Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off ballot

submitted by hfxB0oyA from (bbc.com)

all 74 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

I guess the defenders of democracy just can't abide a guy they can't control.

[–]Drewski 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Direct democracy is just mob rule, which is why the United States was formed as a democratic republic rather than a democracy.

[–]monkeymagic 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

constitutional republic

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

The defenders of democracy are merely defending democracy. Which is when you use elections rather than insurrections.

That's sufficient reason. You don't need to start making other reasons up.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]wlh0242 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    He's talking about the one where the police let them in, escorted and gave the weaponless insurrectionists a tour of the capitol, took selfies with them, and then peacefully left the building....that one.

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Do you think that the time spent in the capitol building not smashing windows and forcing entry cancels out the time spend smashing windows and forcing entry?

    https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/06/jim-himes-inside-washington-dc-protest-congress-electoral-college-vpx.cnn

    [–]GuyWhite 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    CNN? Fake news.

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No that's project veritas.

    That's unmanipulated footage of the insurrectionists smashing widows to gain entry to the capitol building in an attempt to disrupt the transfer of the presidency.

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    6 of the people involved in the planning of the Jan 6 insurrection have been proven guilty of seditious conspiracy, and are serving 12 to 22 year sentences.

    People argue about the word, but that's what I mean when I say the January 6 insurrection: The plan to use force to prevent, hinder and delay the execution of the laws of the United States governing the transfer of presidential power.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It's in front of the courts. Trump is trying to delay the proceedings. The public have an interest in knowing before the election, for this reason, but also in case it affects their vote.

      [–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Which is when you use elections rather than insurrections.

      well-said

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Thanks!

      [–]monkeymagic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      there is no functioning democracy at stake so wtf are you talking about?

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      If that's the case, then it doesn't matter who's on the ballot.

      [–]monkeymagic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      you’re 100 percent correct. it doesn’t

      [–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Defending democracy by taking away the choices without a conviction?

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      The court found that the accepted facts are sufficient proof of insurrection.

      [–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      I learned something today. I didn't realize the Amendment was written that way. It's odd how sometimes lawyers and lawmakers will interpret the Constitution with original intent or if it is a living, breathing document. I think that makes it a living, breathing document to them.

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      It's odd how sometimes lawyers and lawmakers will interpret the Constitution with original intent or if it is a living, breathing document.

      This is a difference of opinion. "Originalists" are sometimes motivated by the fact that that approach can allow discarding of hundreds of years of case law. So it's favored by federalist society judges. But not all originalists are right wing christofascists.

      [–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I wasn't clear enough in what I typed out. Odd for certain lawmakers to want both interpretations, depending on what suits them.

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Federalist society judges are famous for that too.

      [–]no_u 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      14th Amendment, section 3:

      No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States, 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.

      Colorado's bipartisan (though very conservative) legislature hereby proving that they support the US and its constitution.

      [–]yellowsnow2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      engaged in

      He gave a speech outside and told people to be peaceful. He has not been convicted nor charged with insurrection. That is just a word the media corporation used to strategically labet the protest for this very reason.

      The media corporations are not judge, jury, and executioners. Fascists may want a corporation to have that kind of power.

      They even changed the laws concerning White House security a week ahead of time because they planned this whole thing from the start and issued the media their talking points.

      [–]Ferretman 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      The Party of "Democracy" in action....

      [–]NastyWetSmear 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

      Surely your country can't do that, right? Have one state refuse to accept a candidate while other states acknowledge them? You'd have red states refusing to accept Democrat candidates and blue states refusing to accept Republican candidates based on whatever bullshit the news ran?

      [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

      Well, only Trump committed an Insurrection that he was not found guilty of committing.

      [–]topiary2 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The actual insurrection that occurred was in 2020 when they rigged the election to cheat him out.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Okay, so, let's pretend for a second that you and u/RapeMyMouth were wrong. Let's pretend Trump was standing on the steps of the building that day screaming: "WWAAARRRGHHHH!" and that three senators were hung, but due to some technicality, they let him off. We all saw him do it, we all knew he did it and none of us were going to vote for him because he appears to be an Ork.

      Despite that, one state still couldn't just decide that he can't be voted for in their state, right? If he wins enough votes/states that they are the decider, that's basically succeeding, isn't it?

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      No. Bad bot.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I'll thank you to know that I have a collection of human organs! I'm almost more human than you!

      [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      What insurrection?

      [–]MagicMike 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      The one with tour guides.

      [–]wlh0242 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Yeah, what's that one thing that distinguishes America from the rest of the third world communist dictatorships? Its people are "Innocent" until proven guilty?

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      There were lots of stuff that did distinguish us from the rest of the world.

      We have fallen,

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      He was not found not guilty. It is in front of the courts.

      Smith has stated that the prosecution will show that "...the rioters' disruption of the certification proceeding is exactly what [Trump] intended on January 6 ..."

      He probably will.

      [–]hfxB0oyA[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Not my country, so i have no idea. But that does seem like cracking the door open to exactly this kind of chaos.

      [–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

      Each state has control over it's presidential election. Some allocate their electoral college votes proportionally. Most allocate them all to the winner. They've got a lot of control over how they do it.

      But cases under the 14th amendment have been brought in other states.

      Michigan ruled that the 14th amendment can't be applied to the republican primary, but made it clear that they would consider a challenge to him being on the general election ballot.

      Oregon’s secretary of state said something similar.

      Minnesota's high court also ruled that Trump will stay on the primary ballots, but left the door open for Minnesota voters to petition to remove Donald Trump from general election ballots.

      So these cases will come.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

      How can that be the case? I understand the need for your electoral college stuff, but allowing a state to simply say: "No, we don't care that person X is running for president and has been permitted to do so by federal law, we won't be letting people vote for him" essentially means those states aren't taking part in a fair, country wide election, right?

      If you can rule that state X can simply ignore a candidate based on a charge they haven't been found guilty of, couldn't any state just do that at any time over anything? Will the bible belt just remove Biden as an option claiming he's a serial killer, ignoring the fact that there's no evidence and he hasn't been found guilty? Is there no federal law that forbids states from deciding the vote for the voter by removing options?

      [–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

      "No, we don't care that person X is running for president and has been permitted to do so by federal law, we won't be letting people vote for him"

      My understanding is that the Colorado Supreme court decided that the 14th amendment precludes Trump from standing for president.

      That probably means that in their opinion he isn't "permitted to do so by federal law". Specifically by federal law. They're just enforcing it.

      The relevant part is §3:

      No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and 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.

      Legal opinion varies as to whether "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States" encompasses the President. Here's a Law professor arguing "Yes", but I've heard lawyers who aren't Trump supporters argue that it doesn't include the Presidency. itself.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

      I don't really think the argument should be about if or not the President is "Holding an office" so much as it should be: "He wasn't been convicted of any such charges yet. You can't accuse someone of a crime and use the accusation as a reason to preclude them from the vote."

      If they could, I guess the Republicans just accuse every Democrat candidate of "Insurrection" for, I dunno, encouraging BLM riots and the small part of that city that declared itself no longer part of the US?... Boom, don't have to wait for a verdict, kick them off each Red state's ballot, refuse to acknowledge them if they win, guess it's civil war?

      [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      They wrote that section into the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Confederate politicians from holding office in the United States. There was no expectation that they be "convicted of a crime." They were Confederates, thus they were excluded.

      The question that's going to come before the SCOTUS is: what constitutes an insurrection? Obviously the Civil War did, because that's specifically what the framers of the Amendment were thinking about, but what else constitutes an insurrection? Define it.

      I don't envy John Roberts the task.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      There may have been no expectation of conviction, but this isn't the civil war era where there is open warfare and two cut and dried sides and one has just been victorious over the other. Even if we were to accept that explanation - Trump wasn't involved in the civil war and isn't a Confederate solider, so that application can't apply to him.

      He isn't currently guilty of an insurrection. He's accused, but the nature of what is and isn't an insurrection isn't, yet, relevant. This isn't war time. The American states can't decide that the due process that is meant to be offered to all Americans doesn't apply here. It's essentially election tampering, isn't it?

      Look, I'm no American legal expect, I shouldn't speak with authority, but if the courts aren't putting down the first argument as: "We haven't yet confirmed that he's done anything wrong", that's scary.

      [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      What I think you're missing is that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" refers specifically to whether the government can lock someone in prison or levy fines against them.

      Citizens don't have to be found guilty of a crime to be fired, or declared ineligible for something, or basically to suffer any number of consequences other than "locked up or fined." For example, the military could declare someone ineligible for service because they can't do ten push-ups. That's not a crime; they're simply ineligible.

      The legal question of "Is Donald Trump ineligible for office because he participated in an insurrection," strange as it may seem, is completely distinct from the legal question of "Did Donald Trump commit a crime."

      [–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      No, I don't believe that's the case. You're not talking about someone firing him, you're talking about a branch of the government refusing to acknowledge his run for president. That's the government enforcing a punishment for a crime he has yet to be proven guilty of. This isn't a private company saying: "Sorry, Jim. We can't have these accusations hanging over us as a company.", this is a State saying: "You are no longer able to run for president."

      Hell, even in the other case, he'd still have grounds to sue for unfair dismissal once he was innocent.

      [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      But ineligibility isn't legally considered a punishment. For example, Neil deGrasse Tyson is not eligible to practice medicine or law. Elon Musk is not eligible to run for President. David Harbour is not eligible to join the Marines. None of these are punishments; none of these people have been convicted of a crime.

      And of course Donald Trump can and will file lawsuits regarding this decision.

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      "He wasn't been convicted of any such charges yet. You can't accuse someone of a crime and use the accusation as a reason to preclude them from the vote."

      Insurrection isn't defined as a crime in the 14th amendment and the federal crime of Rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 only dates from WWII. The Colorado court found that he had committed insurrection as part of this judgement. By applying the Brandenburg test.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      So you're saying they applied an archaic interpretation of a crime that has, since, been updated, arguing that the definition of that offense, clearly intended to be used for civil war fighters, applies today despite the law being updated? Isn't this like saying that the "Right to bare arms" applied to muskets, so modern guns aren't covered because, despite new laws being created, the original meaning wasn't that? Isn't that like claiming that "All men are created equal" was applied to older understandings of the word "Men", so transexuals can be slaves?

      Again, I'm no expert in this. I trust Americans to know this better... But if states around my country were just digging through older laws, applying outdated interpretations of things to them for the sole purpose of removing someone they didn't want people voting for, I think that would be considered a major miscarriage of justice and those people would face serious consequences... At least, I should hope they would!

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      So you're saying they applied an archaic interpretation of a crime that has, since, been updated, arguing that the definition of that offense, clearly intended to be used for civil war fighters, applies today despite the law being updated?

      No, I'm saying that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't refer to the crime 18 U.S. Code § 2383. The courts decide what constitutes insurrection based on case law.

      Isn't this like saying that the "Right to bare arms" applied to muskets, so modern guns aren't covered because, despite new laws being created, the original meaning wasn't that?

      No case law has determined that it includes modern assault rifles, but not tanks.

      Isn't that like claiming that "All men are created equal" was applied to older understandings of the word "Men", so transexuals can be slaves?

      The declaration of independence isn't law. But I presume that there would be old laws that refer to "men" but mean "the people". I can't think of an instance, but surely case law would have settled the meaning to include women and others.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      You're being too literal with the examples, but...

      No, I'm saying that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't refer to the crime 18 U.S. Code § 2383. The courts decide what constitutes insurrection based on case law.

      If the court is trying to rule that this law doesn't apply to modern law, than it's basically attempting to argue that some parts of the law are immune from updates directly related to them. There is a law concerning insurrection, and if this law doesn't refer to that currently accepted law, then it's either not talking about the currently, legally accepted understanding of an insurrection or, if the argument is that it was created to prevent civil war era fighters from running for office, isn't relevant at all any more. Saying a law was referring to murder before the current understanding of murder, ergo the current definition doesn't apply isn't a strong argument - their objective is clear in the mental gymnastics required to reach this point.

      I should bow out of this conversation. I'm not even American. It's just mind boggling that your states can basically bunch up their panties, take their ball and run home crying in what is meant to be the ultimate expression of the will of the people.

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      It's just that the meaning of insurrection in the 14th amendment is based on case law.

      Making it consistent before and after 1943.

      Which makes sense. You don't want a law made in 1943 to change the constitution.

      [–]HiddenFox 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I'm no scholar in this but I'm pretty sure you are correct and a few others have commented saying the Supreme Court will over turn this.

      I think a big part is that this is Colorado. IMO it feels more and more like people in power can't be nonpartisan. A corner stone of America law is innocent until proven guilty and to me this ruling feels a lot more like a statement of believes rather then an impartial ruling.

      [–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I certainly hope they are right. Even if Trump was the Hitler stand in the media pretends he is, if he hasn't been convicted of any crime, it would be a terrible precedent for state to set.

      [–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      til - re. the other states

      [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Fairly blue states tbh. Even Colorado, lately.

      [–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Minnesota letting the voters decide if he is on the ballot or not. Hmmmm.

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      In Minnesota.

      [–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      My point is that the people are voting anyway. It seems like they could save some time and skip this step.

      [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I don't think that the decision to remove Trump from the general election ballot would be judged based on the most popular opinion, but the petition would mean that the courts would consider the 14 the amendment.

      [–]MagicMike 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

      Democrats are Nazis now.

      [–]carn0ld03 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      They always have been.

      [–]at_finn 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Always have been. Notable Democrat institutions: Slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, Antifa

      [–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Communists, Nazis are right-wing, and Communists are left-wing. Communism is still a tyranny.

      [–]tyranicaloverlord 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It amazes me how many ignorant people like yourself still exist and say this shit. Go educate yourself, take a political compass test for fucks sake. The Nazis are far left.

      [–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      This is a bipartisan development, in a state that was solid red before 2006 and still has almost 50% Republican representation.

      [–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The judges went to the universities that have been in the news lately. They got turned into Nazis. Penn, Harvard, MIT…have all been turned into nests of Nazism.

      [–]carn0ld03 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

      Honestly... Someone's gotta be f&%$ing around, because not even a retard would be stupid enough to provoke nearly a hundred million newly armed Americans.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      Making a martyr of Trump only increases his popularity. Democrats are dumb as fuck.

      [–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      His moronic supporters would vote for him anyway. Undecided voters are unlikely to support the personification of a traitor to the US, a felon, a grifter, serial lier, and an asshole.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yeah, people are unlikely to want to vote for a felon, a grifter, a serial lier and an asshole like that senile Biden.

      [–]Gaslov 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      If the US ends up in a major war next year or after that, you're really going to want rabid patriotism. The democratic faggots WANT Trump to win so that you'll happily join the front.

      [–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The only problem with that theory is that Trump supporters are disproportionately elderly men. Look at a Trump rally sometime; almost no one there is even remotely combat-ready.