quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
And who pronounced it an insurrection exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
POS should be in jail.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Is Trump a Confederate?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Can one be an insurrectionist and not a Confederate?

Legitimate question as the Insurrection Clause was directed at ex-Confederates.

The highest Court in CO says one can so be an insurrectionist in the sense of the 14th Amendment and not a Confederate. I do not so reason, but here we are.

quote:

Originally posted by Rock63:
Looking at the actual ruling it doesn’t look so final (pages 8-9 of the ruling):

“We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this
case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the
Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to
include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.
 
Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is
sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt
of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Can one be an insurrectionist and not a Confederate?

Legitimate question as the Insurrection Clause was directed at ex-Confederates.

The highest Court in CO says one can so be an insurrectionist in the sense of the 14th Amendment and not a Confederate. I do not so reason, but here we are.

You know what word does not appear in the text of the 14th Amendment?

Confederate. And they well knew how to spell it.

It doesn't bar Confederates, it bars insurrectionists.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Can one be an insurrectionist and not a Confederate?

Legitimate question as the Insurrection Clause was directed at ex-Confederates.

The highest Court in CO says one can so be an insurrectionist in the sense of the 14th Amendment and not a Confederate. I do not so reason, but here we are.

You know what word does not appear in the text of the 14th Amendment?

Confederate. And they well knew how to spell it.

It doesn't bar Confederates, it bars insurrectionists.

You are correct. However, like 2nd, one should not disassociate the text with the historical context. The historical context was to bar ex-Confederate officers and government officials. Just my take. Can we extrapolate that principle to a more modern fact pattern that is just short of armed rebellion; maybe?
I would not.

Despite all President Trump, and to me, more importantly did not do on Jan 6. No one has accused him of coordinating with the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

Now, if President Trump had so coordinated or ordered the DC Guard to seize the Joint Session of Congress to prevent a transition of power, I would agree with applying the Insurrection Clause.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
This won't stand up. I predict SCOTUS will reverse.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
All things like this will do is anger the populace. They want to pick from who is running to lead the country. That is the American way. What's not the American way is a court or other govt entity telling you what you can or cannot do.

This will die for sure. It is wrong. I believe illegal as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
All things like this will do is anger the populace. They want to pick from who is running to lead the country. That is the American way. What's not the American way is a court or other govt entity telling you what you can or cannot do.

This will die for sure. It is wrong. I believe illegal as well.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
All things like this will do is anger the populace. They want to pick from who is running to lead the country. That is the American way. What's not the American way is a court or other govt entity telling you what you can or cannot do.

This will die for sure. It is wrong. I believe illegal as well.

No. Only the retards who worship this dumb bastard.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Dunno about that.

Lots of Democrats while they despise Trump do see this as overreach.

I actually agree that doing this strengthens Trump. Anyone who even is on the fence about him will be inclined to vote for him over this stunt of trying to get your way via the courts.

I don’t know what SCOTUS will do, but to me it’s pretty hard for someone to claim they don’t know what Trump stands for and if the majority vote for him, that says something about both parties and our political dysfunction.

God help us all.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
All things like this will do is anger the populace. They want to pick from who is running to lead the country. That is the American way. What's not the American way is a court or other govt entity telling you what you can or cannot do.

This will die for sure. It is wrong. I believe illegal as well.

No. Only the retards who worship this dumb bastard.

quote:

A new YouGov poll finds the majority of Americans, 54%, support the Colorado Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision that Donald Trump is ineligible to appear on that state’s 2024 primary ballot, because he engaged in insurrection. In a further hit to the twice-impeached former president, the poll found barely more than one-third, just 35%, disagreed with that ruling...

A whopping 84% of Democrats, 48% of independents, and even almost one in four Republicans, 24%, agreed with the decision to remove Trump.

quote:

Cobb said. “And in 2010, Chief Justice [John] Roberts explained in free enterprise that people don’t vote for officers of the United States.”

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
All things like this will do is anger the populace. They want to pick from who is running to lead the country. That is the American way. What's not the American way is a court or other govt entity telling you what you can or cannot do.

This will die for sure. It is wrong. I believe illegal as well.

No. Only the retards who worship this dumb bastard.

~Ann

quote:

My guess is some rabid 'retard' is going to try and pop him.

quote:

And for all the 'retards' who didn't vote for him would have realized if they had, we'd be just about done with him forever if he got his second term. Now, he's running again and is more popular than ever because of what the opposing 'retards' are doing.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Good read if not ABP.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...50cc4194ab7391&ei=20

I sometimes wonder in divided/split opinion cases how half of a group of supposedly educated and knowledgeable individuals can look at a tree and see a tree and know that it's a tree while the other half sees a carrot.

quote:

Some Judges seek to find what the Law requires, others are just looking for a desired result.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

And for all the 'retards' who didn't vote for him would have realized if they had, we'd be just about done with him forever if he got his second term. Now, he's running again and is more popular than ever because of what the opposing 'retards' are doing.

That's utter BS.

Why oh why would any retard vote for him just to be done with him in four more years?

And the damage he would do with four years would be so significant that we would really never be done with him.

Get it straight Ann. He popular not because of the opposition. Those who really see what he is and represents include the opposition and the enablers.

The supporters/enablers see what he is and wants to do, and they like it, for many reasons, but one primary reason is they hate the opposition and want someone, anyone, any means, to MAKE THEM WRONG.

~Ann

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Some Judges seek to find what the Law requires, others are just looking for a desired result.

Where do conservative textualists fit?

quote:

Originally posted by P. Jilek:
I referred my questions about the decision to a close friend (high school classmate) who retired from the state appellate court bench two years ago. His response follows below:

I do not profess to be the qualified critic of the opinion. With that said, I thought more of the Colorado judiciary. I do think that Boatright’s and Samour’s dissents were quite good, and I am hopeful they grab the attention of SCOTUS.

I am troubled by several things:

1. To “find” by clear and convincing evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection is simply crazy. Appellate courts do not “find” facts - we don’t have a witness stand. We rely on the record. For the court to have been persuaded by what an expert witness in sociology said in the court below, namely, opining as to what Trump meant by his comments, is surreal. I laughed aloud when I read the excerpt about the expert’s testimony. Expert witnesses are notorious. They can even be convinced to testify that the world’s oceans will rise 12 feet by 2010.

2. Trump was never charged with any crime and certainly had no due process to confront accusers or otherwise defend himself. How can the Colorado Supreme Court conclude that Trump engaged in an insurrection without an indictment, a plea and a trial? That the District Court so found is, in my opinion, reversible error.

3. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that no person shall be a “Senator or Representative in Congress, or an elector of President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to Support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

This section raises several issues. First, recognize that its purpose was to bar those who fought with the Confederate Army from serving in the government. Second, assuming this section is viable and applicable today, is it applicable to Trump’s escapades? Third, is the section self-executing? Meaning, essentially, does the section automatically bar a misfeasor or does the Congress have to act to employ the section as a remedy? The simple answer to this is decided by a case known as the Griffin case decided in 1868. The gist of the case is the section is not self-executing. Then there is the issue of federal jurisdiction. Can the section be used by a state government to bar candidates from state ballots? In 132 pages (I am not kidding) the Court engages in a tortuous, serpentine analysis that concludes a local rule (designed for summary disposition of applicants for ballot placement) can miraculously append itself to section 3 and self-execute to bar those who have engaged in insurrection. And, beyond that, a former President is one of those, i.e., an officer who has sworn an oath and engaged in insurrection.” Finding- yes finding - that Trump is an officer (something the district court was loathe to do), the court concludes that Trump engaged in insurrection and is thus barred by the 14th Amendment from placement on the primary ballot. Forgive me from generalizing, but my experience is that 100-plus-page judicial opinions often signal an author who is trying too hard to support his position.

I am no fan of Trump. But I am a fan of due process and fair play. One local commentator said it well: The Colorado Supreme Court is barring me from not voting for the candidate I wouldn’t vote for.

Of course, the First Amendment issues were simply swept under the rug. And as for the Griffin case, the court simply brushed it aside as well opting not to follow and to falsely distinguish the old post-bellum case.

In short, I am embarrassed by this decision.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a simple question - when was Trump's due-process TRIAL for insurrection held? It's a simple question, should have a simple answer - I can't seem to find it on any docket, though