Findings of fact: Insurrection?

[Dante]

Thought your OP was about "findings of fact?"

That's why I started out the reply with 'Here?'

 

[Dante]

Trump sued himself to keep himself off the ballot in Colorado?

Trump asked both courts to rule on the matter(s).

 

[BackAgain]

Trump cleared for 2024 Colorado ballot, Denver judge rules after eligibility challenge

A Denver judge declined on Friday to find that Donald Trump is ineligible for the state's 2024 presidential ballot because he allegedly engaged in an insurrection, following a similar path as courts elsewhere that have rejected attempts to disqualify the leading Republican candidate.

www.coloradopolitics.com

From the District Court:

On September 6, 2023, Petitioners filed their Verified Petition under_________Petitioners alleged two claims for relief. First, they asserted a claim against the Secretary pursuant to__________Second, they requested declaratory relief against both the Secretary and Trump. The declaratory relief requested included a declaration that Trump was not constitutionally eligible for the office of the presidency.


2. On September 7, 2023, Trump filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 12, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado remanded the case, finding that the Secretary was not a nominal party whose consent to remove was permissive.

3. CRSCC filed a motion to intervene on September 14, 2023. This Court granted that motion on September 18, 2023.

4. On September 22, 2023, Trump filed a Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to_______(“Trump Anti-SLAPP Motion”). In that motion, Trump argued that this case is subject to Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute because Petitioners’ claims all stem from protected speech or the refusal to speak and because the speech concerned election fraud and a hard-fought election, they are the epitome of public issues. Trump further argued Petitioners were unable to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on their claims. As a result, Trump argued, the Court must dismiss the claims.

5. Also on September 22, 2023, Trump separately moved to dismiss Petitioners’ claims (“Trump Procedural Motion to Dismiss”). Specifically, Trump argued: (1) Petitioners may not litigate constitutional claims in a______proceeding; (2) the C.R.S. § 1-4-1204 claim was not ripe; (3) C.R.S. § 1-4-1204 does not provide grounds to use the Fourteenth Amendment to bar candidates; and (4) there is no standing on the declaratory judgment claim because there is no particularized or concrete injury. On September 29, 2023, the Petitioners responded to the Trump Procedural Motion to Dismiss. In that Response, the Petitioners agreed to dismiss their declaratory judgment claim. This Court has since dismissed Petitioners’ claim for declaratory judgment....

then...

Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Electors and President Trump sought this court’s review of various
rulings by the district court.

Zzz

That’s a long way of saying I remain right.

 

[Dante]

Not when they involve Federal offices.

You dopey, ignorant, smooth-brain libturds so quickly forget cases like Bush v. Gore.

Jeez. Get a life.

State primary ballots.

next

 

[Dante]

Zzz

That’s a long way of saying I remain right.

It's been obvious for a seriously long time, that you are fact-challenged.

 

[IM2]

No, he didn't.

And how do reparations NOT violate the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?

Trump violated the 14th and this thread is not about reparations.

 

[Orangecat]

Does America need to stop Trump?

A question that should be answered by the American people at the ballot box. The left is desperately trying to prevent the people from democratically making their choice known. Why? Because they’re afraid the majority of voters will prefer a second Trump term over the shitshow we have now.

 

[BackAgain]

No, trump violated the 14th Amendment.

Prove it. Your claim doesn’t suffice. A hearing court ruling after a mere hearing also doesn’t prove it. And the idiotic Colorado Supreme Court decision may agree with that portion of the lower court pre-trial decision, but that’s not proof, either.

Notice it’s getting appealed. It will be reversed.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump violated the 14th and this thread is not about reparations.

Trump didn’t “violate” the 14th. Your claim doesn’t even make any sense. Put down the pipe.

 

[martybegan]

Trump asked both courts to rule on the matter(s).

I can win a court case by just not showing up to defend myself?

Who knew!

 

[BackAgain]

State primary ballots.

next

Already well understood. Not a material distinction.

 

[martybegan]

Trump violated the 14th and this thread is not about reparations.

No, he didn't and this thread involves the 14th amendment.

How do you give money to one race of citizens and not violate equal protection?

 

[meaner gene]

State primary ballots.

next

Who runs elections is clearly the states. And states can impose requirements beyond what is in the federal constitution. From the Jim Crow laws to those requiring a certain number of signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot.
Purely a state function.

 

[Rawley]

That's why I started out the reply with 'Here?'

Do you always speak in circles? Is your OP about "findings of fact" or not? And if so, what is your question, point, argument that which you expect to discuss?

 

[meaner gene]

A question that should be answered by the American people at the ballot box.

Does that mean Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run for president?
And let the voters decide the constitutional question?

 

[Rawley]

Elections are a state matter.

LOL

 

[Orangecat]

Does that mean Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run for president?
And let the voters decide the constitutional question?

Sit down, child.

 

[Rawley]

Does that mean Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run for president?
And let the voters decide the constitutional question?

What's the Consitutional question Ratty?

 

[martybegan]

Who runs elections is clearly the states. And states can impose requirements beyond what is in the federal constitution. From the Jim Crow laws to those requiring a certain number of signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot.
Purely a state function.

Jim Crow laws were found to be unconstitutional. Bad reference.

Signatures are such a low bar that they have never really been challenged.

What has been challenged and defeated are things like some States attempting to require tax returns be released before a person is on a ballot.

 

[Dante]

OP: Do people see how this (findings of facts), affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?

Donald H:
The Scotus can refuse the Colorado case cleanly. They have the Constitution at their backs.

But will they?

Dante _POST #3
It's too important an issue, and I doubt there exists an argument for ignoring the appeal based on a later appeal addressing concerns in a more constitutional manner.

I'm just wondering why so many self-described legal experts have argued around the District Court's ruling and the Supreme Court's ruling (Colorado courts), without acknowledging or arguing with the phrase 'findings of fact'

Rawley:
What's the argument you expect?

Dante asked: Here?

Donald H: The Scotus can refuse the Colorado case cleanly.

Dante: It's too important an issue, and I doubt there exists an argument for ignoring the appeal based on a later appeal addressing concerns in a more constitutional manner.

Rawley: Thought your OP was about "findings of fact?"

Rawley

Dante: That's why I started out the reply with 'Here?'

So you're asking what argument I'd get from: Do people see how this (findings of facts), affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?

I don't believe I was asking for an argument.