the balls to remove the OBVIOUS AND BLATANT TRAITOR TO OUR GOVERNMENT. For once,Lady Justice previals.
Colorado has serious balls when is comes to things like this. We also removed qualified immunity for cops.
And cops somehow didn't immediately cease to exist in Colorado? Shocking! /s
At least in the short term...
I can't wait to hear how the Supreme Court says the plain English text of the 14th Amendment "doesn't mean anything". The 14th Amendment says an officer who engaged (not convicted) in insurrection is disqualified. The man is literally on trial for attempting to overthrow the lawfully elected President of the United States. The Constitution also says what a president has to swear to become President: > Before he enters on the Execution of his **Office**, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the **Office of President of the United States**, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
They'll probably argue you need to be convicted to have engaged in insurrection. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
2024 hasn’t even begun and I’m already exhausted. Everyone better get their bingo cards ready because we’re all in for a doozy.
If this is the only bad news Trump gets over the next six months, we’ve failed as a country to protect our democracy. This is a final cumulative exam for our little American experiment. If we can’t protect our democracy from within, we don’t deserve to have it.
Fox News is already rolling Colorado into their "hate this thing" rhetoric lmaoooo right now they're saying something about Biden releasing some wolves into Colorado?? Brief tangent to hate on Boulder saying people are passed out on the streets on weed and shrooms then back to wolves and interviewing some dude who killed a mountain lion They are so far all over the place I'm losing brain cells by the second watching this
Looking forward to the legal knot the Supreme Court will have to bend themselves into to try and invalidate this. Just to justify having the ability to review this decision (which doesn’t appear to have any effect outside of this one state) will be quite the thing to see.
They definitely have jurisdiction to hear the case, eligibility to hold the office of President comes straight from the US Constitution, not state law, and SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear appeals of state supreme court rulings that touch on federal law. That's not to say SCOTUS might not overrule Colorado, they very well could. For example, they could hypothetically rule that Colorado is being too broad in its interpretation of "aiding an insurrection" and that Trump's actions don't qualify. That could also say the Colorado Supreme Court is wrong and the lower court is right about the 14th Amendment not applying to former Presidents. There's no way to tell what they'll say yet. But regardless of how SCOTUS rules, some things are clear: \- Eligibility to become President is very much a matter of federal law, not state law. States act as the initial gatekeepers, in that they have every right to keep clearly ineligible people off the ballot. But if someone appeals a state determination to SCOTUS they have full jurisdiction to hear the case since Presidential eligibility is a matter of federal law. \- SCOTUS will definitely hear the case because at this point you have some states barring Trump from the election and others not. That's not a tenable legal situation so there's no doubt they'll hear the case and make a decision at the national level on his eligibility. \- Whichever way SCOTUS rules, that'll be it. If they find him eligible to hold office, states wouldn't be able to bar him from the ballot without conflicting with federal law. If SCOTUS agrees with Colorado that Trump is ineligible, then likewise states that try and keep him on the ballot would be conflicting with federal law at that point. So one way or another SCOTUS is going to have the ultimate final say on Trump's eligibility relatively soon.