Colorado 14th amendment court hearing, an intriguing possibility

[duckworth969]

I have a link below of Harry Litman analyzing possible outcomes for the Colorado Supreme Court hearing.

The part that got my attention is the section of the vid around 10’15”.

The US Supreme Court could decide that, in this instance, the 14th isn’t federally justiciable because it concerns Colorado state law.

Meaning, if Colorado says Chump can be disqualified under state law, then that’s it.

He’s not on the ballot because Colorado says he isn’t.

Harry states, should that happen, it is terra incognita for our country and how it plays out is anybody's guess.

Wow…

?si=PNdQXnFG0Kkw26Be

[brooklynite]

1. "The Supreme Court could....."

But why would they?

[Volaris]

2. So they wont have to make an ACTUAL decision.

[brooklynite]

4. Why wouldn't they want to?

Something like: "the 14th Amendment doesn't apply unless you've actually been convicted of insurrection"?

[Volaris]

6. The lower court in CO already decided he did an insurrection, based on the facts presented.

They won't want to, because if they uphold the wording of the constitution, they'll get death threats. If they don't, whatever small shreds of credibility they have left will be gone.

[brooklynite]

7. Insurrection is a Federal Crime.

And the judge made a civil, rather than criminal determination.

[duckworth969]

11. That's a good point

[duckworth969]

13. What I remember about some of your previous comments regarding the 14th is

and forgive me if I’m mistaken, but I seem to remember you think there should a criminal conviction of insurrection before the 14th can be applied.

Is that right?

[brooklynite]

16. Yes.

At a minimum, you need a Federal ruling that he's guilty of Insurrection, since its a Federal statute.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. Elections are run by the states, within the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

The 14th Amendment imposes a qualifying condition for office. I don't see how that can run afoul of the other qualifying conditions stated in the Constitution.

Maybe SCOTUS could take up the case because it involves a controversy between a state and citizen(s) of another state?

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. There will be no 14th Amendment Deus we Machiba

If one judge in Colorado rules to disqualify Trump, it’s not a case of “that’s it”, as there would be appeals all the way to SCOTUS.

[duckworth969]

12. Perhaps I wasn't clear

If the US SC says to Colorado, you can decide for yourself how to best apply the 14th under your own states election laws, then “thats it”.

Meaning, the Colorado SC decision stands and the state makes the choice of who’s on the ballot and who isn’t, not the Feds.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. We live in a post-stare decisis era

Nothing is ever final in our judicial system, as the Dobbs ruling has proven.

All it takes is one rogue justice to say “no it’s my way now”, and we’re off to the races, and nothing is set in stone.

There will be no disqualification without a relevant conviction.

[Takket]

8. it is hard to imagine SCOTUS not weighing in on a State's interpritation of a Federal document

[duckworth969]

15. The states want SCOTUS to go first

so they can use the 14th without being reversed.

[duckworth969]

9. SCOTUS will weigh in on the 14th in the Colorado case

Justices on the Colorado SC said as much during the hearing.

Harry said three issues will likely come up in front of the US Supreme Court:

1. What is an insurrection?

2. What is an officer?

Those two are constitutional questions. Pretty cut and dry.

However, like Minnesota, the Colorado SC is uneasy with making the decision on their own.They’re just not sure it should be them.

So, this leads to the third question.

3. Is the 14th justiciable under Colorado state law? Can they decide for themselves how to apply the 14th without guidance from the Feds?

The US SC could say to Colorado, yes, you can best decide how to handle the application of the 14th Section 3 under your states election laws without federal intervention.

Though the US SC might provide direction on the constitutional definitions of insurrection and officer.

None of the states want to go first and they all know the SC is eventually going to weigh in. The sooner the US SC provides some direction, the more easily states can move forward.

Colorado has a primary ballot deadline fast approaching so that’s why things are being hustled along.

I have to admit that the legal term justiciable is difficult for me to grasp. It sounds almost jurisdictional, similar to a states rights vs. federal rights issue.

[Bludogdem]

10. What the

Supreme Court needs is one state to say yes and one state to say no. Similar to when two federal district courts disagree on a legal issue or proceeding. Then they can weigh in a resolve the conflict.

[duckworth969]

14. That would sure simplify things