No way will THIS Supreme Court uphold the Colorado Supreme Court decision. I think we are deluding ourselves

[JohnSJ]

to think that trump will be removed from the ballot.

I suspect they will rule that trump has not found guilty of an insurrection, and therefore will remain on the ballot.

I also think the decision will happen very quickly and it will be 6-3.

At the same time I think this court will also rule that trump is not immune from prosecution.

Because of the way the republican primaries are structured, all or nothing, it is almost a sure thing that he will be their nominee.

[bullimiami]

1. You don't have confidence in these "strict constitutionalists" strictly adhering to the constitution? Hmm.

[JohnSJ]

5. Nope, and their ruling won't even touch that because they will say he has never been found guilty of an insurrection.

It is a terrible joke, that someone who tried to overthrow the US government can become president.

[gab13by13]

13. The Constitution doesn't say

he has to be indicted or convicted.

If a 14 year old tried to run for president he/she would not be allowed on the ballot because the wording of the Constitution would disqualify him/her.

[JohnSJ]

17. That may be, but I think that is exactly how the 6 right wing judges will rule, that he hasn't been found guilty of an

insurrection.

[gab13by13]

28. I disagree,

the court will find another way, like "process." How can the court make a legal argument that isn't stated in the Amendment?

The Robert's court claims it is an originalist court, what did the founders intend? The founders did not want Jefferson Davis to ever be allowed to be president.

Sec.3 of the 14th Amendment is based on Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation. The Robert's court will twist itself into a pretzel coming up with some process reason why Trump is eligible.

[JohnSJ]

46. I think that is exactly what they will rule on, due process. Trump hasn't been found guilty of an insurrection,

therefore Article 7 doesn't apply.

[AnrothElf]

62. Yah I read one take like that. Something about section 5 of the 14th amendment...

Along the lines that section 5 directs congress to implement procedure, and that congress has never done so.

That might be weak sauce though, since section 3 has been applied both historically after the Civil War, and recently in NM to exclude "Cowboys for Trump" leader from the ballot there after his mere participation in 1/6.

But if, as you both suggest, the SCROTUS finds for Trump... it'll probably be along those lines.

[maxsolomon]

135. I think you're spot on r.e. Section 5.

that's their out.

[Buckeyeblue]

166. I don't read section 5 applying to section 3

I read section 5 being the enforcement of the equal protections in section 1. I'm not sure what legislation to address section 3 would even look like.

I do think the SC will overturn the Colorado decision. I think the court will claim that J6 does not rise to the level of an insurrection. Alito, through his smirk, will say that J6 was a protest that got out of hand and doesn't rise to the level of the secession of states which took a war to resolve, which is really what section 3's overall intent was.

[FBaggins]

30. But it does insist on due process

Which absolutely involves not being able to punish a criminal without convicting him.

If a 14 year old tried to run for president he/she would not be allowed on the ballot because the wording of the Constitution would disqualify him/her.

But a 36-year-old couldn't be blocked because some judge determined that she looked 34.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

43. Section 3 is not a punishment, it's an additional qualification.

Your example makes no sense whatsoever.

[FBaggins]

80. A distinction without a difference

Many states bar felons from appearing on a ballot. But it isn’t sufficient for a judge to say “his conduct was felonious and thus he cannot be on the ballot”

The judge’s opinion on the matter would be irrelevant absent a conviction on a felony. You can call it a penalty or just a qualification requirement… but all of the other requirements have government processes (e.g. a birth certificate showing age and place of birth).they do not involve an opinion re: whether certain conduct fits a definition

Indeed- this appears to be the primary rationale of the three liberal judges who dissented yesterday. I think it’s likely that one or more on SCOTUS will feel the same way (along with all six on the right)

As for due process - Section 3 clearly says that Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Have a missed somewhere the CO court’s citation to this legislation?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

82. It's clear you haven't read the decision.

[hlthe2b]

167. I find that to be the case with many of those posting... And this is not the topic to

try to "bluff." sigh... If ever there was a topic that required DUers (including the lawyers) to do a little homework, it is this.

[brooklynite]

125. The age or citizenship question can be resolved without a court case...

...by checking a filed birth certificate.

A question of committing insurrection cannot be resolved by "we saw it on TV".

[FBaggins]

128. Exactly correct - as well as citizenship

Same thing for those who were excluded after the civil war. They were on the roll as part of the confederacy. No need for a conviction.

[Lonestarblue]

39. I looked up the text of the 14th Amendment and it certainly does not specify conviction.

Here it is.

“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.”

I think it may have been Lawrence Tribe who wrote that the 14th did preclude Trump from the presidency because having sworn to uphold the Constitution, he then engaged in actions of insurrection because he refused to accept the legal vote against him and implemented plans to overturn that vote and avoid leaving office. And on January 6, he definitely gave aid and comfort to those who physically rebelled against the US government—aid by refusing to call in the National Guard and allowing the rampage to go on for hours and comfort in that video he made praising them and telling then he loved them.

If the Court had any intent to help preserve our democracy, they would uphold the Colorado decision, which would then give other states the option to remove Trump.

[Upthevibe]

63. Lonestarblue.........

Thank you for your response.

I think what's key here is "engaged"....... it doesn't say "guilty of" or indicted."

[Lovie777]

70. Agreed............................

it should also pertain to Governmental officials across the country, including but not limited to, congress, local and state, et al.

[CaptainTruth]

101. I also note the 14th says nothing about running or appearing on a ballot...

...the text of the 14th is about holding office.

Unless I've missed something, it doesn't prevent anyone from running, or appearing on a ballot, it only prevents certain persons from holding office.

Now, what happens if a person who is disqualified from holding an office runs for that office & wins? I'm not sure the Constitution spells that out.

[brooklynite]

126. IOW an election-denying State official can make the same arbitrary judgment about Joe Biden?

[Lonestarblue]

146. Joe Biden hasn't done anything to violate the 14th Amendment.

i would hope the amendment would be difficult to apply in the absence of a qualifying event.

[Prairie Gates]

147. Seriously! The attempt by some to turn a months-long intense review of a clear record

into the equivalent of an "arbitrary judgment" is truly comical.

[dpibel]

153. What CO election-denying state official was that?

Was it the district court judge? The one that had an evidentiary hearing?

That arbitrary decision?

[brooklynite]

162. I'm saying there are 49 other States...

…where, if you’ve decided that Democrats and Biden “stole” the 2020 election, you could arbitrarily decide that Biden was also ineligible, if a criminal verdict isn’t required.

[dpibel]

163. " the same arbitrary judgment"

Those are your words.

They cannot mean anything but that the CO decision was an arbitrary judgment.

What you mean to say, I hope, is that, in any other state, you could have an evidentiary hearing before a judge and have that judge decide the matter.

Which is, after all, what happened in CO.

Why are people pretending that some insane Coloradan just decided, sua sponte, to kick poor Mr. Trump off the ballot.

There was a lawsuit filed and joined. There was representation on both sides. There was an evidentiary hearing.

What are we all gaining by pretending that this sets a precedent for, say, Dan Patrick to just say "Biden's off the ballot cuz I sez so"?

[brooklynite]

164. Yes, I consider the Colorado decision to be "arbitrary"

Colorado (or any other State) doesn’t have a criminal statute for insurrection or seditious conspiracy or any related action. Therefore, there can be no uniform application of criminal justice with its appropriate protections for the defendant.

We’ve had three State rulings; only one has chose to make a determination of “guilt”. Again, if a Republican official or Judge chooses to do the same thing against Biden, what’s the legal basis for your objection?

[dpibel]

168. It's not a criminal matter

Once again, there is no peril of liberty or life here. So the presence or absence of a criminal statute is utterly beside the point. This is not a case of "application of criminal justice." I'm not sure what's so difficult about this concept.

And you staunchly ignore the fact that there was in this case a five-day trial, complete with briefing, submission of evidence, and testimony. Or you deem that much more trial was required in order to meet your stringent requirements for due process. How much would that be? Is there some minimum number of trial days required in your jurisprudence?

This will apparently come as a surprise to you, but courts interpret words on a regular basis, generally by reference to common meanings and legal and lay definitions. So there's nothing all that extraordinary about a court deciding what "insurrection" means and applying that definition to the circumstances. You can find a helpful discussion of this starting at page 96 of the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion.

As for your killer "what if the sides were flipped," that's really not so hard. If a court held a five-day evidentiary hearing that clearly established that Joe Biden had engaged in insurrection, as that word is currently understood (and was understood at the enactment of the 14th Amendment), I would say: "Damn, Joe. You shouldn't have done that." If, on the other hand, the state of Texas declares that Joe Biden's border policy is an insurrection for purposes of the 14th Amendment, I will quite comfortably call bullshit. If you cannot distinguish between the two, I do not believe I can help you.

Your pretense that this was some utterly unsupported political ruling by the Colorado district court judge indicates to me that you haven't read anything but media coverage of the case.

[flashman13]

100. I think you are missing something. The CO lower court judge essentially

held a bench trial of the case similar to the NY fraud case. After listening to the evidence the judge found tRump guilty of inciting an insurrection. The CO supreme court upheld the lower court's finding of guilt and imposed the sentence of removal from the ballot. Case closed.

[Prendy]

110. No Conviction Needed, not even a criminal charge

Many of the individuals disqualified from future office under the 14th Amendment were never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/#:~:text=The%20precedent%20likewise%20confirms%20that,and%20voluntarily%20aided%20violent%20insurrections.

[bluestarone]

144. You may be right here. BUT

To my way of thinking, the Colorado SC HAS determined he's GUILTY of this. So, in my eyes he has been found guilty. I actually look to see the SC send this back to the Colorado SC for second review? We'll see.

[msfiddlestix]

84. So called "strict constitutionalists" have violated that principle too often to take seriously

in instances where their own cult worshiping biases are clearly in play, whether on religious cult
cases, corporate titans or cult personalities.

So, no point in expecting anything different .

[getagrip_already]

98. This court is highly transactional, not scholarly

Meaning they look to the result they want and then justify it rather than look for the correct decision through justification.

What they want most is to continue in power.

If tfg gets re-elected, that power ends.

They have a powerful self interest to justify finding him ineligible. Since it easily lines up with the constitution, it is a slam dunk.

They will dq him.

[msfiddlestix]

169. One would think so they have a powerful interest in finding him indelible, but they seem to defy that logic

in other decisions. So I don't have faith they will. However, I remain open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

[Emile]

2. Would the Colorado decision keep Congressional insurrectionists

off the ballot too if allowed to stand?

[Duncanpup]

4. Was wondering that as well Emile.

Scott Perry my old congressman

[JohnSJ]

6. If that was the argument, yes, but I think the SC will argue that he has not been found guilty of an insurrection, so

he stays on the ballot.

[Emile]

9. I hate to say it, but I think secretly the Congressional insurrectionists will be their reason he stays on the ballot.

Last edited Wed Dec 20, 2023, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)

[sop]

55. The "aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" part should disqualify the entire Republican party.

That being stated, there's zero chance Trump will be kept off any ballot.

[MOMFUDSKI]

10. Works for me.

SC can be eliminated by orange guy if he gets power. Watcha gonna do SC? Watcha gonna do?

[donheld]

157. Are there any congressional insurrectionists

in the ballot in Colorado? I'm sure Lauren Boebert was in on it, but she's never, that we know about, been a subject of the investigation.

[Emile]

165. I'm thinking if the SC rules with Colorado their ruling will be nationwide.

But I think it would be easy to prove Boebert was involved in the insurrection. Check out this https://insurrectionindex.org/records/person/lauren-boebert/

[Walleye]

3. Tired of the "due process" argument

Due process refers to life or liberty. No one has a right to be president

[JohnSJ]

8. I just think that this RW majority SC will rule on that basis.

[Walleye]

21. They are saying don't disqualify him, beat him at the ballot box

They aren’t talking about what will happen if we do beat him again in the election He’s not gonna concede and go away like a good American, we know that

[malaise]

7. Many folks here said no way he would ever be indicted

Folks here said he would get off scot free against EJean.

Folks here said he would never suffer the consequences of decades of fraud in New York.

Down he goes

🎄 🎄 🎄

[JohnSJ]

12. This isn't the issue. The issue is should he be on the ballot for a crime he hasn't been found guilty of? In fact,

Jack Smith is not pursuing insurrection charges against trump.

[gab13by13]

15. The Constitution does not say

that a person has to be indicted or convicted of insurrection. You are making a false legal argument that Judge Luttig and Laurence Tribe disagree with.

I believe what Luttig and Tribe are arguing, the wording of the Constitution is what disqualifies Trump just like a 14 year old can't run for president.

[malaise]

20. He has publicly claimed his coup; he claims his goons are political prisoner

It is pellucidly clear that he orchestrated that coup.
Insurrection QED

That is all.

[Prairie Gates]

27. YES! LOL, REMINDER: Many saying that the USSC will definitely overturn this decision

were also running around saying that the decision will never be made in the first place.

Some of these legal experts bring up points that are well covered in the opinions and dissents as if they were the first people to think of them.

Honestly, watching the conservative legal scholars of internet message boards run around in a hair-on-fire tizzy last night was simply marvelous. I don't know if the Colorado decision will be overturned or allowed to stand (say it with me, friends, "I don't know..." It's OK, you can do it!), but that spectacle probably makes the whole thing worthwhile either way.

[malaise]

31. Was a marvelous thing to behold - THIS! 😀

The best part was hearing the supporters of Texas immigration rights object to the state of Colorado’s rights. These effers make pretzels look straight. I was in the floor laughing.

🎄 🎄 🎄

[CrispyQ]

54. These effers make pretzels look straight.

Never heard that one before. I am

[malaise]

86. LOL

😀😀😀😀 🎄. 🎄 🎄

[gab13by13]

32. Occam's Razor

Our founders did not want Jefferson Davis to ever be eligible to run for president. This isn't a complicated Amendment.

The Roberts court will have to come up with some "process" argument to get around what our founders clearly intended.

I don't watch much cable TV, I'm guessing it is giving political reasons for the court catering to Trump.

[MiHale]

11. All depends on whose money influences them best...

I’m with you on the ballot issue, but the immunity…I sincerely hope you’re very wrong.

[JohnSJ]

14. Maybe I worded it incorrectly. I think they will rule he is NOT immune from prosecution for a crime. In other words,

he can be tried and convicted

[MiHale]

16. I needed a better coffee fix.

[JohnSJ]

18. Me too

[3Hotdogs]

52. So Clarence gets a new house and a free vacation in Paris.

Alito is presented with a set of 22k gold rosary beads.


Bingo --- problem solved.

[gab13by13]

19. The fascist court will never in a million years rule

that a president has immunity and there is precedence.

[JohnSJ]

22. I agree, and I also think they will rule he remains on the Colorado ballot

[gab13by13]

33. So do I

but for different reasons than yours.

[Liberal In Texas]

23. Don't harsh our mellow! No negative waves so early in the morning!

[JohnSJ]

25. +++

[CousinIT]

24. 100% agree. n/t

[Bettie]

26. It all depends on what Leonard Leo

and the other right wing owners of 6 of the justices want, doesn't it? If they want him on the ballot, he'll be there, if they don't, they'll let the ruling stand.

They do as they are told, in order to keep the money (err...gifts) flowing.

[CrispyQ]

73. This is the answer.

Trump has shown what he's going to do if he gets a second term—go all out dictator. So it gets down to if the powers that be think they can control Trump if he gets a second term. I don't think they can, but they're pretty full of themselves.

[lindysalsagal]

81. Agreed. I suspect big business knows tfg hurts their bottom line.

I think tfg will go out with a pathetic puff of smoke.

[Fullduplexxx]

29. Why is scotus getting involved in state politics

[gab13by13]

35. That question needs to be asked to Neil Gorsuch,

Have you seen his ruling when he was a Colorado judge? Gorsuch said that it was up to states to determine who should be allowed on their ballots. Expecting Gorsuch to do a 180.

[JohnSJ]

37. Technically we don't know if they will accept this case, though I think they will. I think the reason why they will

accept the case is because the state of Colorado is using Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution to rule if someone can be excluded from the Colorado ballot, and the US SC will have the final say in the interpretation of Article 7.

[ancianita]

41. Whatever the USSC rules will apply to all 50 states. Not just CO. (Just making a note.)

[JohnSJ]

44. Yes, and that is why I think they will base their ruling on Due Process, that trump has not been found guilty of an

insurrection.

If had been found guilty of the insurrection, I think the SC wouldn't even take up the case

[ancianita]

49. You already said elsewhere that a conviction is not necessary. So did Neal Katyal. If

SCOTUS doesn't take up the case, then yes, the onus will be on other states to pursue similar cases.

But as of now, Trump is 10 electoral votes down in reaching 270. He might be on primary ballots in the meantime, as their cases wend their way to the state supreme courts, but that doesn't mean they won't rule him as disqualified to be on their general election ballots.

Still, this court might just take the case in order to make a never-before ruling on the 14th, just for the historical record.

[JohnSJ]

51. I didn't say that, someone else did. I just think that this SC will rule on the basis of due process in regard to

Article 7.

I think we will know very quickly on this one what they will rule.

[ancianita]

76. Fine. I get it. I thought it was you. But Katyal has said the same. He's the boss. About that due process,

It was a 200 page ruling, not taken lightly. SCOTUS will honor the due process so far.

I'll take you out to dinner if you end up right about this.

[JohnSJ]

79. I actually hope my speculation is wrong and he is kept off the ballot, I just think the US SC will punt on this, and

use due process as the excuse.

I also believe that we have the best chance against trump

If my speculation is right, and he is kept on the ballot, I will buy you a drink, because I will need one.

[ancianita]

88. At the least he will definitely be kept on the ballot in CO, if the court doesn't hear the case.

Here's the thing about due process -- Trump's already gotten more due process than any American in American history; at some point, "no one is above the law" has to be validated by the highest court.

We'll already have the CO ruling to toast to. Seriously. If this court overrules CO, then it's time to pack up and move to Canada, regardless of Jack Smith's wins. If Trump cannot be disqualified under black and white constitutional law, then rule of law is two-tiered.

[Maraya1969]

111. Yes, if they go by this, "not indicted" thing they will virtually make the amendment null and void

for everyone. A person stating flat out, (more than 45) that they will establish a dictator state will not be able to be kept off the ballot because he didn't break any laws when he tried to overturn the government at one time. Same with a person who states outright that they intend to exterminate all the Jews after an attempt at an insurrection. They will be allowed on the ballot if they have not been indicted.

I think it is a very slippery slope the SCOTUS will slide down if they reverse this ruling.

[EX500rider]

143. On the other hand do we want Repub States deciding which Dem's they think are guilty also..

..and keeping them off the ballot?

[LeftInTX]

93. Elections are part state, part federal.

Candidates for federal positions, follow federal laws. Federal campaign filings go through the Federal Elections Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission
Campaign finance rules for State and local positions are based state law. Eligibility for federal position follows federal laws. Congressmen are not required to live in their district. In Texas all state and local elected officials are required to live in their district. Difference rules and laws.

Eligibility for a federal candidate is determined by federal law. State law determines eligibility for state and local elections. For instance in Texas, a convicted felon cannot hold state or local office, even after they have completed all obligations. However, convicted felons are allowed to run and hold federal office. https://www.voanews.com/a/can-felons-serve-in-us-elected-federal-offices-/7014217.html. Federal law does not require members of congress to reside in their district. However, many states have district residency requirements.

Also dates for federal elections are federal law. "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November" in even years. Yet, some states hold elections for governor in odd years. In Texas, we hold municipal elections on first Saturday in May.

Also states have the right to run primaries as they see fit. (Setting the date, caucus or primary, open or closed primary etc). Also states can decide whether to have "all mail" elections, limited mail, paper ballots, machines, early voting locations and dates etc, as long they don't violate federal laws. Also primaries can't violate federal laws. State political parties determine eligibility for a primary candidate and the state SOS is the final arbitrator of a candidate. For instance Cenk Ugyur is not eligible to be president. He filed as a Democratic candidate. He has been struck by several state's SOS, yet it appears he will end up on the Texas Democratic primary ballot.


Also the Voting Rights Act is a federal law, which also applies to most facets of local elections. https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws

[FBaggins]

95. They wouldn't be (assuming they take it)

They would be reviewing a state court’s interpretation of the federal constitution

[Quixote1818]

112. If you have different states supreme courts coming up with different decisions, how can they not? nt

[Fullduplexxx]

114. States run their own elections those that will allow it will those that dont wont

[Polybius]

121. Because it's a federal election n/t

[Fullduplexxx]

127. States run federal elections ... it's still a state matter

[Polybius]

161. Sure

But the result will be federal. The SC must act.

[jcgoldie]

34. Depends whose money wants Trump out

Koch brothers want Trump out of the way who else does? Clarence for one is for sale.$$$

[sop]

60. That's probably the best (and most optimistic) way to look at this.

The corporate wing of the GOP wants Trump gone, and they control the court.

[Walleye]

87. I'm not so sure the corporate wing is more powerful than the Maga anymore

[JohnnyRingo]

36. I believe Trump will be easy to beat in 2024.

I'm not as certain about candidate X, so if the SC shoots this ruling down I'll be confident for four more years of Biden.

[ancianita]

38. IT HAS TO. Or else it refutes the actual black and white Constitution. It has to.

Michael Luttig said this is the perfect case. If the SC doesn't back CO's Supreme Court, there is no longer equality before the law.

[JohnSJ]

42. I think this SC will overturn the Colorado SC ruling using that trump has not been found guilty of an insurrection.

[ancianita]

45. It CANNOT overturn the factual finding of that court's ruling. It is a factual ruling. Three reasons:

States' rights. The facts are indisputable. The Roberts Court legacy.

[FBaggins]

91. Of course it can

Or, more simply, it can rule that SCOCO lacks the power to make such findings of fact in the first place.

Note the still-unanswered issue: three liberals on SCOCO dissented. Considering it difficult for six conservatives to come up with a rationale to overturn the ruling when three liberals had no trouble doing so is… we’ll say “overly optimistic “

[ancianita]

99. Nope. Those findings of fact were not what the 3 COSC liberals based their dissent on. It was about 'sufficient'

due process.

That the majority 4 know that the U.S. Constitution overrides states' law that might either uphold/contradict the 14th's clear constitutional requirements for disqualification is not even at stake; second, the hours/days of arguments, and their 200 page ruling, more than meet any due process standard at state levels. Just like the previous judge who abdicated taking a stand, so did these liberal three, probably not to give the appearance of political bias.

What's at stake is the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court, not the prior fact finding rulings of both a state and appellate court.

[FBaggins]

104. "Sufficient due process" IS a critique of the findings of fact

They explicitly say something like "even though we agree what he did was bad and might even be insurrection" that doesn't satisfy the due process requirements of the constitution.

Insurrection is a federal crime (and it was already one when the 14th was written). Due process involves being charged with that offense in a federal court and being convicted by a jury. You can't replace the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial (where the jury must be unanimous) with a judicial panel narrow majority suddently becomming the finder of fact.

[ancianita]

123. It was sufficient, and filed in a federal district court. Evidence of rebellion AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION was presented,

and the court ruled given the self executing meaning of Section 3 of the 14th, no conviction required.
Do you seriously believe that the court overlooked having a jury trial?
It is a pure question of constitutional law, not a mixed question of fact and law.

[FBaggins]

131. Do I seriously believe they overlooked the need for a jury trial?

The dissents sure seem to… and (once again) they were not biased conservative judges.

How you think that gets by SCOTUS is beyond me.

It is a pure question of constitutional law

So you’re dropping the nonsense that it’s really a factual ruling that SCOTUS can’t review?

[ancianita]

137. Link their dissent. I gotta read it to believe it.

As for ...

How you think that gets by SCOTUS is beyond me.

It is a pure question of constitutional law

So you’re dropping the nonsense that it’s really a factual ruling that SCOTUS can’t review?

... I'm just quoting Luttig's exact words. Did you watch the video? AND I'm not saying that a factual finding is one that SCOTUS won't review. I hope it DOES take the case and make a ruling that, for the record, will then apply to all 50 states. I don't want it to just accept the two lower courts' rulings and kick the question back to all the states when Section 3 is clearly, according to Luttig and the NM precedent, a self executing law like the age requirement for president.

[FBaggins]

141. You keep posting as though you had read the ruling

Were you not aware that the last 70 pages or so was dissent? https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

Emphasis mine -

From the CJ

My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection-related offense.

...snip...

In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent

From Justice Samour -

Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law. Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past—dare I say, engaged in insurrection—there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office. Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America’s democracy that sets this country apart.

...snip...

In the first American Declaration of Rights in 1776, George Mason wrote that “no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by . . . the recognition by all citizens that they have . . . rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.” Va. Const. art. I, § 15. Some two and a half centuries later, those words still ring true. In 2023, just as in 1776, all, including those people who may have committed horrendous acts, are entitled to procedural due process. ¶350 Because I cannot in good conscience join my colleagues in the majority in ruling that Section Three is self-executing and that the expedited procedures in our Election Code afforded President Trump adequate due process of law, I respectfully dissent. Given the current absence of federal legislation to enforce Section Three, and given that President Trump has not been charged pursuant to section 2383, the district court should have granted his September 29 motion to dismiss.

Justice Berkenkotter's dissent essentially says that the petitioners had no standing to sue and that the CO legislature didn't grant the courts the ability to make this determination in the first place. He therefore never gets to the point of discussion procedural due process.


I hope it DOES take the case and make a ruling that, for the record, will then apply to all 50 states.

Well... I suspect that you'll get that much. But not in the way one would hope.

I'm not confident that it will even be just 6-3.

[ancianita]

155. My bad. I only got through the first 50 or so pages. I've been renovating and got distracted. Still, no excuse.

It does seem that Luttig disagrees with both dissents, and granted he's not on the bench.
So you think the dissents can persuade the SCOTUS?

I myself doubt it, since they also know that Trump is concurrently delaying his own due process over (permanent) immunity in his DC criminal case. As Weissman says, SCOTUS only needs 5.

Thank you for the excerpts and emphases.

[Freethinker65]

40. Agree. They may even rule as they did for Bush vs. Gore, that the ruling should not be used as precedent

It will be argued this is a narrow ruling for Trump's benefit only, just because (insert something nonsensical).

[Maraya1969]

47. But then what if he is found guilty in the GA case?

[JohnSJ]

50. Isn't that entirely a state issue? The Colorado SC wades into the US Constitution, Article 7 as their justification

to exclude him from the ballot.

I think this US SC will rule that since he has not been found guilty of an insurrection, Article 7 doesn't apply.

[Maraya1969]

115. His charges in Georgia are very similar to an insurection except there is no violence

"Former US President Donald Trump has been arrested on 13 charges in Georgia for his alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

The 98-page indictment, issued on 14 August, claims that Mr Trump "unlawfully conspired" to change the election outcome while participating in a "criminal enterprise"."

So if the SCOTUS overturns the CO ruling and he is found guilty in Georgia then the only thing that makes a difference is if he was violent.

I think the GA case is enough of an indictment

[ecstatic]

48. David frum said that the other GOP candidates' reactions

will weigh heavily on the politically influenced justices on the Supreme Court. He said they're probably looking for signals from other republicans that it is okay to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.

Personally, I don't know that it's as simple as what Frum thinks. We're dealing with a Supreme Court that is operating as if they are above the law. They're doing whatever the hell they want to do. Pay to play. If the billionaires who are propping up the fascist-five are ready to pull the plug on trump, he's done. So the question is, are there millionaires and billionaires who are still invested in trump and willing to drop cash on his behalf? Or Will trump himself pay them off?

[RoeVWade]

53. We need a majority, not unanimous. Roberts? + ?

I'm still hopeful.

[mymomwasright]

56. The section is Self-Executing

If SC goes against the language, they defy the constitution. Doesn't mean they won't, it'll just solidify who they are and what they believe.

[Ponietz]

57. Clear and convincing evidence supports the CO Supreme Court factual findings

It’s a civil case, not a criminal case.

Indictments, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and convictions are criminal law standards that do not apply here.

[dalton99a]

58. It will probably happen after they disqualify him because of his body odor

Alito: "Hey, Clarence, you see anything in the Constitution about body odor?"
Thomas: "Nope"

[duhneece]

59. Couy Griffin was never convicted of insurrection but Court removed him and he can't hold office

Couy Griffin, founder of Cowboys for Trump, whose video with him saying, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” was retweeted by Trump was ‘only’ convicted of trespassing.
This judge ruled that he WAS engaged in insurrection, removed his as my County Commissioner, and Couy can’t hold ANY elected position in all the US:
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/judge-removes-couy-griffin-from-office-for-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/#:~:text=SANTA%20FE%20—%20A%20New%20Mexico,3%20of%20the%2014th%20Amendment.

[mzmolly]

61. The Constitution doesn't mention a guilty verdict.

The Colorado Supreme court found Trump did engage in an insurrection and thus can't hold office.

[JohnSJ]

66. I believe that is what the US SC will use as their reasoning to overturn the Colorado SC decision. In other words, they

will say that he has not been given due process.

In other words I think they will rule that Article 7 requires due process in their interpretation.

While the House of Representatives impeached trump for incitement of insurrection, he was not convicted by the Senate on those charges. Also, Jack Smith did not charge trump with insurrection, and the items Jack Smith charged him with

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding
Conspiracy Against Rights

have yet to be decided in federal court.

[mzmolly]

132. I'm unsure how they can reason that.

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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.

Nothing in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment declares that disqualification is based upon a guilty verdict. The Colorado court found correctly, that Trump engaged in insurrection/rebellion. Not to mention he's now offering pardons (comfort) to those who engaged in the attempted coup.

That said, it's possible the SCOTUS, now loaded with right-wingers, thanks in part to third-party leftists, may find a way to help Trump destroy democracy. I don't underestimate their ability to do the wrong thing.

[scipan]

139. But it's not criminal, it's a civil finding of fact.

The standard is different.

Link to tweet

?t=uL4kWqYtwYnNpl8Jn9B8BQ&s=19
Bolding is mine.

The Colorado decision to disqualify Trump was based upon a provision in the 14th amendment which was ratified after the civil war. A war which saw hundreds of thousands of American deaths. It was passed bc those in power knew how dangerous it would be to have someone in office who is disloyal to our Republic. Trump fits the bill considering he fomented an insurrection to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and to have him remain as POTUS. Trump does not need to be charged or convicted with insurrection - a criminal charge. Removing him from the ballot is a non-criminal civil action. A lesser burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt - criminal - needs to be met. It’s my understanding that the standard, evidence which is clear and convincing, be presented in order to remove him from the ballot. The decision will likely be reviewed by SCOTUS. My feeling is that they’ll uphold the decision. Regardless, we vote no matter what occurs.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

64. They are going to have to do some contortions to say the national gov't

can intervene in state's decisions about elections. Elections are one of the things that the Constitution is pretty clear can't be fucked with without serious issues (like violating protected classes).

Saying that the states can't do what they want is going to cut against a lot of their state's rights decisions.

[JohnSJ]

72. I think they will say that the State of Colorado is basing their ruling on Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution, and

they will rule their interpretation of Article 7 requires due process before it can be applied, at least that is how I see them ruling.

As for state rights, the bush v Gore is an example of their intrusion into "state's rights decisions"

[hurple]

65. I don't even have the hope that you do

I think they will both reverse the Colorado decision and find him immune from prosecution for "questioning the outcome of suspect electuon results," which is what they will also declare was what happened on Jan 6.

However, I do have hope that the CO decision will start a cascade and the comfortably blue states will follow before the SCOTUS can hear the case, thus ramping up the pressure. But, they will likely wait until after the SCOTUS releases a decision on CO.

[JohnSJ]

68. If they rule that he is immune from prosecution, then they are ruling that a President is above the law, and that

will be the end of democracy here.

[hurple]

124. Not Really

They don't need to rule a President is immune from prosecution, the only need rule that his actions, on that day, do not meet the need for prosecution.

Think they won't/can't?

The entire R party has bent farther to give that asshat what he wants, and to save him in the past. They can do it again.

Like I said, they will use the conspiracy theories, like they have in other recent cases, to say that he was only contesting a troubled election, fraught with potential.massive fraud, and that that action falls within a president's rights. Thereby freeing him from prosecution in this, and only in this, case.

Remember, this is a SCOTUS that has ruled on cases that did not even happen in order to further their extreme right wing agenda. You think they won't again?

[bucolic_frolic]

67. The faint hopes are with

Amy and Neil. Roberts, Sam, Clarence? Fuhgedaboutit. BeerBonger? Wildcard, but so much under Roberts tutelage. Odd for a middle aged man.

Call me crazy, but A&N have at times written opinions that indicate they actually read the law. And Colorado SC has sent an opinion for the Ages up the pipeline.

[gab13by13]

134. Clarence will vote how he is told to vote,

[Hugin]

69. Alas, I believe you are correct and here's why.

Although, CO has a well justified reason and has stated it’s case with clear Constitutional support.

If the SCrOTUS allows the ruling to stand, it will green light other States, TX and FL jump immediately to mind, to remove President Biden’s name from their ballots for no reason.

Which, now that the cat is out of the bag those States may do anyway. Probably using immigration as the issue. A ruling against CO’s ruling would make this more difficult, but not in time to get President Biden’s name back on the ballots in those insurrectionist States. Because you know, the gears of justice grind slowly for Democrats and reproductive rights.

Such is how the Thomas SCrOTUS rolls.

[KS Toronado]

71. This Court ruled against Тяцмp in all the "stolen election" cases

that crossed their desk. They know he's a clear and present danger to Democracy,
they'll find a way to rule that will not make Тяцмp happy. In my wildest dreams......
they kick him off every State's Ballots.

[JohnSJ]

74. That is a different issue. I think they will base this decision on Colorado's SC interpretation of the 14th amendment,

and say the 14th amendment implies due process.

I will be very surprised if they exclude trump from the ballot.

[KS Toronado]

90. My glass is half full

They rule against him in such a way that makes it harder for him to reclaim the White House.
Bottom line.............this Court don't care about the law/rules, their opinions reflect what they
want America to look like and they don't like Fascism.

[gab13by13]

136. So, Trump wasn't given any opportunity to defend himself in Colorado?

Weren't his lawyers involved?

[LeftyLucie]

75. Thomas should recuse himself; Roberts should uphold the the ruling. A 4-4 tie would leave the SCOCO decision intact.

It's a long shot, I know; but that's what I'm holding out for.

[JT45242]

77. By that logic if the Jan 6 DC trial finds him guilty, then he could be removed nationwide

If you think SCOTUS will say that 'no conviction for insurrection' has occurred, then the next logical conclusion would be that if there is a CONVICTION for an insurrection offense, that he would be removed from the ballot.

The question would be will they give specific US Section Codes of counts that would amount to insurrection (would be interesting if they include an espionage conviction which certainly could be part of the documents case or cases if they charge for the missing binder with others flipping on him.

That sort of manipulation of the law while ignoring the ORIGINAL INTENT (as the grifters have so often cited) could be the Solomon route for SCOTUS to be partisan.
They state that insurrection = conviction of statuses X, Y, and Z. [Which could be sound legal precedent]
They state that TFG has not been convicted of X,y, or Z.
Therefore, he is not disqualified.

Now they may choose very carefully what those X,Y, or Z charges are to make certain that they are not on any of the current indictments for TFG.

[flashman13]

78. You have to remember tRunp's 3 appointees have life tenure. They

are not beholding to tRump for anything in the future. He can't touch them. They are free in their originalist zeal to interpret the meaning of the text as written and give him the boot.

I think even tRump's 3 justices might realize the country would be better off without the orange fascist in charge. I know - that could be wishful thinking.

[JohnSJ]

83. I think we can write off Thomas and Alito, because they are completely compromised. It will be Roberts and

Kavanaugh that will determine this outcome.

[flashman13]

89. I agree. Gorsuch is a wild card.

[FBaggins]

94. Rethink that calculus

Given that there are more than two partisans on the court (some might say there are nine)… how can you believe that only two will come up with a rationale for overturning this when there were three on a court with zero conservatives?

[Joinfortmill]

85. This appears to follow a certain logic, and could be convincingly argued, I think, but what do I know?

Even if SCOTUS only rules that Trump is not immune to prosecution, it will signal the end of Trump.

[Doc Sportello]

92. Am I alone in thinking this episode will end up as a footnote?

I know the current ruling is historic and that the media is covering it as such. But this ruling wouldn't happen in the states dump will win, or in the toss-up states, right? So, even if it is upheld which the OP says is very doubtful, it wouldn't have any effect on the overall election outcome. Is this wrong?

[Prairie Gates]

102. Probably right on that

It makes Trump's path slightly narrower, but not by much. The main concern is that it will influence primary voters to change horses. The GOP as so deeply entrenched in Trump's ass crack that that also seems unlikely. Probably a wash, but it's definitely fun as hell watching the Internet Legal Scholars who usually promote conservative ideals twisting themselves around on this one. Entertainment value, at least.

[33taw]

96. I agree. This will be stayed on January 4th or when he files an appeal. Read page 9 of the announcement

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[LeftInTX]

103. It's right there....

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.

My understanding: If Trump appeals to the USSC before Jan 4th, he will be on the ballot.

[33taw]

118. I fully believe this will be appealed and Trump will be on the ballot until the USSC makes a decision.

[bigtree]

97. maybe not. But think of the uproar when the Trump infused SC

...says the president isn't sworn to uphold the Constitution, and can't be held accountable under that document.

[Arazi]

129. Succinct and perfect 🎯

[Sympthsical]

105. Feels a little early in the day to put on my Internet Constitution Expert cap

I do wonder about the due process portion of the program - and I've read the arguments against it. I don't know. It becomes a question of who has the authority to make these determinations, these findings of fact. Do states, because elections are largely left to them? Or, because everyone's standing on the federal constitution, is this the Supreme Court's call? I don't know.

I keep returning to the Wars of the Roses in these things. Henry IV overthrew Richard II because he could. His reasons were intentionally left vague and ultimately hand-waved away on arcane primogeniture gobbledy gook, because he knew he didn't want to be too, too specific about his justifications. People just knew they really wanted it to happen, and they patched together some legal hocus pocus to go with it.

However, once that chain of authority was broken and a lesser royal line felt they could go after the throne, they did it with all the enthusiasm. Once the precedent is set, all bets were off. And it severely damaged the realm. Authority broke down all over the place and chaos reigned.

So, in that context, I keep asking this question: "Do we want states to be able to do this themselves?" In the moment, this works against Trump. But once we set this precedent, will red states decide Democrats don't need to be on the ballot. Forget red states for a moment. What about purple states where thin Republican majorities start ramming things through?

Is this unlocking some kind of chaos we do not intend to have pointed in our direction?

We have to be careful about what we want in the moment. Things always have a way of turning against you in hilariously ironic ways. History manages it often. It's like watching people on college campuses spend years constructing speech codes, drawing up hate speech violations, discussing how speech they didn't like was "literally violence." And then it whirled towards the Palestinian protesters, and suddenly it's all a New McCarthyism. Well, no. It's your rules that you set down coming right back to you. As was very predictable.

Will this disqualification come back to us in ways we do not intend and in ways that actually serve to weaken democracy?

I do not have an answer. I really don't. But I'm not comfortable at the moment. I'm not sure this is a good idea. I think, in getting what we want in the now, we may be setting ourselves up in the future.

I just hope people much smarter than me are being much more careful about this than the average internet commenter. Which, I've seen Twitter. That's like a 50/50 proposition on our best days.

[Hugin]

108. Thanks for your in depth pondering.

That alone is what sets Democrats apart from whatevertherestofthosepeopleare.

[Kid Berwyn]

106. It's what the 14th Amendment says.

"Trump, you doddering turd insurrectionist bastard, you and your pimply ass traitor carcas and all them Putin stooges canno' be anywhere near the fudging Oval Office ever again. Fuck off!"*

My translation.

[CaptainTruth]

107. This disqualification should be in state constitutions.

SCOTUS has generally upheld federalism & ruled in favor of the concept that states handle elections, including ballot eligibility requirements.

In cases where issues were in state constitutions, & those items didn't violate the Constitution or federal law, SCOTUS has consistently ruled in support of state constitutions, again, supporting federalism.

Edit to make sure my point is clear: If SCOTUS supports the concept that states handle elections, & states have this disqualification in their constitution (or just state law?) it gives states a means of disqualifying candidates (refusing to allow them on the ballot) in a way that SCOTUS has repeatedly supported.

[tritsofme]

142. Quite the opposite, SCOTUS has historically held that states have very little power over eligibility of federal

candidates, absent what is written in the federal Constitution.

Under the thinking of US Term Limits v Thornton, it would seem any state law that purports to disqualify beyond the 14 Amendment would be unconstitutional.

[Silent Type]

109. Harlan Crow, the Kochs, etc., who have turned on trump MIGHT tell Thomas, etc., to end trump's hold on GOP.

[orthoclad]

113. LAW or POWER?

Trump and his predecessors did not pack the Supreme Court with Reich-wing ideologues in order to interpret the law with justice. As Citizens United showed, it's all about Power, and who can buy it. In the US, a very few people hold most of the money, er, power.

This may be the moment, or one of them, that this Court has been keeping its powder dry for. They've thrown a few bones to Reason to keep us from taking corrective actions like impeachment or prosecution. We missed the chance to expand the Court and balance the power when we had Congress and the White House. Trump knows that his pet Court is his ace in the hole.

That said, Trump is only one of many puppets. He has the advantage of controlling a large and devoted cult. DeSantis or one of the other puppets in the stable could also do the work of the oligarchy.

Keep our fingers crossed, and keep up the pressure of sunlight on the Court's corruption.

[Arazi]

116. Speculate away but only the billionaire masters of the SCOTUS 6 matter

Do they want #Traitor on the ballot?

The corrupt conservative justices will do what their owners tell them to do and it will have nothing to do with constitutional questions.

Only thing now is to watch how much payola this cost them. ProPublica might sniff it out and be able to tell us some day in the next 10 years…

[appleannie1]

117. Roberts just might surprise everyone.

And Kavanaugh is another wild card.

[republianmushroom]

119. Agree, but I'll enjoy the feel good feeling while I can.

[Polybius]

120. I'll one better ya:

The decision will be 8-1 or 9-0.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. I had thought like you, but then noticed that Congress only freed Jefferson Davis from disqualification in 1978

That, in accordance with
section 3 of amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States,
the legal disabilities placed upon Mr. Jefferson F. Davis are hereby
removed, and that Mr. Jefferson F. Davis is posthumously restored
to the full rights of citizenship, effective December 25, 1868.
Approved October 17, 1978.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/16/text

(Sponsored by a Republican, FWIW)

Now, that implies that people thought then that Davis, despite never being convicted of treason, insurrection etc., had lived his remaining life still banned by that section of the Amendment (Robert E. Lee got a similar pardon in 1975). So that gives a precedent for it applying without any verdict convicting the person.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/section-3-14th-amendment-us-constitution-trump-2024-ballot/

[LeftInTX]

130. Davis and Lee were not US citizens when they died. This bill restored their citizenship

Why Jefferson Davis Got His U.S. Citizenship Back
https://time.com/4802270/jefferson-davis-day-2017/


Trump is still registered to vote and has not had his citizenship revoked.

[FBaggins]

133. It does indeed create a precedent - but not one that works in this case

Like the birth certificates that prove your age and citizenship (for which no trial is needed before you can be declared ineligible to run for president) - there were government documents like the declaration of secession and the fact that he was the elected president of the CSA. If he had tried to run for federal office again, we might have some precedent re: whether or not a trial was needed... but he obviously wasn't questioning whether he had participated in the war.

[LeftInTX]

138. Davis and Lee were not even US citizens, so there's that...

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. But the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment mentioned is the specific section under discussion for Trump

and it's not about citizenship. So, no, I don't think their citizenship was at issue when their status under Section 3 was restored.

[LeftInTX]

148. They were dead for almost 100 years. It was a goodwill gesture. Not being used to determine if they can run for office.

Both Lee and Davis had their citizenship revoked because they became heads of state of a country that waged war on the US.

Trump is a US citizen. He didn't become a citizen of another country and he didn't declare war against the US.
And , section 3 of amendment XIV of the Constitution was used to restore Davis's citizenship.

I'm not seeing how the USSC would string these two events together.....



Restoration of Citizenship Rights to Jefferson F. Davis Statement on Signing S. J. Res. 16 into Law.
October 17, 1978
In posthumously restoring the full rights of citizenship to Jefferson Davis, the Congress officially completes the long process of reconciliation that has reunited our people following the tragic conflict between the States. Earlier, he was specifically exempted from resolutions restoring the rights of other officials in the Confederacy. He had served the United States long and honorably as a soldier, Member of the U.S. House and Senate, and as Secretary of War. General Robert E. Lee's citizenship was restored in 1976. It is fitting that Jefferson Davis should no longer be singled out for punishment.

Our Nation needs to clear away the guilts and enmities and recriminations of the past, to finally set at rest the divisions that threatened to destroy our Nation and to discredit the principles on which it was founded. Our people need to turn their attention to the important tasks that still lie before us in establishing those principles for all people.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/restoration-citizenship-rights-jefferson-f-davis-statement-signing-s-j-res-16-into-law

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. section 3 of amendment XIV of the Constitution does not mention citizenship; it mentions the right to run for office

ie just one of the "rights of citizenship" (another right, for instance, is to vote - but that too can be taken away, in that case by courts in convictions. Losing that right does not mean they have lost their citizenship). They don't need to "string events together"; they are already about the same section of the constitution. According to Congress, Davis lost the right to run for office due to that section, without being convicted of anything.

[Vinca]

140. I guess it all depends on what Harlan Crow and all the other owners want.

[TheKentuckian]

149. While I'd love to see Agolf Tweetler off the political map

I lean against because I do believe it is necessary to get a legal conviction not just a judicial opinion.

The risk of unintended consequences and warring judges is too high.

He and his minions should have been on trial for the insurrection already.

[PBateman70]

151. Yep

I agree totally!

[marble falls]

152. So what are the polls telling you? What the record of the last three years should tell you is TFG has not ...

... had a lot of luck in the courts even ignoring his indicted offenses. Very little luck at all.

[TexasDem69]

154. It might

But even if it does that won’t keep Trump off the ballot anywhere but Colorado.

[JohnSJ]

158. If the SC rules he is off the ballot in Colorado, the other states will soon follow

[TexasDem69]

159. The other states would have to follow some process

They can’t just adopt a court ruling from Colorado. Which states would even try to keep him off that matter though—Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, North Carolina all seem like non-starters

[JohnSJ]

160. If they rule he is off the ballot because he was part of the insurrection, that ruling

would apply nationally.

That being said, I think the SC. will overrule the Colorado decision on the basis of due process.

[BootinUp]

156. A 6-3 decision would just be more

Evidence that the court is terribly broken. I don’t know what is going to happen. Hopefully the court will come to a more unified decision than 6-3.