- cross-posted to:
- antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
The Colorado Supreme Court is removing former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot, saying he is ineligible to be president.
In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”
“Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes.
“President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary.”
Ratified after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the wording is vague, it doesn’t explicitly mention the presidency, and has only been applied twice since 1919.
We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.
Chief Justice Brian Boatright, one of the three dissenters on the seven-member court, wrote that he believes Colorado election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection,” and said he would have dismissed the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.
LINKS
AP: Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause | @negativenull@startrek.website
Washington Post: Donald Trump is barred from Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot, the state Supreme Court rules | @silence7@slrpnk.net
CNBC: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal | @return2ozma
NBC News: Colorado Supreme Court kicks Donald Trump off the state’s 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution. | 18-24-61-B-17-17-4
CNN: Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot | A Phlaming Phoenix
CNN:Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’ | @Boddhisatva
New York Times: Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules | @silence7@slrpnk.net
How is it surprising or an open legal question when it has been thoroughly proved and stated in countless ways that he betrayed his position several times? Wtf? You have proof that he is dangerous and anti democratic? Wtf?
It’s surprising because there is a well documented history of Trump being above the law. No one would be surprised if the court ruled that he cannot be removed from the ballot, that’s par for the course.
This is unexpected, expected, results. It’s not par for the course. Therefore it is surprising.
But… Has he ever actually won a lawsuit? I know he delays a lot, but I can’t think of a case he’s won in the courts.
He hasn’t been CONVICTED of anything either, therefore, not (yet) guilty of anything.
He lost the sexual assault case this year. That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there’s more.
which isn’t disqualifying… so what’s your point?
That he’s lost in court
There are a bunch of other states that tried to disqualify Trump, and Trump’s legal team has won almost every time. He lost basically every case about overturning the election, but when it comes to being allowed to be on the ballot he has mostly won.
Yea, unfamiliar with how that played out in other states. But interesting point worth looking into.
I am so stealing this.
Is there really so few old men that can take his bloody place that it has to be this one dangerous unstable man? You really have no other possible idol in conservative land that is not mentally unstable?
There are plenty! They’re not old but Ramasuami and DeSantis come to mind. Both unhinged and dangerous but relatively unpopular next to Trump probably because one is brown and the other is painfully uncharismatic.
Mentally unstable is a part of his charm for them
Courts have to act for this sort of thing to happen. It’s necessarily an open legal question until ruled because otherwise people could just unilaterally make unreasonable powerful moves.
To go further, I hate to say it but I agree with the dissenting opinion that it is premature to do this without a conviction to reference. It may be obvious to all, but in that case it should be easy to have a conviction in hand under due process. For a court to skip requiring a criminal conviction before imposing criminal penalties seems unreasonable.
Plus, from a practical perspective, this is probably the worst jurisdiction to die on this hill. In the general election, Trump wouldn’t win this state anyway, so it serves to rationalize the persecution complex and bolster support to keep him out of a race that won’t matter (CO won’t device the primary, and it will be D in the general election either way).
Wtf? It should not be surprising, and this is a legal answer to the relevant legal question. How else would you have it answered, extra judicially? Wtf.
It’s a lot easier to think about when you see that it isn’t the power or influence of one person. It’s the influence and support of a group of wealthy backers who want all this to happen and continue.
One of the most confusing things for me is the conservative Republicans placing all their support behind a completely old ugly idiot like Trump. If they had placed all that energy behind someone younger and less ugly (physically and in personality), they probably would be governing the country by now … and with someone younger, they could look forward to decades of influence.
Which convictions are you speaking of? I don’t recall any.
These people are so caught up in their hatred for a person they forget that there is still due process (for the most part, red flag laws aside) and there have been no convictions. He’s not guilty of anything (yet, if at all, ongoing court case pending) except in their own warped minds.
Thats not what you need to prove. Many just see democracy as a means to an end.
One open question among many is whether the President is covered by the law. It specifically mentions Congress and “Officers” of the United States.
Having an office doesn’t necessarily make one an officer. Traditionally, officers are appointed and not elected.