CO supreme court disqualifies Trump from ballot [SCOTUS overturns]

[Madison320]

How do you avoid it, though?

Particularly in this Colorado case, I'm happy the state government is letting their true colors show. If the party doesn't want to select a candidate in one smoke filled caucus room, invite the public to many caucuses and poll their results.

Giving certain parties added status and letting legislatures get their grubby fingers into the intraparty selection process are two bad things. I'm glad someone is making that obvious.

I think as long as it's only at the state level where the banning of a candidate occurs, it may work itself out. The worst case scenario is that all the democrat states submit electoral college votes for the democrat and all the republican states do the same. So the winner would usually be the same either way.

The danger would be to have it happen at the federal level.

It's still idiotic, and like you said, it exposes the idiots.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Again with the "well it doesn't count if it didn't work."

Count as what? As an "insurrection"? LOL

As an "impotent hissy-fit that accomplished nothing (and never had any chance of doing so)"? Sure. Okay.

The reason it didn't work is because certain people didn't go along with it. A coup attempt that fails due to a lack of support is not somehow less of an coup attempt.

Also, what did Trump do to people if they expressed that they wouldn't comply?

If being querulously combative with election officials was the worst thing Trump did, then he'd be pretty awesome.

He wasn't combative so long as they kissed the ring and committed fraud for him.

Of the election officials he "personally call[ed]" and "threat[ened with] complete political and personal destruction", which ones committed fraud for him?

 

[Occam's Banana]

And what we have today is a ludicrous display of bullsh!t attempting to “legally” justify an obvious attempt at totalitarian banana republic “elections”. The destination being a Soviet/CCP style one party system where candidates and winners are selected in party committee rooms.

How do you avoid it, though?

Particularly in this Colorado case, I'm happy the state government is letting their true colors show. If the party doesn't want to select a candidate in one smoke filled caucus room, invite the public to many caucuses and poll their results.

Giving certain parties added status and letting legislatures get their grubby fingers into the intraparty selection process are two bad things. I'm glad someone is making that obvious.

Direct vs. indirect democracy, primaries or caucuses or "smoke-filled rooms", feds' dicta superseding states' (or not), etc. - it ultimately doesn't matter. It's all just window dressing that comes out in the wash when the government wields far too much power over far too many (and far too broad a range of) things.

The Online Left Doesn't Care About Democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYhvrBxu8Mo
{Stephen Michael Davis | 02 January 2023}



What system of democratic government is best?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hd_oJWhLwc
{J.J. McCullough | 14 January 2023}

Let's look at the different ways that a political leader can be elected, using Kevin McCarthy as a case study.


​

 

[RJB]

It's alright, though, I don't think they're derailing my thread.

None the less, I will report them for their insurrection against this thread.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Direct vs. indirect democracy, primaries or caucuses or "smoke-filled rooms", feds' dicta superseding states' (or not), etc. - it ultimately doesn't matter. It's all just window dressing that comes out in the wash when the government wields far too much power over far too many (and far too broad a range of) things.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Direct vs. indirect democracy, primaries or caucuses or "smoke-filled rooms", feds' dicta superseding states' (or not), etc. - it ultimately doesn't matter. It's all just window dressing that comes out in the wash when the government wields far too much power over far too many (and far too broad a range of) things.
...

Well, that is the biggest problem. Government having too much power, from Federal to HOAs.

Whether there should be parties is another debate. Right now we have parties, and they claim to have a primary process for selecting candidates. If they make it clear that primary elections are just a fraud, then maybe there will be motivation to move to other parties, or get rid of parties.

Primaries are a vital way to prevent the "establishment" from completely doing what they want at all times. It's really the only time that everyday citizens have any say on how things go. After that, it is almost always determined by whether it's a red or blue district, which is why "purple" areas are the biggest bone of contention.

Obviously, the control of information is yet another wrench in the monkey works. The media and party "leadership" control as much as they can who the public can hear from.

Needless to say, without primaries, we would probably not have any Rand Pauls or Thomas Massies in Congress.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...

At the 1:50 mark, Ron Paul talks about the distinction and distortions between a Republic and Democracy, and how the promoters of "Democracy" are undermining democracy by treating Trump in an "ugly, unfair, deceitful manner" with one person able to "kick him off the ballot".

 

[Madison320]

One of the most common things I've heard from the left is "The democrats didn't remove Trump, the constitution did."

I'm going to assume this gets shot down by the supreme court. Then I predict the left is going to say it was because the supreme court is packed with conservatives. So when a bunch of liberals decide the constitution one way it's a fact, when conservatives decide another way it's bogus.

I'm betting they're too clueless to see the irony. As I've said before, this is why you can't let the party in power decide who gets to run based on subjective rules.

 

[ClaytonB]

I'm willing to bet that, back in the day, there were fur trappers in the Northwest who probably lived their whole lives without even knowing the President's name.

 

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: Will The Supremes Ban Trump? [Ron Paul Liberty Report]

THREAD: Supreme Court Hears Trump v. Anderson: What To Expect

 

[Occam's Banana]

CLIP from SYSTEM UPDATE #226:

Bloodbath: SCOTUS Grills CO Lawyer at Trump Ballot Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDY8Q0FOAWA
{Glenn Greenwald | 09 February 2024}


​

 

[Occam's Banana]

Even the Colorado court doesn't expect SCOTUS to let their ruling stand.

I won't be surprised if SCOTUS overrules it 9-0.

//

SCOTUS Unanimously Rules States Cannot Disqualify Trump from 2024 Ballot
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...tes-cannot-disqualify-trump-from-2024-ballot/
BRADLEY JAYE 4 Mar 2024

WASHINGTON, DC – Colorado cannot disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the 2024 ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court said only Congress can disqualify a candidate from the ballot using the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Insurrection Clause”, overturning a 4-3 opinion in December from the Colorado Supreme Court that the provision prohibits former President Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot for the presidency in 2024.

That ruling partially reversed a prior ruling in November that Trump is not an officer of the United States as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Amendment therefore cannot be used to disqualify him from appearing on the Colorado primary ballot.

This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[acptulsa]

Expect the losers on this forum arguing the law allows Colorado to do this to quickly pivot to "well this was expected..."

I can't figure out why you are referring to people in the plural. Yeah, 69360 seemed to think SCOTUS would ignore the law and vote purely politically, and dannno wanted them to make the wrong decision just for shits and giggles. But the passel of "losers" you refer to seems to be TheCount alone.

Just how many people do you think are behind that account? You seem to have the same disease as [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]. You have double vision, or quadruple vision, or something. You see one lone crank saying something idiotic and you perceive him as some kind of huge crowd.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As for what I think ought to happen:

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1740541710277743087

​

In short, I don't really care what the issue is (or the reasons for or against) - I have no problem with Colorado (or any other state - such as Texas, for example) telling the feds to stick it where the sun don't shine. (And the same applies for Coloradans with respect to Denver, and so forth.)

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1764669811966017633

 

[Anti Federalist]

You seem to have the same disease as [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION].

I ain't got a fever, I got a permanent disease,
It'll take more than a doctor to prescribe a remedy,
I got lots of money, but it isn't what I need,
Gonna take more than a shot to get this poison out of me,
And I got all the symptoms, count 'em one, two, three...

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm willing to bet that, back in the day, there were fur trappers in the Northwest who probably lived the whole lives without even knowing the President's name.

 

[Occam's Banana]

RULING (PDF file): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY Rules Trump Must Stay On Ballot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdt3V-KqeDA
{Nate The Lawyer | 04 March 2024}

 

[Matt Collins]

SCOTUS: Trump can't be kicked off the ballot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hQoGtPUMjQ​

 

[spudea]

they severely narrowed down the question and yet the liberal concurrence complained the majority decision went too far. They still failed to answer the question if the 14th amendment even applies to the presidency. They also failed to speak on the insurrection claims. They should have been more forceful there and declare a subjective and partisan definition of insurrection is insufficient for disqualification.

 

[susano]

they severely narrowed down the question and yet the liberal concurrence complained the majority decision went too far. They still failed to answer the question if the 14th amendment even applies to the presidency. They also failed to speak on the insurrection claims. They should have been more forceful there and declare a subjective and partisan definition of insurrection is insufficient for disqualification.

I'm not sure but think that when a case is taken up that the issue being addressed has to be very specific so, perhaps, that limits the scope of the opinion. I notice Barrett complained that it went too far.