Lawsuit to block Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot survives more legal challenges

[Rawley]

In her opinion, let the appeals begin.

Did you read the opinion? She's got bad case of TDS and even she had to admit the obvious.

 

[konradv]

Did you read the opinion? She's got bad case of TDS and even she had to admit the obvious.

She didn’t have the courage to set precedent. Another state, another judge, another day.

 

[beautress]

It's going to be real hard to win 270 electoral votes when you can't even compete in certain states. Not that he would win 270 in the first place. MAGA is done.

Lawsuit to block Trump from Colorado 2024 ballot survives more legal challenges​

A judge has rejected three more attempts by former President Donald Trump and the Colorado GOP to shut down a lawsuit seeking to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in the state based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

The flurry of rulings late Friday from Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace are a blow to Trump, who faces candidacy challenges in multiple states stemming from his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. He still has a pending motion to throw out the Colorado lawsuit, but the case now appears on track for an unprecedented trail this month.

A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection” or have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists. But the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce the ban, and it has been applied only twice since the 1800s.


A liberal watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed the Colorado case on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated voters. The judge is scheduled to preside over a trial beginning October 30 to decide a series of novel legal questions about how the 14th Amendment could apply to Trump.

In a 24-page ruling, Wallace rejected many of Trump’s arguments that the case was procedurally flawed and should be shut down. She said the key question of whether Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold has the power to block Trump from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment “is a pivotal issue and one best reserved for trial.”

Wallace also swatted away arguments from the Colorado GOP that state law gives the party, not election officials, ultimate say on which candidates appear on the ballot.

The trick the Coloradans are pulling is unconstitutional. They cannot make anti-United States Constitutional laws and expect their Unconstitutionally-perverted election to count correctly. Trump did not create any insurrection. His adjectives to the protest was for participants to engage in peaceful and patriotic behaviors. He had nothing to do with anything but encouraging peaceful and patriotic protests. Civil protests are governed by the First Amendment.

So Colorado doesn't like the First Amendment?

 

[beautress]

The trick the Coloradans are pulling is unconstitutional. They cannot make anti-United States Constitutional laws and expect their Unconstitutionally-perverted election to count correctly. Trump did not create any insurrection. His adjectives to the protest was for participants to engage in peaceful and patriotic behaviors. He had nothing to do with anything but encouraging peaceful and patriotic protests. Civil protests are governed by the First Amendment.

So Colorado doesn't like the First Amendment?

Thumbs down, bodecea? You don't think that in a national election it's fair for a state to cancel someone who has been convicted of no crime, has had his name slurred by liars 24/7/365 with 3,000 lies or more per diem on 300 tv stations in the nation and quite a number of radio stations across the nation. Colorado is basically cancelling the right of conservative Republicans in their state to vote? That skews the people of their own state, and I don't think such unfairness is in accordance with the voting system we inherited from the Founders belief that 1 man, 1 vote is the correct voting procedure. I don't think any state is above the Constitution. It makes us free people with basic human rights, and voting is a basic human right. Another problem I have with the state decision to cancel people's right to vote for the national candidate of all states, based on calumnies perpetrated by deep state followers of Hillary Clinton who created quite a lie when she foisted the Steele Dossier, attributed to a foreign agent and spy by the name of Steele. That too is an abominable set of lies that claimed President Trump colluded with the Russians. The Mueller Report findings could not verify jealous Hillary's lies against her rival for the Presidency in the 2020 election. She lost, and she's trying to claw his reputation off the face of the earth, and he has always dealt honestly in business, paid people good salaries for their tasks in his hospitality businesses worth a lot more than he claimed according to his certified public accountants. Other "inquiries" found Trump innocent of Mrs. Clinton's trumped-up charges, her war room's multiple calumnies that turned out to be projections of what their boss, Hillary Clinton, was actually doing herself, and that Donald John Trump had no part of. I'm here to tell you, my brave adversary in thought, the Clinton deep staters were flat out barking up the wrong tree. And that's what the false charges used against Trump and aired over a well-paid-for press thanks to a Mr. Soros who paid for an all-out war on Trump, his Staff; his family; his fellow Republicans; and his American people/voters who put him in the White House based on his merits in his business that are tops on truth and transparency no matter what lies are spread around to trip up the American voters with each and every planned hit against his clean reputation in his business endeavors.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because these people hate actual democracy.

Huh?

Original: News 5 Cleveland reports After Ohio Supreme Court dismisses anti-abortion arguments, advocates work to unveil total abortion ban pblshd.23.12.18 M.Trau
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Anti-abortion advocates say they are working with Ohio lawmakers to put forward a total abortion ban. This comes after the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the state's appeal to enforce a near-total abortion ban.



It’s happening behind the scenes. Right now, anti-abortion advocate Austin Beigel is working with lawmakers to introduce a total abortion ban.

His group, End Abortion Ohio, is a growing coalition of anti-abortion advocates and lobbyists. They provided an inside look at their legislation.
It would create a total abortion ban, with an exception for the life of the mother. It would make the procedure or abortion pill a homicide.
Under the proposed bill, the only lawful abortion would need to meet all of the following conditions: be performed by a licensed physician, be intended to save the life of the mother in danger of death, result in an unintentional rather than intentional death of the "preborn human," and be performed after all other "reasonable options" to save both mother and child have been attempted or are unavailable.
The cells, zygote, embryo, fetus and eventually baby-in-womb would have all the same rights as someone who is already born, meaning all criminal and civil laws would apply.

The bill would also nullify state law that allows a person to direct, advise, encourage or solicit a person to have an abortion.

A similar bill in a previous General Assembly drew concerns from in vitro fertilization patients and doctors, who believed it could outlaw the practice. Other concerns came from people who have IUDs or other forms of birth control that they feel the GOP would consider "spermicides."

The draft is currently being discussed in the "Pro-Life Caucus," a group of 27 Republicans inside the Ohio House. There is at least one sponsor and several other cosponsors, according to Beigel.

 

[Frankenstein]

And the idiots in the House of Representatives are acting like its Junior High all over again.

How so moonbat

 

[Frankenstein]

It's about the Constitution, not democracy.

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Never happened idiot!

 

[theHawk]

It’s happening behind the scenes. Right now, anti-abortion advocate Austin Beigel is working with lawmakers to introduce a total abortion ban.

His group, End Abortion Ohio, is a growing coalition of anti-abortion advocates and lobbyists. They provided an inside look at their legislation.
It would create a total abortion ban, with an exception for the life of the mother. It would make the procedure or abortion pill a homicide.

Thanks for proving my point, you are terrified of actual democracy. A bill is being introduced and will be voted on.

 

[Moonglow]

How so moonbat

They can't do their job while they are busy harassing fellow members.

 

[Frankenstein]

They can't do their job while they are busy harassing fellow members.

So how did the house do business while harassing Trump?

 

[Moonglow]

So how did the house do business while harassing Trump?

By having muti-task-talented people.

 

[Synthaholic]

Never happened idiot!

Judges across the country say it did.

 

[Frankenstein]

Judges across the country say it did.

Link up troglodyte

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

MAGA is overdone and will be in the bins by Spring.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, that’s the way it works in a republic.

Wrong.
A republic gives authority to the people whenever possible.
A republic does not allow a single branch to prevent any candidate from being electable.

 

[Moonglow]

Wrong.
A republic gives authority to the people whenever possible.
A republic does not allow a single branch to prevent any candidate from being electable.

Bullshit, read the Constitution...I am enjoying watching the so-called party of God trying to defend their demon candidate.

 

[Rigby5]

Bullshit, read the Constitution...I am enjoying watching the so-called party of God trying to defend their demon candidate.

A republic uses individual rights are the only source of authority.
The Constitution is not a source of authority, but an attempt to allocate jurisdiction between the feds and all else.
There is no way the Constitution can be interpreted as taking away rights of voters to be able to vote for their choice of candidates.
That would be totally contradictory to everything a republic is supposed to stand for.

And again, I am not a Trump supporter in any way.
I am far left of everyone here.
But you simply can not take Trump off the ballot.
That would be the definition of any insurrection, and cause a shooting war.

 

[Moonglow]

A republic uses individual rights are the only source of authority.
The Constitution is not a source of authority, but an attempt to allocate jurisdiction between the feds and all else.
There is no way the Constitution can be interpreted as taking away rights of voters to be able to vote for their choice of candidates.
That would be totally contradictory to everything a republic is supposed to stand for.

And again, I am not a Trump supporter in any way.
I am far left of everyone here.
But you simply can not take Trump off the ballot.
That would be the definition of any insurrection, and cause a shooting war.

The Constitution is not a source of authority

I can't believe anyone would utter such nonsense.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Constitution is not a source of authority

The Constitution is absolutely the source of authority. Authority comes from laws. Our laws are derived from the Constitution.