Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

[WEATHER53]

It’s not a “decision” as in displaying developed mental functioning. It’s an extreme construing to arrive at a political purposed outcome
SC spends 20 minutes before tossing. Probably only two AA dissenters.

 

[WEATHER53]

When USSC overturned Rowe they death with existing law
These 4 commies made up their own “law” that because Trump has been Accused of things he can’t run . Pompous assess virtue signaling and completely exceeding what they are permitted to do

 

[WEATHER53]

Funny how NONE of Trump's 91 indictments are for such a heinous crime as the GASP J6 INSURRECTION!!!

Insurrection is Media Made Up and libs parrot.

 

[SavannahMann]

Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Read the decision:

Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. Here is the full ruling.

www.nytimes.com

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

"The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle for all states whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running."

Order Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part
en banc
December 19, 2023

PER CURIAM.1
¶1 More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in
the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated
voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the
court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not
appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.

¶2 Invoking provisions of Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992,
§§ 1-1-101 to 1-13-804, C.R.S. (2023) (the “Election Code”), the Electors requested
that the district court prohibit Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado’s
Secretary of State (“the Secretary”), from placing President Trump’s name on the
presidential primary ballot. They claimed that Section Three of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Section Three”) disqualified President
Trump from seeking the presidency. More specifically, they asserted that he was
ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6,
2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.

No need to call in any calligraphers to read the writing on the wall.

I liked this article. After reading the opinions the author decided the action was proper.

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind

The strongest argument for throwing Trump off the ballot is the weakness of the counterarguments.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[SavannahMann]

It’s not a “decision” as in displaying developed mental functioning. It’s an extreme construing to arrive at a political purposed outcome
SC spends 20 minutes before tossing. Probably only two AA dissenters.

Quick question. What if the SC doesn’t overturn the Colorado decision?

 

[Natural Citizen]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

 

[Natural Citizen]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I liked this article. After reading the opinions the author decided the action was proper.

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind

The strongest argument for throwing Trump off the ballot is the weakness of the counterarguments.

www.theatlantic.com

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind​

The strongest argument for throwing Trump off the ballot is the weakness of the counterarguments.

The Colorado Ruling Changed My Mind

The strongest argument for throwing Trump off the ballot is the weakness of the counterarguments.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...ation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold as
follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s
status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the
Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating
whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under
Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section
Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that
sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section
Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone
who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of
Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.


The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding
the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be
a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate
on the presidential primary ballot.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly. We are mindful of the magnitude
and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn
duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public
reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory, and that this
case presents several issues of first impression. But for our resolution of the
Electors’ challenge under the Election Code, the Secretary would be required to
include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.

Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme
Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s
deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is
sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the
stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include
President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt
of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I posted a fuller context.

 

[Mac-7]

Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Read the decision:

Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot

Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol. Here is the full ruling.

www.nytimes.com

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

"The decision is certain to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will be up to the justices to decide whether to take the case. Scholars have said only the nation’s high court can settle for all states whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol constituted an insurrection and whether Trump is banned from running."

Order Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part
en banc
December 19, 2023

PER CURIAM.1
¶1 More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in
the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated
voters (“the Electors”)—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City
and County of Denver (“Denver District Court” or “the district court”), asking the
court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) may not
appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.

¶2 Invoking provisions of Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992,
§§ 1-1-101 to 1-13-804, C.R.S. (2023) (the “Election Code”), the Electors requested
that the district court prohibit Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado’s
Secretary of State (“the Secretary”), from placing President Trump’s name on the
presidential primary ballot. They claimed that Section Three of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Section Three”) disqualified President
Trump from seeking the presidency. More specifically, they asserted that he was
ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6,
2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.

No need to call in any calligraphers to read the writing on the wall.

This is partisan politics masquerading as a legal opinion

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is partisan politics masquerading as a legal opinion

The Colorado Court That Barred Trump: Appointed by Democrats but Narrowly Split​

The 4-3 decision was harshly criticized by Trump supporters, who called it undemocratic. But some observers say the court is notably nonpartisan.

The Colorado Supreme Court, which barred former President Donald J. Trump from the state’s primary ballot, is composed of seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors.

Justices on the court serve 10-year terms, and Democrats have held the governor’s office for the last 16 years, so all of the current justices were appointed by that party, with five appointed by one man: John Hickenlooper, who was governor from 2011 to 2019 and is now one of the state’s U.S. senators.

Still, the chief justice, Brian Boatright, is a Republican, while three justices are Democrats and three are listed in voter registration records as “unaffiliated” with a party.

And the court was not of one mind on whether Mr. Trump should appear on the ballot. The decision was 4-3, with the court ruling that the 14th Amendment forbade Mr. Trump from holding office because he had “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters overran the Capitol. (Of the four who voted with the majority, two are registered Democrats and two are not registered with a party.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20231221213824/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/colorado-supreme-court-barred-trump.html

The Colorado Court That Barred Trump: Appointed by Democrats but Narrowly Split

The 4-3 decision was harshly criticized by Trump supporters, who called it undemocratic. But some observers say the court is notably nonpartisan.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Natural Citizen]

I posted a fuller context.

All that really matters in scope is the section that I snipped.

Explaining why you felt like you had to shit on the rug is irrelevant and basically just a bunch of weasel words when you ultimately admit that you knew it was wrong to shit on the rug.

All that the 4 particular activist Colorado SC Judges are doing here is trying to tie things up, on the assumption that the SCOTUS might not toss it until after Trump's case has run its course.

I'm just wondering whether the SCOTUS will reprimand the Colorado SC when they strike it down. Which they will. Likey unanimously.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I posted a fuller context.

Also, I just had an orange.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Also, I just had an orange.

And I just took a shit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Explaining why you felt like you had to shit on the rug is irrelevant

Channeling the Liability Welcher.

 

[Mac-7]

The Colorado Court That Barred Trump: Appointed by Democrats but Narrowly Split​

The 4-3 decision was harshly criticized by Trump supporters, who called it undemocratic. But some observers say the court is notably nonpartisan.

The Colorado Supreme Court, which barred former President Donald J. Trump from the state’s primary ballot, is composed of seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors.

Justices on the court serve 10-year terms, and Democrats have held the governor’s office for the last 16 years, so all of the current justices were appointed by that party, with five appointed by one man: John Hickenlooper, who was governor from 2011 to 2019 and is now one of the state’s U.S. senators.

Still, the chief justice, Brian Boatright, is a Republican, while three justices are Democrats and three are listed in voter registration records as “unaffiliated” with a party.

And the court was not of one mind on whether Mr. Trump should appear on the ballot. The decision was 4-3, with the court ruling that the 14th Amendment forbade Mr. Trump from holding office because he had “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters overran the Capitol. (Of the four who voted with the majority, two are registered Democrats and two are not registered with a party.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20231221213824/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/colorado-supreme-court-barred-trump.html

The Colorado Court That Barred Trump: Appointed by Democrats but Narrowly Split

The 4-3 decision was harshly criticized by Trump supporters, who called it undemocratic. But some observers say the court is notably nonpartisan.

www.nytimes.com

They are political hacks

 

[Natural Citizen]

Explaining why you felt like you had to shit on the rug is irrelevant

Channeling the Liability Welcher.

I wasn't referencing you personally.

I was referencing the fact that the court stayed its ruling and openly acknowledged its snowball's chance in Hell of being upheld.

And the champ don't channel anybody. Umkay?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the fact that the court stayed its ruling and openly acknowledged its snowball's chance in Hell of being upheld.

Wrong

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Legal Opinion not Political Argument: Read the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Disqualifying Trump From the Ballot​

DONE