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

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You won and congratulations.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Got to concentrate on WI, MI, GA, AZ, OH, PA.

He concentrated.

 

[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.

Who has the most power, the US Constitution or a petty State Political Party who wants to control a National Election that would prevent someone they hate from being allowed to run for a National election? Their pettiness should control a National Election? Oh, US Congress, are you going to allow one state to control a National Election? I don't think the petty creeps in one state should control the other American States. And if they cancel one candidate they hate, they will destroy the rights of approximately the other 49 sovereign states. Does Colorado have the right to destroy the votes of 300,000,000 Americans in the other 49 states who have the dignity to allow their own states to play fair in National elections? Next thing you know, Washington D.C. Will have to beg one state to play fair. AS Mammy in the movie "Gone With the Wind," once said, "It ain't fittin'. It just ain't fittin'!"

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No one is worrying about Colorado playing fair.

He has more electoral votes than required.

He has won.

 

[Crepitus]

I've been waiting for over a year to come back to this thread. You liberal freaks tried everything and still LOST! Copy and paste this MOOOORON!

No. Son. The whole country lost.

You just don't realize it yet.

 

[Crepitus]

Who has the most power, the US Constitution or a petty State Political Party who wants to control a National Election that would prevent someone they hate from being allowed to run for a National election? Their pettiness should control a National Election? Oh, US Congress, are you going to allow one state to control a National Election? I don't think the petty creeps in one state should control the other American States. And if they cancel one candidate they hate, they will destroy the rights of approximately the other 49 sovereign states. Does Colorado have the right to destroy the votes of 300,000,000 Americans in the other 49 states who have the dignity to allow their own states to play fair in National elections? Next thing you know, Washington D.C. Will have to beg one state to play fair. AS Mammy in the movie "Gone With the Wind," once said, "It ain't fittin'. It just ain't fittin'!"

The Constitution forbids tRump from running for or holding elected office.

You know this. you just don't care.

 

[Rogue AI]

No. Son. The whole country lost.

You just don't realize it yet.

No, only you folks lost. You folks stabbed the most popular Democrat in history in the back and offered Harris in his place. What did you expect? Take mental health year or six.

 

[Crepitus]

No, only you folks lost. You folks stabbed the most popular Democrat in history in the back and offered Harris in his place. What did you expect? Take mental health year or six.

Nope, we all did.

Bend over and wait for the crash.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I am preparing to make a boatload of money on the coming economic woe.

 

[marvin martian]

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.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! **** YOU, man!

 

[BidenBeHiden]

No. Son. The whole country lost.

You just don't realize it yet.

The Democrats were on the cusp of making this country a one party state. They would've turned the whole country into California. So the country was actually saved.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Rodeo time, kiddies.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution forbids tRump from running for or holding elected office.

You know this. you just don't care.

It does no such thing, and you pretending otherwise is a big reason why your side lost.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Marty is right. Until the proper legal procedures are adjudicated, no state can deny stanching to a candidate..

 

[martybegan]

Marty is right. Until the proper legal procedures are adjudicated, no state can deny stanching to a candidate..

Someone isn't an insurrectionist because someone says they are.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Someone isn't an insurrectionist because someone says they are.

Yes, if proper adjudication is not enacted.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, if proper adjudication is not enacted.

Stop using big words to make yourself sound smarter, it isn't working.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Stop using big words to make yourself sound smarter, it isn't working.

Sorry. Look up "adjudication." You don't get it, still.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry. Look up "adjudication." You don't get it, still.

I've used it before, mouth breather.

But when it was appropriate, not as a substitute for calling out the criminal judicial process.

Such as when adjudicating mental health holds, or red flag laws.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Marty, please, you are embarrassing yourself.

This is what happened.

Ad·ju·di·ca·tion
/əˌjo͞odəˈkāSH(ə)n/

noun

• 1.the action or process of adjudicating:" the matter may have to go to court for adjudication"