Trump LOSES Colorado case and is barred from the primary ballot there!

[thewayne]

A political watch group, C.R.E.W., sued in Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot under Article 14, Section 3 of the Constitution which bars people from holding elected office if they gave aid or succor to seditionists after swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution. Which Trump did. He swore the oath of office when he became President, and the aid and succor is pretty self-evident.

And the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled in favor of CREW, 4-3. The ruling is temporarily stayed until it can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which Trump's posse immediately pledged to do.

And if the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado ruling, it's game over. He'll still face the 4+ law suits, but that's the end of his political career.

Fingers crossed!

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-colorado-disqualified-2024-ballot-supreme-court-1234932715/

Comments

[disneydream06]

I wish I could say the same about Minnesota. :( :( :(

Do we really think the SCOTUS, aka Donald's Court, will uphold Colorado's decision? :o :o :o
Hugs, Jon

[thewayne]

Very hard to say. They've made some very back and forth calls and some have not been to the liking of the GOP. Guaranteed Thomas and Alito will be against the Colorado decision, that is an absolute given. Sometimes Barrett and Kavanaugh actually look to the law and Constitution, and not in historical context.

It's a wait and see.

[disneydream06]

Wouldn't it be a wild world if our judges actually believed in and used the Constitution? :o

[thewayne]

The problem was with judges that do this Strict Constructionalism interpretation of the Constitution and see it as an unbending instrument that can only be interpreted in an 18th century definition which is such a crock that it's not worth bothering with.  In the 18th century we didn't have magazine-fed firearms, much less rapid-fire weapons, we didn't have television, safe abortificants, automobiles, antibiotics, rockets, etc.  They would pick and choose later rulings to suit their needs.  The interpretation has to be more flexible and grow as the country and technology grows.  And keep the effing religious bigots out of it!  Not that religion has anything to do with this particular case.

[disneydream06]

They have definitely been flexible with interpreting No. 2.

[dewline]

May it go well, and in the meantime, let's enjoy the victory we have!

[thewayne]

Exactly! If he loses, it won't shut him up - unless he's in prison - but at least it'll bar him from politics.

[kaishin108]

tRumps posse as you say will probably veto it. It seems they want him in power, sigh.

[thewayne]

Very hard to say what will happen.  They've ruled against some GOP issues this term, I think it could go either way.

[silveradept]

One can hope that all of the justices who are all about plain language reading and originalism look at the passing of the amendment, the context of the time, and go "yeah, this is a Civil War amendment designed specifically to stop Confederates from getting into the Union government. Since this person decided they wanted to endorse and egg on an insurrection attempt, they are disqualified from all ballots everywhere and may not hold office again. Find someone else, Republicans."

[warriorsavant]

Lovely as his being disbarred from office would be, but even if the Supremes agree, this was Colorado State Court. Might be a precedent, even a strong one, but technically only applies in Colorado, which Biden won anyhow. Let's say he was barred from being on the ballot in CO, but was on the ballot in the other 49 states.

[thewayne]

That's the thing.  If the SCOTUS upholds it, it would make it easier for groups in battleground states to push suits and they may well start now that it will go to the SCOTUS.

[ndrosen]

I was going to comment that this only applies to Colorado. The decision may be sound as far as it goes (I’m not judging the legalities, although I agree that Dishonest Donald is morally unfit for public office), but the MAGAts won’t be convinced that their hero deserves to be kept off the ballot. I have received numerous emails lately appealing for funds to fight the ruling, and otherwise oppose the crackpots loyal to the Constitution, instead of to the would-be King Donald the First.

[thewayne]

We've gone 250 years without a king, I would like to think we can go a similar amount of time without one.  But ever since this twat weaseled his way into office, it seems that all bets are off.