Colorado Judge Keeps Trump on Ballot but Finds He ‘Engaged in Insurrection’

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
A Colorado judge ruled on Friday that former President Donald J. Trump could remain on the primary ballot in the state, rejecting the argument that the 14th Amendment prevents him from holding office again — but doing so on relatively narrow grounds that lawyers for the voters seeking to disqualify him said they would appeal.

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html
 
BidenPresident said:
A Colorado judge ruled on Friday that former President Donald J. Trump could remain on the primary ballot in the state, rejecting the argument that the 14th Amendment prevents him from holding office again — but doing so on relatively narrow grounds that lawyers for the voters seeking to disqualify him said they would appeal.

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html
Click to expand...

That one is difficult to understand. She said “preserve, protect and defend” does not mean the same as “support”. And that the President is not an “officer of the United States”.
 
domer76 said:
That one is difficult to understand. She said “preserve, protect and defend” does not mean the same as “support”. And that the President is not an “officer of the United States”.
Click to expand...

"The clause does not explicitly name the presidency, so that question hinged on whether the president was included in the category “officer of the United States.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html

Seems the President is the most important person to prevent from running for office if he led an insurrection.
 
Judge Wallace’s assessment of Mr. Trump’s behavior before and on Jan. 6 was damning, and, notably, she rejected his lawyers’ argument that the First Amendment protected him. His words and actions, she wrote, met the criteria set by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio for distinguishing incitement from protected speech.

“Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification,” she wrote. “Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html
 
BidenPresident said:
A Colorado judge ruled on Friday that former President Donald J. Trump could remain on the primary ballot in the state, rejecting the argument that the 14th Amendment prevents him from holding office again — but doing so on relatively narrow grounds that lawyers for the voters seeking to disqualify him said they would appeal.

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html
Click to expand...

They had nothing. Groan
 
BidenPresident said:
A Colorado judge ruled on Friday that former President Donald J. Trump could remain on the primary ballot in the state, rejecting the argument that the 14th Amendment prevents him from holding office again — but doing so on relatively narrow grounds that lawyers for the voters seeking to disqualify him said they would appeal.

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html
Click to expand...

This does not surprise me. The judge doesn't wish to set a precedent for denying voters the right to choose their candidate. The judge is erring on the side of caution. Some might call the ruling cowardly since the judge has kicked the can down the road to the next higher court. This will get to SCOTUS and SCOTUS's conservative majority will rule in trump's favor <- my prediction.
 
BidenPresident said:
A Colorado judge ruled on Friday that former President Donald J. Trump could remain on the primary ballot in the state, rejecting the argument that the 14th Amendment prevents him from holding office again — but doing so on relatively narrow grounds that lawyers for the voters seeking to disqualify him said they would appeal.

With his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled, Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution, an offense that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 to keep former Confederates out of the government — deems disqualifying for people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/us/politics/colorado-trump-14th-amendment.html
Click to expand...

Obvious Stalinist apppointee judge; makes a "ruling" with zero evidence or trial.
 
LurchAddams said:
This does not surprise me. The judge doesn't wish to set a precedent for denying voters the right to choose their candidate. The judge is erring on the side of caution. Some might call the ruling cowardly since the judge has kicked the can down the road to the next higher court. This will get to SCOTUS and SCOTUS's conservative majority will rule in trump's favor <- my prediction.
Click to expand...

Fare analysis. If it does go to Supreme Court I hope they uphold the law about insurrection.
 
BidenPresident said:
yeah stalin n' stuff
Click to expand...



Yeah, Stalin n' stuff. The Stalin-o-crat model for their political abuse of the law.


Prosecutions with NO CRIME.


lavrentiy-beria-quote.jpg
 
LurchAddams said:
This does not surprise me. The judge doesn't wish to set a precedent for denying voters the right to choose their candidate. The judge is erring on the side of caution. Some might call the ruling cowardly since the judge has kicked the can down the road to the next higher court. This will get to SCOTUS and SCOTUS's conservative majority will rule in trump's favor <- my prediction.
Click to expand...
That's why this was a genius move. It was going to end up in McConnell's court, and we know that lacking precise language re. POTUS, it would be decided in favor of trump.

But now there is a finding that trump did indeed incite an insurrection, which is sealed in history.

I believe the issue was that V.P/POTUS are specifically named w/respect to impeachment. You know how the SC loves to take the Constitution literally, except when they choose not to and sell rulings to the highest bidder.

You know...like the laughable finding that corporations are humans.
 
Lionfish said:
They had nothing. Groan
Click to expand...

They have everything. She is correct in her assessment of him committing insurrection. But she had such a narrow interpretation of what it means to support the Constitution and who is an officer of the United States. Certainly both requirements were met.

The oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution CERTAINLY means to “support” it. Trump most certainly violated that.

As President, he is the top “officer of the United States”.

I think she just didn’t want to step over that line to keep him off the ballot.
 
LurchAddams said:
This does not surprise me. The judge doesn't wish to set a precedent for denying voters the right to choose their candidate. The judge is erring on the side of caution. Some might call the ruling cowardly since the judge has kicked the can down the road to the next higher court. This will get to SCOTUS and SCOTUS's conservative majority will rule in trump's favor <- my prediction.
Click to expand...

I concur.
 
BidenPresident said:
Fare analysis. If it does go to Supreme Court I hope they uphold the law about insurrection.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think most, or all of the criminal cases trump is standing trial for will end up in SCOTUS. It's going to be a dumpster fire for years. Thanks, trump voters <- sarcasm.
 
Althea said:
That's why this was a genius move. It was going to end up in McConnell's court, and we know that lacking precise language re. POTUS, it would be decided in favor of trump.

But now there is a finding that trump did indeed incite an insurrection, which is sealed in history.

I believe the issue was that V.P/POTUS are specifically named w/respect to impeachment. You know how the SC loves to take the Constitution literally, except when they choose not to and sell rulings to the highest bidder.

You know...like the laughable finding that corporations are humans.
Click to expand...

Yep, Citizen's United really f'd things up for our democracy. It allows the rich and corporations to buy politicians.
 
LurchAddams said:
Yep, Citizen's United really f'd things up for our democracy. It allows the rich and corporations to buy politicians.
Click to expand...
Well...corporations were always able to buy politicians. Now it's just all in the dark.

Which is great for Russia/China when they funnel millions into out elections

Corporations are humans, but we're not allowed to see who they give money to.

Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top